HumblePie
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,667
- 440
- 126
If you want to get down to legalese, then the technical definition is yes. Is that the case in all situations? No. The law does allow for common sense. Visitors and tourists from other countries are allowed to keep in their possession what they bring with them. Usually. However, the law and law enforcement has every right to strip them bare if deemed needed. This is what people fail to understand about the law. You take for granted the common sense side of the law and project that onto other aspects and situations. This is technically why someone coming from another country who is not an American citizen can be stopped, detained, stripped of all possessions and sent back if need be. Actually this happens if the person is thought to be a wanted criminal or terrorist for example. While this is not done with every visitor to our Nation, the law allows it. The same can not be done to a law abiding America citizen though.
I was going to post some corrections, but as I read this more and more, there is a deep fundamental flaw in your understanding that I don't feel qualified to address without a huge wall of text.
CPA
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 30,322
- 4
- 0
Good, hopefully this will start the process of eliminating Hate Crime legislation.
1. It's rare that a physical crime (assault and battery, homicide, etc) doesn't involve some amount of hate, anger or rage. And of course, only certain "hate" is generally covered under hate crime laws. If I murdered someone because I "hated" that person for the music they listened to, I would not fall under hate crime legislation. But if I murdered someone because I "hated" them for their sexual orientation, I would.
2. To punish one person more than another, both who committed a similar crime, solely on the basis of "hate" is ridiculous.
3. Most "hate crime" cases often involve a presumption of hate and it's up to the defendant to disprove that hate was involved. Hello? What happened to innocent until proven guilty.
1. It's rare that a physical crime (assault and battery, homicide, etc) doesn't involve some amount of hate, anger or rage. And of course, only certain "hate" is generally covered under hate crime laws. If I murdered someone because I "hated" that person for the music they listened to, I would not fall under hate crime legislation. But if I murdered someone because I "hated" them for their sexual orientation, I would.
2. To punish one person more than another, both who committed a similar crime, solely on the basis of "hate" is ridiculous.
3. Most "hate crime" cases often involve a presumption of hate and it's up to the defendant to disprove that hate was involved. Hello? What happened to innocent until proven guilty.
CallMeJoe
Diamond Member
- Jul 30, 2004
- 6,938
- 5
- 81
If you're arguing that non-resident aliens can't own land in the United States, you have absolutely no understanding of the law.
Unfortunately, the OP's article confuses the issue of what a hate crime is and what these plaintiffs are really complaining about. Or perhaps the plaintiffs themselves are confusing the issue by using the wrong rhetoric. As has already been stated, a hate crime is a violent act with a sentencing enhancement applied because the perpetrator had a motive of ethnic or religious hatred. One is free to disagree with this, but it isn't a constitutional issue, because it isn't speech that is being punished.
What the plaintiffs are complaing about is known as incitement speech. That is where you are held criminally liable when you incite someone else to commit a violent act. Incitement speech is typically explained by the old example of yelling fire in crowded room. Our current doctrine severely limits the applicability of this speech crime with a "clear and present danger" test. In a racial/ethnic/religious context, it means clearly and explicitly inciting others to commit violent acts against a certain group. Saying "homosexuality is a sin" or even "God hates fags", will *never*, ever, invoke incitement laws. If you say "kill all homosexuals," that could trigger an incitement law, *if* someone actually goes out and kills a homosexual, *and* it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the act was done because of the incitement and not for some other reason. In practice, incitement laws are almost never applied in cases involving hate crimes.
Other countries such as the UK have much broader incitement laws, but in the US we are more protective of free speech than any other nation, including other democracies. Hence, we have a very narrow definition that has virtually no impact on speech.
Incidentally, I notice that these plaintiffs are religious Christians. If tomorrow someone were to go out an incite people to kill Christians, I think they would be singing an entirely different tune.
- wolf
What the plaintiffs are complaing about is known as incitement speech. That is where you are held criminally liable when you incite someone else to commit a violent act. Incitement speech is typically explained by the old example of yelling fire in crowded room. Our current doctrine severely limits the applicability of this speech crime with a "clear and present danger" test. In a racial/ethnic/religious context, it means clearly and explicitly inciting others to commit violent acts against a certain group. Saying "homosexuality is a sin" or even "God hates fags", will *never*, ever, invoke incitement laws. If you say "kill all homosexuals," that could trigger an incitement law, *if* someone actually goes out and kills a homosexual, *and* it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the act was done because of the incitement and not for some other reason. In practice, incitement laws are almost never applied in cases involving hate crimes.
Other countries such as the UK have much broader incitement laws, but in the US we are more protective of free speech than any other nation, including other democracies. Hence, we have a very narrow definition that has virtually no impact on speech.
Incidentally, I notice that these plaintiffs are religious Christians. If tomorrow someone were to go out an incite people to kill Christians, I think they would be singing an entirely different tune.
- wolf
Last edited:
HumblePie
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,667
- 440
- 126
No.... I said they don't have a Constitutional right to it. There is a difference. There are indeed laws by states that allow this, but it is not a "right" as granted by the Constitution.
Now are we going to slide into that slippery slope of state law versus federal and constitutional rights? This is what seems to foul up people the most. The Constitution does not grant it, but it does not remove it either. That is the fine line difference. Since it is neither granted nor removed, it is up to individual states and communities to create laws that best serve them. This is also why I hate arguing law on the internet, because people constantly assume local laws equate to or are always derivatives of Constitutional law. I really wish people would take a Constitutional law class before making broad sweeping assumptions and arguments on it. I have just so I could help my mother with her law degree.
I will admit though, my first post was a bit blanket and general, thus a little misleading, but it wasn't incorrect.
So back to the original topic, Hate crimes are crimes where premeditation and motive for the crime are for the sole purpose of spreading fear, hate, and bigotry. As someone pointed out earlier, burning a cross on someone's lawn without considering the motive behind the crimes is only crimes of trespassing, destruction of property, illegal burning of refuse, and maybe a few other lesser and ancillary crimes. Just like killing someone without considering the motive would only be considered man slaughter.
However, when the justice system takes into account motive and premeditation then crimes are given the proper penalty. Killing someone who is attempting to kill you first becomes self defense for example. Killing someone because you hate their guts and you want to see them dead so you plan a way to kill them in way that satisfies your anger becomes murder 1. Burning a cross on someone's lawn becomes a hate crime when the motive is considered. It has really nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Last edited:
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,101
- 5,640
- 126
Like Vic, I agree that Hate or Intent should be a consideration for Sentencing of a Crime. It needs a stricter criteria for Guilt though and not just applied on a whim.
Arresting someone for simple Hate Crime is another matter entirely and should be avoided. The only possible exception for that might be in a case where a Leader of some group has encouraged Violence/Criminal Acts amongst Its' followers and those followers acted on those encouragements.
Arresting someone for simple Hate Crime is another matter entirely and should be avoided. The only possible exception for that might be in a case where a Leader of some group has encouraged Violence/Criminal Acts amongst Its' followers and those followers acted on those encouragements.
I don't see that rational at all. Depending on circumstances we have different degrees of homicide as well as other crimes. And depending on those circumstances the degrees of punishment are determined. Hate crime laws which encompass color, creed, religion, and sexual orientation should be one of those considered circumstances.
People should be arrested for simple Hate Crimes, depending on how "simple" they are. The definition of what you consider "simple" may need some clarifying. The problem with the discussion of hate crimes here unfortunately has the anti-black under current, lol. I couldn't think of any other way to say it, hehehehehe. 99% of the people here view hate crimes as protecting just black people, which needless to say is the least popular people group here. But hate crime laws go much much further than that.
I agree free speech stops at inciting criminal activity. Conspiracy, inciting a riot, etc are criminal. What I am still trying to get is how a hate crime equals free speech?
Patranus
Diamond Member
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
If a white person jumps a gay person and calls them a lovely human they would be committed of a hate crime.
Was the motivation of the crime really because that person was gay or an easy target?
That is the problem with hate crime legislation. In (like) 99% of the cases, there is really no proof that the actual motivation was based on the protected groups status.
It is also troubling how these laws are applied to protect minority groups more than other groups. If the motivation of a crime is race, it should make no difference if that person is a minority or not.
Simply put, these laws are put in place by "progressives" to advance social justice.
Last edited:
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,101
- 5,640
- 126
By "simple" I mean: Solely on that Charge or Arresting someone for Expressing Hatred.
As for the Black component. That is a US specific reason, it was Crimes committed against Blacks that fostered such Legal distinctions in the US. These days it may seem accusations of it are lopsided, and they might be, but at one time these types of Crimes were very common in certain parts.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,101
- 5,640
- 126
Huh? I would think if that scenario did happen how could you assume any other reason besides the guy being gay? If a black person just starts beating up a white person calling them cracker, I would assume he attacked the person because they were white. Just like if a white dude with a swatizka tatoo attacked a black person or a jewish person what do think would be his motivation, he was just having a bad day?
The state has the burden of proving the motive beyond reasonable doubt. If there is no proof, then the hate crime enchancement does not apply. So I guess that is good news for the 99% of the perpetrators for whom there is no proof.
You are incorrect that these laws protect only minority groups. It may vary by state, but the federal and California laws refer to a motive based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc. That means attacking someone because they are white or Christian does fall into the definition.
Federal Civil Rights Law (1969) penalizes 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"
- wolf
CallMeJoe
Diamond Member
- Jul 30, 2004
- 6,938
- 5
- 81
Try waiting more than 7 or 8 posts before contradicting yourself; it's too easy to catch otherwise.
If by "not incorrect" you mean "inaccurate, imprecise and misleading", I agree completely.
I agree with that. I don't think a person should be arrested for name calling. But if they are attacking someone dropping racial slurs, then I believe these laws need to come into play.
This is a totally theoretical discussion. There is no such thing as a "simple hate crime" as he defines it. Not in these United States.
- wolf
Last edited:
Patranus
Diamond Member
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
But what makes you think those racial slurs are somehow involved with the persons motivation for attacking?
hate crimes are thought crimes. i personally don't really give a fuck why someone did what they did, unless it was self defense. if i punched you in the face because i didn't like your face or because i hated what race you were or i didn't like the shoes you were wearing or i thought you were flirting with my girl, it's all the same the result was i hit you in the face, the reason doesn't really fucking matter. A to B how you do it doesn't matter, it's what you did.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter