Hate crime law to cover gays

IMO "intent" is the wrong word here.

If I kill someone because they are of a particular race the intent is no different than if I kill someone because I want to take their money.

In both cases the intent is to kill.

Perhaps the better word would be "motive".

 

Well thought. The question which bear asking, then, is it reasonable to have varying levels of punishment based on differeing motives?

 

I propose a discount, time off for good motive, for "love crimes" and crimes of good intent.

 

My wife accused me of a love crime just the other day. But this is a family show, so, we won't go there...

 

ah well then you are limited and cannot make it apply to whatever you want.

 

It's the factor of PROOF" that makes this so sinister.

If, like murder, you can prove prior intent, IE planning to attack simply for whatever the "hate" is, OK, BUT absent this confirmed proof, then just prosecute the specific crime.

The basic problem is that this will be far more difficult to prove, sans eye/ear witnesses, so the libs will not be content for this level of proof, and the necessary criteria will be lowered so that it becomes a purely political tool - which is what the end point is anyway.

A "LEGAL" way to stifle any opposition from being critical of (you pick the topic)!!!

Just like abortion WAS supposed to be limited to (IIRC) the 1st trimester, but now it has SLIPPERY SLOPED (yes, that point that the libs accused conservatives of yelling "wolf" about---) to partial birth abortion.

Do you really trust DESPOTS to run your life????? RUIN, maybe!!!

MARANATHA!!!

 

If the motive of a neonazi is to go out and kill a bunch of Jews or Catholics, I suspect that the motive will be self-evident.

The wording of the legislation is blind, but I agree that the application isn't consistent. That inconsistency of application doesn't mean it's a bad law, it means it's a bad application. In fact, hate crime laws can, and are used where the victims are not minority. In recently, in Los Angeles County, hate crimes legislation is used to combat frequent gan activity, which regularly preys on people of different races. In LaFourche Parish, nine black men were recently charged with hate crimes after assaulting white prisoners.

 

I didn't say "self-evidence", I said "self-evident". In other words, it will be obvious.

That's kinda like asking, if we have a death penalty for a serial killer, why bother charging them with multiple counts of murder.

NOW you're onto something! Good point.

You can't argue that hate crimes is not equal justice and then argue that the problem is with application (a point I noted earlier). I completely agree with you in regards to application. But if the argument against hate crimes legislation is one of it nto being equally applied, then, again, the problem lies with the application, and not the legislation.

Again, to be clear, I'm not making a case for hate crimes legislation. I'm pointing out that the arguments against them aren't particularly consistent.

 

I addressed a few of those, but not all. To quote Aunt Mae, I'm not Superman, you know

 

What was your intent?

From the article referenced in the OP:

“....The measure is attached to a must-pass $680 billion defense policy bill and President Barack Obama - unlike President George W. Bush - is a strong supporter....”

Not that a line item veto would do any good right now.
--------------------------------------

'What Was Your Intent?'

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/13/hate_speech_laws/index.html

See the video that accompanies the article. Levant humiliates the bureaucrat, but nevertheless, what a travesty of free speech that he's even there having to respond to this sort of inquiry by the government. California has already passed 'hate speech' laws and the Feds will soon follow suit I fear, regardless of the opinion of the people.

 

"Hate crimes" laws are clearly unconstitutional.

 

Rbell, Click here to see the SUPERPASTOR!!!!