Hate Crimes - constitutional?

[Salty]

A lawyer in Syracuse is testing the constitutionality of hate crimes

 

[BigBossman]

I believe hate crimes / hate laws to be unconstitutional because they judge people according to the way they think, believe, & feel prior to the crime being committed. How a perosn feels when they commit a crime is irrelevant.

If a known racist were to get into physical altercation with a person of another race & he didn't clearly start the problem, this would be used against him. While it is morally wrong for one to be a racist, it is not illegal.

 

[LadyEagle]

We already have crimes on the books against all kinds of crimes. "Hate crimes" is one more way the libbies seek to destroy freedom and advance their evil personal agenda. Too bad the "hate" towards unborn doesn't count. Sad.

 

[Salty]

The individual was found guilty - including the "hate" crime.

Also our DA boasts he was a driving force in getting this law pass in NY State

 

[billwald]

Agree. On the other hand, "intent" is a major component of the definition of a crime. Maybe hating someone is a factor in determining one's intent.

 

[rbell]

Sorry, it's a repost of my earlier thoughts, but:

Hate crimes are a judicial train wreck because...

1. They elevate the life of one person (be it black, gay, handicapped, left-handed, white, whatever) over another. Generally, the "empowered" party is worth less than the "powerless." ergo..."All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others." We found that repulsive in the 1960's...why should it not be repulsive now?
2. They are essentially crimes of thought, which cannot be proven. Remember..."innocent until proven guilty," and "prove beyond a reasonable doubt?" Throw that out the window with hate crime bills...We can only prove crimes of action...and if we'd enforce the laws already there, we wouldn't have to crawl around inside someone's brain, looking for prejudices.
3. They are unequally enforced. For instance, in Alabama, you will never see a black-on-white crime listed as a hate crime." The reverse is not true. I am for equal justice under the law. A white man who kills a black man should be penalized the same as if the race of the victim/perp were reversed.
4. They needlessly clog up the justice system. If someone's on trial for life, why try separate the hate-crime separately?
5. They begin erosion of rights: now instances of offensive speech is considered "hate crime." If you preach against homosexuality, get ready...you're next. It's true in other locales worldwide; it will be true here.
6. They are, at their core, unneccessary. If you gave people who murdered, for instance, the death penalty, no hate crime legislation would be needed. If you castrated rapists, that would just about do it right there.
7. "Hate crime" is itself a logical fallacy. Who ever commits "love crimes?" All crime comes from hate.

 

[Salty]

So, should we attempt to repeal hate crimes?

 

[matt wade]

Salty...please stop. Why do you do this every week or so? Yes, I mean the dredging up of posts from months ago. You just dredged up 10 or 12 posts from March of this year. It's horrible forum ettiquette.

 

[Salty]

Salty...please stop. Why do you do this every week or so? Yes, I mean the dredging up of posts from months ago. You just dredged up 10 or 12 posts from March of this year. It's horrible forum ettiquette.

Well, I could re-post all of them -
I just bring up some interesting ones

 

[Robert Snow]

Salty...please stop. Why do you do this every week or so? Yes, I mean the dredging up of posts from months ago. You just dredged up 10 or 12 posts from March of this year. It's horrible forum ettiquette.

If you don't like a thread, don't read or respond to it. It really isn't that difficult.

I have never understood "hate-crime legislation." For example, why does it matter why someone kills someone? It's the action that is the problem. I guess a person is supposed to feel better being murdered by someone who is merely robbing them as opposed to someone who kills them because they hate them.

 

[SRBooe]

Even having "hate crimes" make a mockery of our constitution and country.

Having "thought police" is next, right?

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

---snip---
How a perosn feels when they commit a crime is irrelevant.
---snip---

This goes to motive, which is one of the pillars required for conviction in our legal system.

I will agree, though, that to use the "motive" as a basis for making the punishment harsher is Unconstitutional.

The crime is the crime.

But, the PC Thought police want to get in our heads and squelch thoughts *they* feel are non-PC.

When you can jail a pastor for preaching:

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

It's time for pitchforks, large cauldrons of tar and a genrous helping of feathers!