Hate Crime Legislation.. do we really need it?

[ehtheist]

Nope. It's thinly veiled thought policing.

 

[IDL]

Actually, I see where the confusion came in.

In written word, intonation is missing. I said it more like a realization of that's exactly what we seem to be doing as a country. Punishing people for exercising their right to hate.

-T

It goes much further than that. It is redefining hate as perception. 'Hate' becomes a political word that can change with the wind and be applied to different things at different times.

It's like that word association thread. With hate crime legislation in place and society conditioned with their pavolvian responses towards specific ideas, words, sounds, whatever, this provides for an excellent tool for social control and the advancing of political agenda in the name of 'stopping hate'. Logic and reason be damned, emotions and conditioned responses dictate.

Just look at the SJW's. They are very rudimentary and robotic but they invoke 'hate' as what they fight against in order to shut down whatever it is that they want. From the establishment perspective this can also be done in a more professional and subtle manner for the very same reasons.

 

[T-Bone]

In it's purest form it isn't treating different groups differently, it's punnishing the crimes differently based on the motive of the perpetrator. I'm of two minds on the situation. I think removing hate crime legislation would open too many doors, but the term "hate crime" is probably over used, and in many instances difficult to prove. In the wise words of Bart Simpson, it's a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't.

What doors will it open if we rid ourselves of hate crime legislation?

Judges have discretion with sentences. There is a maximum penalty that is rarely handed down anyway...

-T

 

[irish_thug]

What doors will it open if we rid ourselves of hate crime legislation?

Judges have discretion with sentences. There is a maximum penalty that is rarely handed down anyway...

-T

You're from Florida. Ask a black person over 65.

 

[T-Bone]

You're from Florida. Ask a black person over 65.

Florida was not tbe only state with that problem.

It is 2016. What doors will open? Times have changed. I don't think any doors will open if we get rid of hate crime legislation.

-T

 

[irish_thug]

Florida was not tbe only state with that problem.

It is 2016. What doors will open? Times have changed. I don't think any doors will open if we get rid of hate crime legislation.

-T

I wasn't trying to imply that Florida was the only state that had that problem, only that it did have that problem.

 

[T-Bone]

I wasn't trying to imply that Florida was the only state that had that problem, only that it did have that problem.

Okay. I understand.

We know why are unions were created. To protect workers and children from working very long hours and dangerous jobs. Mini agree regions are not needed as much as they were back in the early days... bike collective bargaining is still good feature of your unions.

So we know why I hate crime legislation first came into play. But in 2016, the question to me seems do we still need to hate crime legislation. We have evolved as a society. We don't have the problem that we did in 1968.

-T

 

[irish_thug]

Okay. I understand.

We know why are unions were created. To protect workers and children from working very long hours and dangerous jobs. Mini agree regions are not needed as much as they were back in the early days... bike collective bargaining is still good feature of your unions.

So we know why I hate crime legislation first came into play. But in 2016, the question to me seems do we still need to hate crime legislation. We have evolved as a society. We don't have the problem that we did in 1968.

-T

Using the labour union example. Compare wages in right to work states vs. states with unions, and then ask if there is still a need for them.

Shitty people will always be shitty people, sometimes they need rule of law to keep them in check.

 

[Fawlty]

Tough one for me. Clearly a crime committed because of some demonstrable hatred or disregard for a person of a protected class, or a crime based on identity (finding and attacking a homeless person- not a protected class, but you know what I mean) should be given a sentence on the upper end for that crime. What I mean mostly is robbing a man in a wheelchair, mugging an old lady, beating up the next (insert race) who comes along, attacking a person for religious practice (other than fighting words situations like Westboro). Whether it's appropriate to force reluctant judges to do so isn't an easy question. It's hard to spell out exactly what a hate crime is and isn't. Just because you're a little more likely to fight a black or white person doesn't automatically mean it's a hate crime.

 

[T-Bone]

Here are a few examples of why I think I hate crime legislation is not needed.

In Florida, the sentence for attempted murder is the same as the sentence for murder. Second degree means you did not plan it. You can get a maximum of 15 years in jail. And if you plan it, that's first degree, maximum of life in prison.

Don't need hate crime legislation in Florida. Because if a ppersonis killed, just give the criminal the maximum that Ithey can get on the books today. You don't need a new law for it. Life imprisonment judge's discretion.

Manslaughter. In Florida. A maximum of 15 years in prison. We already know that many convicted of manslaughter do not give 15 years. But it's on the books now, in Florida we don't need to hate legislation. We can just give him 15 years if we think we need to.

Byrd was a black man in Texas in 1999 and was killed by three white supremacist. It was a lot of controversy back then because Bush was the governor and he did not want to advance hate crime legislation. He thought they did not need it. You know ehat these guys git? One guy got life in prison the other two got the death penalty. And that is without hate crime

-T

 

[Fawlty]

Here are a few examples of why I think I hate crime legislation is not needed.

In Florida, the sentence for attempted murder is the same as the sentence for murder. Second degree means you did not plan it. You can get a maximum of 15 years in jail. And if you plan it, that's first degree, maximum of life in prison.

Don't need hate crime legislation in Florida. Because if a ppersonis killed, just give the criminal the maximum that Ithey can get on the books today. You don't need a new law for it. Life imprisonment judge's discretion.

Manslaughter. In Florida. A maximum of 15 years in prison. We already know that many convicted of manslaughter do not give 15 years. But it's on the books now, in Florida we don't need to hate legislation. We can just give him 15 years if we think we need to.

Byrd was a black man in Texas in 1999 and was killed by three white supremacist. It was a lot of controversy back then because Bush was the governor and he did not want to advance hate crime legislation. He thought they did not need it. You know ehat these guys git? One guy got life in prison the other two got the death penalty. And that is without hate crime

-T

That's putting all the trust in a judge, whereas the interest of the people may be ensuring these sorts of crimes actually get sentenced more harshly. I'm not saying it's right to have a hate crime law, just pointing out a reason people might have an interest in one.

 

[Cooz]

The 1968 Act was the first allow for prosecuting heat-related crimes.

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 enacted 18 U.S.C.§ 245(b)(2), which permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin"

Full link

Hate Crime legislation has since been expanded to cover gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.

You can Google this part yourself, but there appears to be no credible evidence indicating having the death penalty deters crime. So then I wonder if hate crime legislation will really deter crime?

I doubt the legislation will deter anything. We've had hate crime legislation for many decades, and we still have hate crimes.

The question is do we really need hate crime legislation? If I am murdered because I am eating a hamburger, or if I am envied by a bad guy, or because I happen to be white, or I might be playing a song that a bad guy doesn't like, the penalty should be the same.

It's the ACT that's important. Not how we got to the ACT, in my opinion.

-T

This seems to be a trend in the War Room (at least since I started reading). "Laws don't deter criminals".

 

[T-Bone]

This seems to be a trend in the War Room (at least since I started reading). "Laws don't deter criminals".

It seems to be true. Because the Criminal Minds always think they can get away with it.

-T

 

[MicroBrew]

Hate crime laws are utter shit!

If a crime (murder,rape, assault etcc) happens then charge the person for the crime . Make a note if the motivation was racial/ethnic/sectarian/gender etcc..but just charge for the crime itself

Deeming certain speech 'Hate Speech' and criminlaizing it ( like UK,Germany,France does) is sinister and fascist.

And it is especially hypocritical because influential religions get a pass despite being the biggest advocates of racism,ethno-superemacy, misogyny and gender discrimination. If we are going to criminalize speech as 'Hate Speech' then why aren't Rabbis,Imans, Swamis being charged with hate speech. Why are the holy books of certain religions not banned form being recited out loud? This is the hypocritical nature of 'Hate speech'.

 

[Cooz]

It seems to be true. Because the Criminal Minds always think they can get away with it.

-T

So if you don't have a law in place, what do you do when you catch someone committing a "crime"?

 

[T-Bone]

So if you don't have a law in place, what do you do when you catch someone committing a "crime"?

If there's no law in place, then the ACT is not a "crime."



-T

 

[Cooz]

If there's no law in place, then the ACT is not a "crime."



-T

Oh ok. What other laws would like to get rid of?

 

[44nutman]

Everyone is missing the big picture. It gives the prosecutor another charge to put on someone. There is a reason, you get multiple charges for one crime, hopefully one of them sticks.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

It's a law that was intended to bring equality but now forces labels on groups institutating they are not equal - but require special attention.

 

[T-Bone]

So if you don't have a law in place, what do you do when you catch someone committing a "crime"?

If there's no law in place, then the ACT is not a "crime."

-T

Oh ok. What other laws would like to get rid of?

Are you following the logic of your questions?

-T