What Do You All Think Of This Hate Crimes Stuff?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Budge' post='1262394' date='May 2 2007, 09:14 AM']Why does burning down a black man's house warrant more punishment then the burning down of a white mans house?
[b]
By the way, I used to be totally indoctrinated into the guilty white liberal syndrome. They used to teach me in the UU church there was no such thing as racism against whites, because whites were the majority group[/b]. . Interesting since one of my white co-workers {social worker} got beat down for daring to enter a section of the city, she was warned about. Her car was trashed, bottles, bricks and she was dragged out, to be beaten up, I dont know how she survived it, and none of them knew her at all personally, it was all racial. I was also in that same part of the city, but was not alone, had African American clients with me, they told me "if you werent with us, thered be a beat down". I believed them because I knew what had happened to her. {now laws against CRIMINAL ACTS already apply to what happened to her, so hate crime laws, being abritrarily applied, with some groups favored over others, that definitely will lead to WORSE PROBLEMS}

There was this one AFRICAN-AMERICAN minister in the UU church who made a stand AGAINST the liberal garbage regarding race, I respected her, wrote her a letter even. She talked about how all the guilty liberal garbage about race actually led to MORE VICTIMIZATION and division among races. She said that alot of this stuff ignored even the realities of class.

I doubt if this nonsense was passed that itd ever be applied to whites who suffer racism...{according to the liberal PC code, that doesnt exsist} and only certain disabilities and the gays are to be "protected" too.

The courts are already over over innudated without being given the responsiblity to read MINDS.

ACTIONS [actual CRIMES] is ALL they should be dealing with.

It is animal farm," some animals are more equal then others."[/quote]
You're assuming that bias crimes against white would not be charged as hate crimes. If you actually read the statutes that have been enacted, you find that there are no statutes that limit hate crimes to only those crimes committed against African-Americans.

The thought is that we want to discourage people from committing crimes based on their hatred of characteristics that their victims have no control over -- race, gender, ethnicity, etc. -- or things such as religion which are constitutionally protected rights.

[Budge]

Liberals preach constantly that there is no such thing as racism against whites.

Consider this, everyone knows who Matthew Shepard is and yes what happened to him was beyond horrible but there was this CHristian lady killed for being a Christian right here in America. Anyone ever hear of that "hate crime"?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Budge' post='1262541' date='May 2 2007, 12:59 PM']Liberals preach constantly that there is no such thing as racism against whites.

Consider this, everyone knows who Matthew Shepard is and yes what happened to him was beyond horrible but there was this CHristian lady killed for being a Christian right here in America. Anyone ever hear of that "hate crime"?[/quote]
Some people may preach that, but that's not what's in the statutes. In addition, the DOJ statistics on hate crimes include crimes committed against whites because of their skin color. If you're going to argue against including these crimes as laws, you should at least do the basic research about whart you're arguing against.

And do you have any more details about "this Christian lady"? Because, you know, I have heard of people being killed in America because of their Christian belief. Off the top, there was the girl in Columbine who was shot after she confessed her love for Jesus. That one is pretty well known.

And did you give any thought to my conspiracy question earlier? Should conspiracy not be a crime?

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='Budge' post='1262541' date='May 2 2007, 11:59 AM']Liberals preach constantly that there is no such thing as racism against whites.

Consider this, everyone knows who Matthew Shepard is and yes what happened to him was beyond horrible but there was this CHristian lady killed for being a Christian right here in America. Anyone ever hear of that "hate crime"?[/quote]

Name, date, and place, please.

[Socrates]

I for the most part agree with Budge about the whole "hate crimes" thing - though I disagree that what the vatican is talking about is really the same thing - that's more typical Budge twisting of the facts to bash the Church.

People should be prosecuted equally for committing the same crime. Race and "sexual orientation" should not play into the legal equation.

There is no reason why "racism" or especially "homophobia" should be considered legally worse than any other motivation which would lead someone to commit a deliberate act of disgusting violence against another person. The fact that someone deliberately commited a violent crime in cold blood should be proof enough of "hate." Anything else is simply injecting ideology into the law. Criminal law should be about justice, not about social/political ideology.

Edited May 4, 2007 by Socrates

[Budge]

[quote]The fact that someone deliberately commited a violent crime in cold blood should be proof enough of "hate." Anything else is simply injecting ideology into the law. Criminal law should be about justice, not about social/political ideology.[/quote]

Definitely agree here.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1263640' date='May 3 2007, 09:21 PM']I for the most part agree with Budge about the whole "hate crimes" thing - though I disagree that what the vatican is talking about is really the same thing - that's more typical Budge twisting of the facts to bash the Church.

People should be prosecuted equally for committing the same crime. Race and "sexual orientation" should not play into the legal equation.

There is no reason why "racism" or especially "homophobia" should be considered legally worse than any other motivation which would lead someone to commit a deliberate act of disgusting violence against another person. The fact that someone deliberately commited a violent crime in cold blood should be proof enough of "hate." Anything else is simply injecting ideology into the law. Criminal law should be about justice, not about social/political ideology.[/quote]
Oh come now.

You can't on one side support legislation of morality and then say it has no place here. Be consistent, at least. You want ideologies to be legislated, but only as long as you support them.

And I think it is well within bounds for us to, as a society, discourage certain motivations and attitudes from flourishing because of the widespread harms these ideas can do when they are allowed free reign.

[Norseman82]

Although the concept of "hate crimes legislation" is noble, there are two huge problems:

1) It only applies to certain "protected classes", so there often is unequal enforcement.

2) When sexual "orientation" is added to it, it elevates immoral behavior to such a "protected class" and officially puts society's stamp of approval on such immoral behavior.

If the problem is violence, there probably are enough "incitement to riot" type laws that can be used to prosecute if things ever get out of hand. I'm a firm believer in enforcing the laws you already have before creating new ones, otherwise you'll be back to square one with the new laws.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1265050' date='May 5 2007, 12:02 PM']Oh come now.

You can't on one side support legislation of morality and then say it has no place here. Be consistent, at least. You want ideologies to be legislated, but only as long as you support them.

And I think it is well within bounds for us to, as a society, discourage certain motivations and attitudes from flourishing because of the widespread harms these ideas can do when they are allowed free reign.[/quote]


But he didn't say we can not legislate morality, and that was not his point. The point was "People should be prosecuted [b]equally[/b] for committing the same crime." Murder is murder, rape is rape it would not be equal or fair to punish a murderer or rapist less than one would if he murdered and raped a white girl, instead of a black girl. Both girls are equally human, and the criminal equally hates them both, and that is evident from what the criminal did to the girls. If a person kills someone or commits some kind of awful sin against another person, the criminal hates the victim anyway, he doesn't have to be a Klan member. Every crime or sin is a hate crime. "Hate Crimes Legislation" is by definition unequal it makes certain victims more important than other victims based on race, sex, or "sexual orientation."

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1265178' date='May 5 2007, 01:53 PM']Although the concept of "hate crimes legislation" is noble, there are two huge problems:

1) It only applies to certain "protected classes", so there often is unequal enforcement.

2) When sexual "orientation" is added to it, it elevates immoral behavior to such a "protected class" and officially puts society's stamp of approval on such immoral behavior.

If the problem is violence, there probably are enough "incitement to riot" type laws that can be used to prosecute if things ever get out of hand. I'm a firm believer in enforcing the laws you already have before creating new ones, otherwise you'll be back to square one with the new laws.[/quote]
1) Budge already made this argument. If you read the statutes, the protections are based on protected classes, yes, but the interpretations as to who falls into a protected class is open to interpretation. A crime against someone because he is white could be prosecuted under the same statute as a crime against someone because he is black. It is not unequal enforcement. It is choosing to provide a harsher punishment to curb attitudes and ideologies that we do not want to flourish.

2) As above, it attempts to curb an attitude that we as a society believe is wrong -- not that it is wrong to believe homosexuality is immoral, but that it is wrong to think it is OK to harm someone based on his or her homosexuality.

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1265259' date='May 5 2007, 02:46 PM']But he didn't say we can not legislate morality, and that was not his point. The point was "People should be prosecuted [b]equally[/b] for committing the same crime." Murder is murder, rape is rape it would not be equal or fair to punish a murderer or rapist less than one would if he murdered and raped a white girl, instead of a black girl. Both girls are equally human, and the criminal equally hates them both, and that is evident from what the criminal did to the girls. If a person kills someone or commits some kind of awful sin against another person, the criminal hates the victim anyway, he doesn't have to be a Klan member. Every crime or sin is a hate crime. "Hate Crimes Legislation" is by definition unequal it makes certain victims more important than other victims based on race, sex, or "sexual orientation."[/quote]
He said: "The fact that someone deliberately commited a violent crime in cold blood should be proof enough of "hate." Anything else is simply injecting ideology into the law. [b]Criminal law should be about justice, not about social/political ideology.[/b]"

Our ideas of justice and morality are deeply intertwined, and morality is expressed in social and political ideologies. My point is that Socrates is really OK with including political and social ideologies in determining criminal laws, he just doesn't want laws enacted that reflect social and political ideologies that he doesn't agree with.