Georgia's "Hate Crimes" law has just been overturned.

[Fausto]

Interesting.

ATLANTA - The Georgia Supreme Court unanimously threw out the state's hate crimes law Monday, calling it over-broad and "unconstitutionally vague."

The four-year-old law calls for stiffer criminal penalties for crimes in which a victim was chosen because of "any bias or prejudice."

The 7-0 ruling came in the case of a man and woman convicted of an assault on two black men in Atlanta's Little Five Points neighborhood.

Angela Pisciotta and Christopher Botts were convicted of beating two black men while screaming racial epithets in 2002. The trial judge sentenced them to six years in prison, plus an additional two years under the hate crimes law.

Pisciotta and Botts appealed to the state's highest court in April. Their lawyers argued that the hate crimes statute should be struck down because almost any crime involving prejudice falls under its scope.

A little background:

The three defendants (who are white) in this case beat the sh*t out of two brothers (who are black) walking through Little Five Points (one of the more bizarre areas of Atlanta). While kicking the crap out of the brothers, they were screaming neat stuff like "N*ggers!!" and "If you ain't white, you ain't right!!" (this was confirmed by numerous witnesses).

This is a pretty good summary of what all went down at the trial.

So what do you guys think? Is it that we need laws like this or is it that the existing laws are simply not stringent enough (ie- they should have gotten a stiff sentence for such a vicious, unprovoked attack regardless of the race of the victims)?

 

[daniel1113]

Good to hear. Hate crimes legislation is pointless. Hopefully other states will follow suite.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Good to hear. Hate crimes legislation is pointless. Hopefully other states will follow suite.

:thumbsup: A crime is a crime, punish by electric chair.

 

[rahvin]

Any violent crime is a hate crime.

We should take the dope smokers out of the prisons so we can leave the violent criminals in there for their full sentence. The problem isn't that they got 6 years, the problem is that they will be out in probably less than 2 to make room for someone growing weed.

 

[Cobalt]

The 3 defendants should receive maximum punishment in their case, but then again I think hate crime laws are a little one sided. I've never heard of black people being prosecuted for hate crimes. I am NOT trying to start anything, just my observation.

 

[notfred]

I think the guys are assfvcks, but I still think declaring someone a criminal based on what they were *thinking* isn't right. Assault is assault. To charge someone with a more serious crime because of the ethnicity or minority status of the victim is unfair.

Do you really believe that if they had beaten up two white women instead of black men, they should have gotten a shorter sentence because they didn't shout any racial slurs? Two people are beaten either way.

 

[Wuffsunie]

That's fvcked up, but considering where it happened not overly surprising.

I believe that we need hasher (in some cases MUCH harsher) for crimes against other people, doubly so for crimes harming another person directly. (ie burglary isn't as bad a crime as assault.) There are places where you'd be in prison longer for having some weed than if you beat the crap out of some guy and stole his wallet. And that just makes no sense.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Good to hear. Hate crimes legislation is pointless. Hopefully other states will follow suite.

:thumbsup: A crime is a crime, punish by electric chair.

Just kill them all

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: notfred
I think the guys are assfvcks, but I still think declaring someone a criminal based on what they were *thinking* isn't right. Assault is assault. To charge someone with a more serious crime because of the ethnicity or minority status of the victim is unfair.

Do you really believe that if they had beaten up two white women instead of black men, they should have gotten a shorter sentence because they didn't shout any racial slurs? Two people are beaten either way.

actually, what people are thinking is very important in criminal law.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Good to hear. Hate crimes legislation is pointless. Hopefully other states will follow suite.

:thumbsup: A crime is a crime, punish by electric chair.

Just kill them all

all felonies used to be punished by death.

england didn't have many jails until relatively recently.

 

[Viper GTS]

Hate crime laws are absolute BS, if people want equality punishments must be equal no matter who the victim is.

Assigning a particular group of individuals a greater societal worth than another is blatant discrimination, no matter the intent.

Viper GTS

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: notfred
I think the guys are assfvcks, but I still think declaring someone a criminal based on what they were *thinking* isn't right. Assault is assault. To charge someone with a more serious crime because of the ethnicity or minority status of the victim is unfair.

Do you really believe that if they had beaten up two white women instead of black men, they should have gotten a shorter sentence because they didn't shout any racial slurs? Two people are beaten either way.

That's kinda half of what I was getting at with my comment in the first post; these people need a stiff sentence because they beat two guys nearly to death for no reason whatsoever out of the blue. That's a little different than a bar fight over a girl but they're both "assault" in the eyes of the law. Six year to serve four (the sentence without the hate crime bonus) is pretty light for almost killing someone IMHO.

 

[Mo0o]

Yeah, just prosecute them for assault, not some murky hate crime law.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Hate crime laws are absolute BS, if people want equality punishments must be equal no matter who the victim is.

Assigning a particular group of individuals a greater societal worth than another is blatant discrimination, no matter the intent.

Viper GTS

Ding ding ding. We have a winnnnar!

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Yeah, just prosecute them for assault, not some murky hate crime law.

Okay, but it six years (four to serve) an appropriate punishment in your eyes for this particular case? That's basically what they'd be looking at minus the hate crime sentencing.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Stupid hate crime laws are an example of "feel good" laws, they sound good, but if you apply some critical thinking, what they accomplish is frightening.

If the activity was illegal, and the punishment is too light, it's up to our legislators to allow more leeway in sentencing for the judges.

Hate crime laws do nothing to level the playing field, it turns the field into mud.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Yeah, just prosecute them for assault, not some murky hate crime law.

Okay, but it six years (four to serve) an appropriate punishment in your eyes for this particular case? That's basically what they'd be looking at minus the hate crime sentencing.

Modify sentencing laws to account for cases such as this.

Perhaps attempted murder charges would have better? (I could be way off on this one, but if the prosecutors were essentially guaranteed a nice sentence due to hate crime laws they might have pushed assault since it would be easier to convict. Attempted murder may not even have been applicable, I'm sure DonVito could tell us.)

Viper GTS

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Yeah, just prosecute them for assault, not some murky hate crime law.

Okay, but it six years (four to serve) an appropriate punishment in your eyes for this particular case? That's basically what they'd be looking at minus the hate crime sentencing.

It depends on how bad they were beaten. but yeah 6 years sounds fine.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Hate crimes are crap, and usually only wind up being applied in favor of minorities, rather than equally. They're usually vague like the Georgia law, which doesn't help. Murder is murder, and is pretty hateful in my book. Is it worse because it was done because of a person's religion, race, sexual orientation, etc., or because the person didn't give up their wallet fast enough?

I wish I could find the information again about that case where a group of black men forced several white guys to have sex with each other at gunpoint then ran them over with a car, all before shooting them. The girlfriends of those guys, those that lived anyway, were raped repeatedly, beaten (one is in a wheelchair for life if I recall correctly), etc. They weren't going to be charged with a hate crime, though, despite racist comments they repeatedly made during the incident. Hate crimes work both ways, or not at all. I say just dump them, they're worthless.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Yeah, just prosecute them for assault, not some murky hate crime law.

Okay, but it six years (four to serve) an appropriate punishment in your eyes for this particular case? That's basically what they'd be looking at minus the hate crime sentencing.

It depends on how bad they were beaten. but yeah 6 years sounds fine.

Okay, so you're walking along and three guys just jump on you, kick the sh*t out of you, and bash your head on a fire hydrant......still sound like a good sentence? I think the combination of the extent of the attack and the randomness of it means these three would have gotten off light minus the hate crime law (without regard to the "validity" of the law).

I think Viper's point that they should have gotten different charges is a good one...it's entirely feasable that they'd have killed at least one of the two brothers had they not been pulled off them.


Another point to consider: someone mentioned to me via PM that "hate crimes" involve a measure of premeditation. Since this is a factor in a murder case, should it be applied in an assault case such as this? Is this addressed in "normal" assault charges (I'm not familiar with the law)?

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Yeah, just prosecute them for assault, not some murky hate crime law.

Okay, but it six years (four to serve) an appropriate punishment in your eyes for this particular case? That's basically what they'd be looking at minus the hate crime sentencing.

It depends on how bad they were beaten. but yeah 6 years sounds fine.

Okay, so you're walking along and three guys just jump on you, kick the sh*t out of you, and bash your head on a fire hydrant......still sound like a good sentence? I think the combination of the extent of the attack and the randomness of it means these three would have gotten off light minus the hate crime law (without regard to the "validity" of the law).

I think Viper's point that they should have gotten different charges is a good one...it's entirely feasable that they'd have killed at least one of the two brothers had they not been pulled off them.


Another point to consider: someone mentioned to me via PM that "hate crimes" involve a measure of premeditation. Since this is a factor in a murder case, should it be applied in an assault case such as this? Is this addressed in "normal" assault charges (I'm not familiar with the law)?

Hmm, is there such a thing as premeditated assault? It might not always apply if they went that route, though. In the case I mentioned a couple of posts up, I believe it turned out that then guilty parties simply picked these victims after one of them was allowed in to use a telephone to supposedly call a tow truck. Then you get into arguments about whether it applies if they planned it without a specific group of people in mind, or only if they were going to do the deed upon finding a group that fit a certain criteria.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Yeah, just prosecute them for assault, not some murky hate crime law.

