Will Hate Crime Laws Redeem Us All?

Will it save life? These are not new sentences, just extended sentences.

My objection to hate crime laws is the same as my objection to the death penalty, that it is based in a retributive conception of justice. Retribution for its own sake is nothing more than revenge organized by the government. I believe in deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. If it can be shown that people who commit crimes out of prejudice are more likely to reoffend or can be deterred more easily by extensions than people who commit crimes out of other motives then extensions are warranted. Otherwise this is revenge-based justice. Less chance of rehabilitation? Possibly. Let's see some studies. Deterrence? Unlikely. People who think they're going to get caught don't commit the crime in the first place. 10 years or 20 years or life isn't going to change that.

Another problem is when someone is already getting the maximum penalty(life in prison w/o parole or death) and then you still file the extra paperwork and go through the extra motions for the hate crime extension. What's the point? It's not going to change the person's sentence. You can only spend life in prison or be executed once no matter how many life sentences or death sentences you get.

There might be a point in cases of extensions where the maximum sentence hasn't been reached yet but otherwise its a waste since the person tried can't possibly be guilty of the extension without the crime they are charged with in the first place(i.e. a person accused of committing a prejudice-motivated murder can't be innocent of the murder but guilty of murder motivated by prejudice).

LordZarquar wrote:

Will it save life? These are not new sentences, just extended sentences.
My objection to hate crime laws is the same as my objection to the death penalty, that it is based in a retributive conception of justice. Retribution for its own sake is nothing more than revenge organized by the government. I believe in deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. If it can be shown that people who commit crimes out of prejudice are more likely to reoffend or can be deterred more easily by extensions than people who commit crimes out of other motives then extensions are warranted. Otherwise this is revenge-based justice. Less chance of rehabilitation? Possibly. Let's see some studies. Deterrence? Unlikely. People who think they're going to get caught don't commit the crime in the first place. 10 years or 20 years or life isn't going to change that.

The Hate crime laws are fine under your ideas, it is the sentencing that is off

I agree just jailing everyone or killing people is not effective deterent or rehabilitation. However, the Bill at self is not at fault here.

The problem is that putting people away in prison costs money in the long run, the required number of rehabilitation programs and the necessary education and deterents for a different system means more money now. People are generally too stupid to see how something costs them more in the long run and too afraid of change.

My dad used to buy me cheap $6 sneakers when I was in highschool. Cheapest he could find. They wore out fast. Spending extra on a decent pair of shoes would have saved him money but he would rather spend $6 now than $30 all at once. And my dad was overall a smart man and a decent business man.

Go figure.

Same mentality of instant results is why the economy is in the toilet.

And generally when a crime already garners the max sentence, Hate Crimes are not tacked on even if apropriate for just the reasons you state. Check the other Hate Crime bill threads and you will see opponents to the bill stating such cases and those for making that exact point. It costs the courts unnecessary money to try someone for a hate crime when they are already getting the maximum sentence possible.

Are there "Love" crimes?

I was never much for hate crime laws till I saw the hate many people that call them selfs Christian have for homosexuals.Now I am all for them.

The advantage of hate crime legislation is when local justice is lacking - allowing the Federal Gov't to step in where local gov't won't. For example, for yrs. in the South, juries did little more than slap wrists for white on black crime but threw the book away when it was a black on white. Similar things have happened when the victim was gay.

SongBookz wrote:

The advantage of hate crime legislation is when local justice is lacking - allowing the Federal Gov't to step in where local gov't won't. For example, for yrs. in the South, juries did little more than slap wrists for white on black crime but threw the book away when it was a black on white. Similar things have happened when the victim was gay.

And you think racial violence or hatred is a thing of the past? You are right about ONE thing,, it just gives the government another venue to control.

By endorsing sexual perversion, the Congress, and the President have put themselves in a place to receive the harsh judgment of God. And not only themselves, but they have brought God's judgment against America. Expect a difficult future, both for the country, and for these wicked legislators.

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
So, you are a bigot that would deny freedom of speech to Christians preaching from the pulpit? Even on the internet, no one will be able to express their opinion on homosexuality being an abomination. Hey, they can hump each other all they want, just keep it out of schools as normal practices. In other words, get back in the closet. No one, believers and non-believers alike, wants your disgusting crap on the streets.

You can stop lying now, the bill has become law. You lost.

You can still preach all you want against GLBT people without being prosecuted under hate crimes law just like you could preach against Muslims and Buddhists and Mormons and all the other religions you don't approve of without legal sanction even though religion was part of the previous hate crime law for the past 40 years.

And sorry, no, TLBG people will not go away. Never! If you think the closet is such a good thing then I suggest you go there and keep your vile prejudice under wraps and out of public view. Children are not harmed by learning that some people fall in love with others of the same sex. What is harmed would be the ability of heterosexist and homophobic bigots to pretend that we don't exist and thus are not worthy of respect and dignity. Sorry. No more! We will not go away and kowtow to your prejudices.

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
So, you are a bigot that would deny freedom of speech to Christians preaching from the pulpit? Even on the internet, no one will be able to express their opinion on homosexuality being an abomination. Hey, they can hump each other all they want, just keep it out of schools as normal practices. In other words, get back in the closet. No one, believers and non-believers alike, wants your disgusting crap on the streets.

Christianity=
bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorence.
That is all I see when I look at the stunning achevements of christianity, it's history, and what it is today.

SongBookz wrote:

The advantage of hate crime legislation is when local justice is lacking - allowing the Federal Gov't to step in where local gov't won't. For example, for yrs. in the South, juries did little more than slap wrists for white on black crime but threw the book away when it was a black on white. Similar things have happened when the victim was gay.

That's a good point. If there is a sentence disparity it should be corrected.

But that asks for the question should this apply regardless of motive? Do people tend to get slaps on the wrist when the victim is gay even if that wasn't their motivation? And would it be constitutional if we made it apply regardless of motive as long as the victim belonged to certain minority classes?

One thing I've noticed is that sometimes hate crime laws aren't even applied when they're on the books. There was a guy in my state who killed someone for being an atheist. He's eligible for parole in 25 years and there was no hate crime enhancement even introduced at the trial! But religious bias is covered by both state and federal law here. Should we have "shall-prosecute laws" that require prosecutors to bring charges in this case or lose their jobs? If we don't these laws would be applied selectively which opens the door for abuse. Something to think about.

LordZarquar wrote:

<quoted text>
That's a good point. If there is a sentence disparity it should be corrected.
But that asks for the question should this apply regardless of motive? Do people tend to get slaps on the wrist when the victim is gay even if that wasn't their motivation? And would it be constitutional if we made it apply regardless of motive as long as the victim belonged to certain minority classes?
One thing I've noticed is that sometimes hate crime laws aren't even applied when they're on the books. There was a guy in my state who killed someone for being an atheist. He's eligible for parole in 25 years and there was no hate crime enhancement even introduced at the trial! But religious bias is covered by both state and federal law here. Should we have "shall-prosecute laws" that require prosecutors to bring charges in this case or lose their jobs? If we don't these laws would be applied selectively which opens the door for abuse. Something to think about.

Yes they do, that is why lawyers do their best to keep a clients sexuality from juries unless it is prudent to the case.

Under the Bill, everyone fits into one of the listed classes. It covers every single person.

Everyone has a Race, a Faith, a Gender, a Gender identity, and a Physical Capability.

Fot the average straight white man in american, this is (in order); White, Christian, Male, Cis-gendered (which means identified with your birth gender), non-disabled.

Were he black, or atheist, or Femail, or intersexed, or disabled; then he is just as covered. nothing changes

More importantly, what truly matters is his attacker and not him as a victem. It doesn't matter if the Criminal attacked a homosexual if the crime wasn't gay motivated. He could even perceive the individual incorrectly as gay and attack him for it, that would be a hate crime.

If you are walking down the street and someone driving by decided they think you are a homo, calls you one from their window, and lobs a beer bottle at you; that is a hate crime. If they just threw the bottle at you because they were a drunken jerk is a different thing altogether. One is terrorism and the other is not.

The_Flying_Nun wrote:

<quoted text>
Christianity=
bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorence.
That is all I see when I look at the stunning achevements of christianity, it's history, and what it is today.

projecting?
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
So, you are a bigot that would deny freedom of speech to Christians preaching from the pulpit? Even on the internet, no one will be able to express their opinion on homosexuality being an abomination. Hey, they can hump each other all they want, just keep it out of schools as normal practices. In other words, get back in the closet. No one, believers and non-believers alike, wants your disgusting crap on the streets.

No one has stopped you from stating your beliefs. Have you been thrown in fail for stating your opinions on homosexuality?

You want your freedom to speak as you please yet you encourage others back into the closet to quieten them so that you do not have to hear them.

As far as homosexuality in the schools... I agree...school is not a place for sex from either group...sadly I have walked down the halls of schools and seen guys with their hands down a girls pants...touching of the breasts...holding hands...rubbing of the butts...you name it and it fairly well goes on in our schools.

One must be careful about demanding their rights...when they do that you are also opening up those same rights to others. If you are going to demand a group of people back into closets don't be surprised if another group demands that you go back to your churches.

Our constitution applies to all of us. Freedom of religion allows you to worship in a way that is right for you but it also guarantees others that they do not have to share those same beliefs. The very same freedom of speech that you are concerned about allows others to speak up in support of homosexuality.

Maybe what you should be thinking is that it is no longer popular among the general population for someone to "speak" of others with bigotry, prejudice or hatred. It is not our constitution that is denying you...it is a secular society that is tired of the discrimination.

Simply because more and more people are disagreeing with you does not mean that you have been denied the right to think or say how you believe. More and more people are just getting tired of hearing it.

BTW...I support your rights of freedom of speech...I just don't agree with your opinion.

LordZarquar wrote:

<quoted text>
That's a good point. If there is a sentence disparity it should be corrected.
But that asks for the question should this apply regardless of motive? Do people tend to get slaps on the wrist when the victim is gay even if that wasn't their motivation? And would it be constitutional if we made it apply regardless of motive as long as the victim belonged to certain minority classes?
One thing I've noticed is that sometimes hate crime laws aren't even applied when they're on the books. There was a guy in my state who killed someone for being an atheist. He's eligible for parole in 25 years and there was no hate crime enhancement even introduced at the trial! But religious bias is covered by both state and federal law here. Should we have "shall-prosecute laws" that require prosecutors to bring charges in this case or lose their jobs? If we don't these laws would be applied selectively which opens the door for abuse. Something to think about.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm just saying what I think is the case after reading news articles. The hate crimes law is Federal and wouldn't be brought by a local prosecutor (unless, as some states do, there is a State hate crimes law). It would be brought by a Federal prosecutor, and generally, I think, when local justice was lacking.

I'm thinking here of the Rodney King case where a local jury acquitted the police officers who beat him, so the Federal gov't brought charges of Civil Rights violations and prosecuted in Federal Court.

I would think (and, again, I'm not a lawyer) that in the case of the person who is eligible for parole in 25 yrs., that where sentencing guidelines of the underlying crime brought such penalties, that the Federal prosecutor would not feel it necessary to step in and invest the additional money for a new trial.

>>>SongBookz
The advantage of hate crime legislation is when local justice is lacking - allowing the Federal Gov't to step in where local gov't won't.

For example, for yrs. in the South, juries did little more than slap wrists for white on black crime but threw the book away when it was a black on white.

>>>Gillette
Yes, this occurred in the case of Chaney, Schwerner and Goodman, the 3 slain Freedom marchers in Mississippi (cf. the mover Mississippi Burning").

If a local jurisdiction won't prosecute, or only very slightly, violence against gays, then a federal prosecutor would have the option of stepping in and filing fed charges and thus throw the book at the perps.

For me, the point is that gays should be able to walk the streets safely in Alabama and Texas and not just in urban New York and California.

Hate Crime Laws should cover all people, not just a select few...Hate Crime Laws are prejudical, bias against the White race. People of All Colors, Every Gender & All Nationalities committe Hate Crimes, but only the WHITE race is EXCLUDED from PROTECTION of HATE CRIMES...

Sunshine wrote:

Hate Crime Laws should cover all people, not just a select few...Hate Crime Laws are prejudical, bias against the White race. People of All Colors, Every Gender & All Nationalities committe Hate Crimes, but only the WHITE race is EXCLUDED from PROTECTION of HATE CRIMES...

Those of us who are white, like myself, are not excluded at all. We never have been. Wake up and smell the coffee.

LordZarquar wrote:

<quoted text>
One thing I've noticed is that sometimes hate crime laws aren't even applied when they're on the books. There was a guy in my state who killed someone for being an atheist. He's eligible for parole in 25 years and there was no hate crime enhancement even introduced at the trial! But religious bias is covered by both state and federal law here. Should we have "shall-prosecute laws" that require prosecutors to bring charges in this case or lose their jobs? If we don't these laws would be applied selectively which opens the door for abuse. Something to think about.

This is a very good question. You are correct, probably the majority of prosecuting attorneys have failed to investigate and explore the possibility of a crime actually having hate toward the group of which the victim was a presumed member as an underlying motive, even though we have had earlier versions of hate-crime legislation for 40 years. Why?

Should prosecuting attorneys be required by law to raise that as a possible underlying motive in every violent crime? Possibly. Should the constituents of the judicial district they represent simply demand that as part of their office? Yes.