Eric Holder Hate Bill testimony

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: n yusef
There are two characteristics of "hate crimes" (which are more accurately termed "bias-motivated crimes"). First is motivation, i.e., criminal action against someone because of their identity. Second is terrorism. By terrorism, I mean the use of violence against one group member to threaten other group members. As I see it, the state is not justified in penalizing motivation, but it should punish terrorists more harshly than it does ordinary criminals, because of the unique secondary effects of terrorism (the implicit threat of further crime, and the galvanization of the terrorists supporters).

I say, repeal "hate crime" legislation and try suspects of bias-motivated crimes as terrorists.

/facepalm

What's so odd about this? When I think of bias-motivated crime, I think of cross burning, lynching, gay-bashing, murder of abortion providers', etc. All of these crimes are terrorism at the most literal level--they aim to restrict the rights of groups by deterring them from certain actions (being in an interracial relationship, being openly gay, providing abortions) through violence. The effects of their crimes exceed the principle victim, which, through the logic of proportional punishment, should net the perpetrators of these crimes increased or more severe sentences.

Hate-crime laws were first enacted to create federal jurisdiction for local crimes, which were often biased (for example, all-white juries would acquit lynchers). The need for federal jurisdiction remains, as anti-gay, anti-transgender, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiments are still very common in certain areas of the country.

"Hate crimes" are terrorism, and current terrorism laws serve the purposes of my vision of bias-motivated crime deterrence and punishment. As I posted above, I do not support the state in its measurement, judgment and punishment of motivation, but I think it should punish criminals for the secondary effects of their crimes. Thus, I am against the investigation of the motivations of a bar-fighter, because the effects of bar-fighting are minimal, regardless of the fighter's bias.

I sincerely ask, what is so weird about my position?

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The motivation for a crime should not affect the sentencing. You get sentenced for what you've done, not why.

Wrong. There's a reason there are so many types of murder. People can be convicted of premeditated murder, or manslaughter, or reckless endangerment. All of them involve one person killing another, but some carry sentences of just a few years while others could mean life in prison or even the death penalty.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The motivation for a crime should not affect the sentencing. You get sentenced for what you've done, not why.

Wrong. There's a reason there are so many types of murder. People can be convicted of premeditated murder, or manslaughter, or reckless endangerment. All of them involve one person killing another, but some carry sentences of just a few years while others could mean life in prison or even the death penalty.

Actually, I'm going to backpedal a little.

I don't so much object to sentencing based on motive. If it's enforced equally and consistently, then I have no problem.

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: n yusef
There are two characteristics of "hate crimes" (which are more accurately termed "bias-motivated crimes"). First is motivation, i.e., criminal action against someone because of their identity. Second is terrorism. By terrorism, I mean the use of violence against one group member to threaten other group members. As I see it, the state is not justified in penalizing motivation, but it should punish terrorists more harshly than it does ordinary criminals, because of the unique secondary effects of terrorism (the implicit threat of further crime, and the galvanization of the terrorists supporters).

I say, repeal "hate crime" legislation and try suspects of bias-motivated crimes as terrorists.

/facepalm

I sincerely ask, what is so weird about my position?

Only that it shows youre a brainwashed media troll. Not every fucking crime is orchestrated for terrorist activities. People are douchebags but lets not start a civil war.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: n yusef
There are two characteristics of "hate crimes" (which are more accurately termed "bias-motivated crimes"). First is motivation, i.e., criminal action against someone because of their identity. Second is terrorism. By terrorism, I mean the use of violence against one group member to threaten other group members. As I see it, the state is not justified in penalizing motivation, but it should punish terrorists more harshly than it does ordinary criminals, because of the unique secondary effects of terrorism (the implicit threat of further crime, and the galvanization of the terrorists supporters).

I say, repeal "hate crime" legislation and try suspects of bias-motivated crimes as terrorists.

/facepalm

Nothing wrong with his post at all. Don't read the word terrorist and assume he is equating racists to Al Qaeda. He is explaining how a hate crime victimizes a community as opposed to an individual, and that is why there is a greater penalty attached to them. Pretty simple really.

 

[Double Trouble]

The whole concept of "hate crimes" is a perfect example of political correctness gone awry, an absurd idea taken to it's logical conclusion. Unfortunately, the stupid masses are easy to convince that they are needed, with the same logic that the stupid masses can be convinced to agree to censorship "for the children".

A crime is a crime. The punishment should be for the crime, not for the thought behind the crime. Even when it comes to intent and premeditation, the question is "did you intend to kill xyz" or "did you premeditate the action". A jury has to consider whether you did or didn't do something.... but with politically incorrectly motivated crimes (aka "hate crimes"), the jury is asked to figure out why someone might have taken a certain action.

I can smack my neighbor in the face, and provided he's not part of any "special" group, I get a certain punishment. Now if my neighbor happens to be gay, a jury is going to try and get into my head to figure out if I smacked him because he was gay, or because of some other reason. If you don't see how patently stupid that idea is, you need help. It just smacks of "you had a thought the state does not approve of, comrade. You must go to a re-education camp!".

Political correctness supporters absolutely love hate crimes though, it gives them a legal avenue to enforce political correctness in thought. It's not about stopping crime, it's about preventing people from having thoughts they (the PC crowd) don't agree with.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: sandorski
Hate Crime Laws are a Good thing. They address issues that need addressing directly.

Yes, because a bar fight between a black guy and a white guy is FAR worse than two whites or two blacks, and deserves extra punishment. :roll:

That depends. Did one of the guys instigate the fight simply because the other guy was the wrong color? Say a white guy goes into a bar frequented by minorities and gets refused service or worse yet his ass kicked because 'he didn't belong there'? Is that not a hate crime based on racism?

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: sandorski
Hate Crime Laws are a Good thing. They address issues that need addressing directly.

Yes, because a bar fight between a black guy and a white guy is FAR worse than two whites or two blacks, and deserves extra punishment. :roll:

That depends. Did one of the guys instigate the fight simply because the other guy was the wrong color? Say a white guy goes into a bar frequented by minorities and gets refused service or worse yet his ass kicked because 'he didn't belong there'? Is that not a hate crime based on racism?

It doesn't matter what it's based on. Punish the perps for their actions, who cares why they did it?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: senseamp
There is a great difference in the severity of the crime if it's targeting someone because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation.

How so? If I shoot you dead in a completely random act of violence inspired by my bad mood today, how is that any different, in terms of the "severity of the crime," than if I shoot you because of the color of your skin?

Either way, dead is dead, and I still pose a tremendous threat to society. Hell, one might even argue that the random acts are more of a threat than those that are targetted.

The "severity" of the crime is no different -- dead is dead.

The intent of such crime is to intimidate and instill fear in a whole group of people, and impact on society is much greater, requiring a much stronger deterrent.

Really? I guess you weren't around for the infamous DC Sniper incidents a few years back. They had absolutely nothing to do with race and everything to do with "instilling fear in a whole group of people." I'd say that they posed a much greater threat to the population, as a whole, than if they had only targetted green people.

Would you disagree?

A: No, I would not, because you are incompetent to stand trial.

If you're claiming that my hatred of red shoes is enough to declare incompetency -- based on my sanity, I'd assume -- then how is that ANY different than declaring "incompotency" based on a hatred for any particular race?

I see that you have no understanding of our legal system at all. The issue of a defendents' competency has little, if anything, to do with motive.

Plenty of violent criminals choose their victims for specific reasons; and, as I said before, ALL violent crimes involve an element of hatred.

Jack the Ripper hated prostitutes. Does that make his string of serial murders "hate crimes"?

Are you beginning to see why "hate crime laws" are a ridiculous concept?

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: GeezerMan

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: sandorski
Hate Crime Laws are a Good thing. They address issues that need addressing directly.

Yes, because a bar fight between a black guy and a white guy is FAR worse than two whites or two blacks, and deserves extra punishment. :roll:

Please report to Gitmo for waterboarding and re-education classes

A white guy beating up a black guy because he's black is worse than two whites or black and a white getting into a bar fight.

Not really. In the end it's still someone getting beat up.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: sandorski
Hate Crime Laws are a Good thing. They address issues that need addressing directly.

Yes, because a bar fight between a black guy and a white guy is FAR worse than two whites or two blacks, and deserves extra punishment. :roll:

That depends. Did one of the guys instigate the fight simply because the other guy was the wrong color? Say a white guy goes into a bar frequented by minorities and gets refused service or worse yet his ass kicked because 'he didn't belong there'? Is that not a hate crime based on racism?

It doesn't matter what it's based on. Punish the perps for their actions, who cares why they did it?

I do because IMO racists, bigots, etc should be punished more.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: sandorski
Hate Crime Laws are a Good thing. They address issues that need addressing directly.

Yes, because a bar fight between a black guy and a white guy is FAR worse than two whites or two blacks, and deserves extra punishment. :roll:

That depends. Did one of the guys instigate the fight simply because the other guy was the wrong color? Say a white guy goes into a bar frequented by minorities and gets refused service or worse yet his ass kicked because 'he didn't belong there'? Is that not a hate crime based on racism?

It doesn't matter what it's based on. Punish the perps for their actions, who cares why they did it?

I do because IMO racists, bigots, etc should be punished more.

So much for the 1st Amendment's free speech, the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, the 5th Amendment's prohibition of double-jeopardy, and James Madison's own belief that "We have in this country extinguished forever ... making laws for the human mind."

Carved above the entrance to the Supreme Court are the words, "Equal Justice Under Law."

---

If a black pickpocket selects only Asian victims, perhaps because they are notoriously more careless with their valuables, or they are more easily distracted, should the pickpocket be prosecuted for a "hate crime"?

If a hispanic gangbanger only kills white gangbangers, because they are his biggest competition in the local drug trade, should he/she be prosecuted for a "hate crime"?

If a white serial rapist chooses black victims because they are his "type," should he be prosecuted for a "hate crime"?

If a black man stabs a white guy during an attempted robbery, and it can be established that the black man has frequently told friends that he "hates the white man keeping him down," should he be charged with a hate crime? What if he stabs a black man during a robbery, but it's still revealed in court that he "hates the white man keeping him down?" Why should his punishment for one be worse than his punishment for the other?

Where do we draw the line on grouping people?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Intent and motive factor into severity of the crime, it's nothing new. You beat someone up due to their race or sexual orientation, you are a bigger threat to society than someone who got into a fight because they had too much to drink.

And you are OK with the government deciding why you are doing something instead of just punishing you for the action.......


The power/trust that the Left gives government is absolutely insane...

They replaced god with government. It's not just a matter of trust, it's a matter of faith and zealotry.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
If you must create a "hate crime" law, why not make it so that it applies to any crime that is motivated by bigotry no matter who the target is? That way, it applies to anyone equally. Meaning, if a black person assaults a white person, merely because they're white, then it's a hate crime. I'm surprised that these laws AREN'T written this way.

Eric Holder's testimony in the OP is exactly why these laws AREN'T written this way. They see it as their sworn duty to elevate the laws protecting specific Democratic voting base minority groups. They do not believe in equal protection under the law.

 

[GeezerMan]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
If you must create a "hate crime" law, why not make it so that it applies to any crime that is motivated by bigotry no matter who the target is? That way, it applies to anyone equally. Meaning, if a black person assaults a white person, merely because they're white, then it's a hate crime. I'm surprised that these laws AREN'T written this way.

Eric Holder's testimony in the OP is exactly why these laws AREN'T written this way. They see it as their sworn duty to elevate the laws protecting specific Democratic voting base minority groups. They do not believe in equal protection under the law.

And there is a good chance we will see the republicans start to do more of the same thing as their traditional voting base gets smaller.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: GeezerMan
How about a white guy and a black guy beating up a mulatto guy. Oh no! We gonna need a special law for that one.

H0ow abpout me beating you up because you are Handicap,shouldn't that be considered a hate crime? I think it should as it would be more despicable.

What about when a handicap white guy runs over a black guys arm with his wheel chair?

 

[GeezerMan]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: GeezerMan
How about a white guy and a black guy beating up a mulatto guy. Oh no! We gonna need a special law for that one.

H0ow abpout me beating you up because you are Handicap,shouldn't that be considered a hate crime? I think it should as it would be more despicable.

What about when a handicap white guy runs over a black guys arm with his wheel chair?

That depends if it happened in a school zone.....

 

[JKing106]

The amount of white fright in this thread is beautiful. Having grown up with a father who was most like a Klan member, and listening to him rail for hours about blacks, faggots, women, Jews, whatever he thought was stopping him from "getting what he deserved" instead of his own stupidity was extremely annoying, and liberating. It made me realize that people who need to look down on another group are just insecure morons. Don't worry, crackers, we aren't going to be sent to concentration camps.

 

[GeezerMan]

Originally posted by: JKing106
The amount of white fright in this thread is beautiful. Having grown up with a father who was most like a Klan member, and listening to him rail for hours about blacks, faggots, women, Jews, whatever he thought was stopping him from "getting what he deserved" instead of his own stupidity was extremely annoying, and liberating. It made me realize that people who need to look down on another group are just insecure morons. Don't worry, crackers, we aren't going to be sent to concentration camps.

You think? Over 30 years or so, I have dated white, black, asian, hispanic women, have had friends of many races, so it's not a fear of a race thing for me. It's a concern about the erosion of the constitution, that's all it is for me. I had the same concerns when fascist Bush II pushed through the Fatherland Security Act and his many executive orders.

Whoops, I mean the Homeland Security Act

 

[GeezerMan]

I?m going to mention this again to get some discussion going along these lines. How can this law, described by Eric Holder in the video to apply to certain people, and not others, be legal under the 14th amendment?

"The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".[1] The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal"[2] by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states."

 

[OCGuy]

Yes, only non-whites need to be protected from hate crimes :roll:


"This is a black world"



http://www.ohio.com/news/50172282.html

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: sandorski
Hate Crime Laws are a Good thing. They address issues that need addressing directly.

Yes, because a bar fight between a black guy and a white guy is FAR worse than two whites or two blacks, and deserves extra punishment. :roll:

That depends. Did one of the guys instigate the fight simply because the other guy was the wrong color? Say a white guy goes into a bar frequented by minorities and gets refused service or worse yet his ass kicked because 'he didn't belong there'? Is that not a hate crime based on racism?

It doesn't matter what it's based on. Punish the perps for their actions, who cares why they did it?

I do because IMO racists, bigots, etc should be punished more.

So in other words, anyone not falling in line with your political correctness should be punished more? If someone dislikes a certain group of people, they're entitled to their opinions, and the punishment should fit the crime, not be based on catch phrases like racist, bigot, etc.