Okay, but it six years (four to serve) an appropriate punishment in your eyes for this particular case? That's basically what they'd be looking at minus the hate crime sentencing.

It depends on how bad they were beaten. but yeah 6 years sounds fine.

Okay, so you're walking along and three guys just jump on you, kick the sh*t out of you, and bash your head on a fire hydrant......still sound like a good sentence? I think the combination of the extent of the attack and the randomness of it means these three would have gotten off light minus the hate crime law (without regard to the "validity" of the law).

I think Viper's point that they should have gotten different charges is a good one...it's entirely feasable that they'd have killed at least one of the two brothers had they not been pulled off them.


Another point to consider: someone mentioned to me via PM that "hate crimes" involve a measure of premeditation. Since this is a factor in a murder case, should it be applied in an assault case such as this? Is this addressed in "normal" assault charges (I'm not familiar with the law)?

I don't think that "hate crimes" neccesarily involve any more premeditation than, say, a mugging. The only premeditation required in a case like that is "Hey that guy looks like he'd carry a lot of cash" or "Hey, look at that [insert racial slur] jackass, he needs his ass kicked"

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Yeah, just prosecute them for assault, not some murky hate crime law.

Okay, but it six years (four to serve) an appropriate punishment in your eyes for this particular case? That's basically what they'd be looking at minus the hate crime sentencing.

It depends on how bad they were beaten. but yeah 6 years sounds fine.

Okay, so you're walking along and three guys just jump on you, kick the sh*t out of you, and bash your head on a fire hydrant......still sound like a good sentence? I think the combination of the extent of the attack and the randomness of it means these three would have gotten off light minus the hate crime law (without regard to the "validity" of the law).

I think Viper's point that they should have gotten different charges is a good one...it's entirely feasable that they'd have killed at least one of the two brothers had they not been pulled off them.


Another point to consider: someone mentioned to me via PM that "hate crimes" involve a measure of premeditation. Since this is a factor in a murder case, should it be applied in an assault case such as this? Is this addressed in "normal" assault charges (I'm not familiar with the law)?

I think you are missing my point or maybe i just was not clear.

How it is now is there is no real scale for assault (the "hate crime BS does not count). So they have one punishment for a wide variety of assault charges.

So a fight where one person just smacks (as in a girlie smack) can land you in jail for the same amount of time. Where someone who kicks the crap out of someone gets a lesser charge. So with the punishment as it is NOW (they do need to change it) that is the best someone is going to get.

Considering also that people who murder someone don't always get longer sentences. heck I have seen cases of vehicular manslaughter get 8-10 years.



the whole justice system needs work. BUT thats the great thing about it. WE can fix it.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Yeah, just prosecute them for assault, not some murky hate crime law.

Okay, but it six years (four to serve) an appropriate punishment in your eyes for this particular case? That's basically what they'd be looking at minus the hate crime sentencing.

It depends on how bad they were beaten. but yeah 6 years sounds fine.

Okay, so you're walking along and three guys just jump on you, kick the sh*t out of you, and bash your head on a fire hydrant......still sound like a good sentence? I think the combination of the extent of the attack and the randomness of it means these three would have gotten off light minus the hate crime law (without regard to the "validity" of the law).

I think Viper's point that they should have gotten different charges is a good one...it's entirely feasable that they'd have killed at least one of the two brothers had they not been pulled off them.


Another point to consider: someone mentioned to me via PM that "hate crimes" involve a measure of premeditation. Since this is a factor in a murder case, should it be applied in an assault case such as this? Is this addressed in "normal" assault charges (I'm not familiar with the law)?

I think you are missing my point or maybe i just was not clear.

How it is now is there is no real scale for assault (the "hate crime BS does not count). So they have one punishment for a wide variety of assault charges.

So a fight where one person just smacks (as in a girlie smack) can land you in jail for the same amount of time. Where someone who kicks the crap out of someone gets a lesser charge. So with the punishment as it is NOW (they do need to change it) that is the best someone is going to get.

Considering also that people who murder someone don't always get longer sentences. heck I have seen cases of vehicular manslaughter get 8-10 years.



the whole justice system needs work. BUT thats the great thing about it. WE can fix it.

I totally agree, I'm just bringing stuff up for the sake of debate.

 

[Shelly21]

If we start arresting people for what they're thinking instead of what they're doing, it would be time to move to another country.

Just like virtual child porn, because no child is being used, it is okay. :thumbsup: