Hate crime legislation

[WRESTLINGFAN]

There was a Bill passed a few years ago named for Matthew Shepard who was gay that was beated and left for dead. This happened back in the late 90s. Bush vetoed it but it looks like Obama will sign it into law
Some who are opposed to it say that every crime is a hate crime because the intent is to cause harm and damage so therefore its not needed. Yesterday I was listening to Thom Hartmann on America Left and basically his interpretation is that if someone intends to do a crime that terrifies an entire community ie Gays, Minorities etc thats grounds for hate crime

Any opinions on this?

[Syd]

If you commit a crime because of who or what that person is, its a hate crime. That's really only the definition for me. Shepard's case is reasonably clear cut that it indeed was a hate crime but I'm obviously biased as I have only heard of it after the fact and wasn't at the trial or read any transcripts of it.

[TheMojoPin]

I understand the intention but ultimately feel that it's redundant given pre-existing criminal and civil rights legislation.

[EliSnow]

I understand the intention but ultimately feel that it's redundant given pre-existing criminal and civil rights legislation.

That's pretty much my feeling as well.

[underdog]

I think hate crime sentences should be based off of the importance of the race of the person you're attacking.

If you attack a white person, you should go to jail for life.
If you attack an Eskimo, no extra time.

I think it's really the only fair way to do it.

[TheMojoPin]

I think hate crime sentences should be based off of the importance of the race of the person you're attacking.

If you attack a white person, you should go to jail for life.
If you attack an Eskimo, no extra time.

I think it's really the only fair way to do it.

I think it should be the opposite: the more rare or relatively rare the person is the more time you get.

So if you kill someone from that Amazin tribe, you're fucked.

[spankyfrank]

Wouldn't this give special treatment to those who want to be treated as equals?

I agree that it probably would be redundant. So long as all the factor's are there for a person to be charged with a crime it really shouldn't matter what the factor's are so longa s they are there.

Lawyers help me out!!!

[TheMojoPin]

Wouldn't this give special treatment to those who want to be treated as equals?

No, because there's a good chance they'd be too dead or mangled to enjoy all of that delicious special treatment.

[sailor]

Wouldn't this give special treatment to those who want to be treated as equals?

I agree that it probably would be redundant. So long as all the factor's are there for a person to be charged with a crime it really shouldn't matter what the factor's are so longa s they are there.

Lawyers help me out!!!

our legal counsel did already.

[underdog]

I think it should be the opposite: the more rare or relatively rare the person is the more time you get.

So if you kill someone from that Amazin tribe, you're fucked.

It really was an amazin' tribe.

[TheMojoPin]

It really was an amazin' tribe.

They peaked at 11.

[sailor]

It really was an amazin' tribe.

http://images5.cafepress.com/product/82842325v6_150x150_Front.jpg

[smiler grogan]

I'm more in line with eli and mojo but what about the laws protecting cops etc. Does that fall into the same line for ya'll, or since they are doing a civil service job they deserve protection. By the way my wifes a cop so I'm biased on this issue.

[EliSnow]

I'm more in line with eli and mojo but what about the laws protecting cops etc. Does that fall into the same line for ya'll, or since they are doing a civil service job they deserve protection. By the way my wifes a cop so I'm biased on this issue.

Which "redundant" laws apply to cops?

[sailor]

I would distinguish cops because of the role they play in our society. The distinction is one group is based on who someone is as opposed to what they do.

I'm not sure what laws you are talking about, but for them to put their lives on the line in the way they do, society needs to take some steps to protect them a little more.

it's apparently a felony to assault a subway conductor (according to postings on trains) which is a bit odd.

that was a quick edit.

[EliSnow]

it's apparently a felony to assault a subway conductor (according to postings on trains) which is a bit odd.

that was a quick edit.

That is distinguishable by what they do. There it appears that society is creating extra punishment not to protect the conductor but also to protect subway passengers.

[EliSnow]

One more point about the subway conductor assault. While that may be a crime, I'm not sure that someone who is accused of such a crime can be convicted for that as well as regular assault. I would think not (and may be wrong), whereas a someone can be charged and convicted with murder as well as an additional federal hate crime. I think there's also no double jeopardy attached if you get tried for murder, and are found not guilty and then the feds charge you with a hate crime.

[topless_mike]

i dont like the taste of hate crime laws.
i dont feel somebody should get extra punishment because im fat, or white, or gay, or whatever.

the punishment should fit the action. im not comfy with extra padding or labels.

[TheMojoPin]

But you're fat, white AND gay.

[sailor]

That is distinguishable by what they do. There it appears that society is creating extra punishment not to protect the conductor but also to protect subway passengers.

from the wording it sounds like they're saying the conductors need extra protection, nothing to do with passengers. like slugging a conductor will get you in extra deep shit than slugging joe schmoe on the street. i just don't see the need.

[TheMojoPin]

from the wording it sounds like they're saying the conductors need extra protection, nothing to do with passengers. like slugging a conductor will get you in extra deep shit than slugging joe schmoe on the street. i just don't see the need.

It has everything to do with the passengers because by endangering the conductor you're endangering them. That's the whole point. It's not designed with the idea of protecting Conductor Chris walking down the street; that's just a byproduct of the legislation. It's to ideally deter people from attacking them on the train and endangering everyone onboard.

[EliSnow]

from the wording it sounds like they're saying the conductors need extra protection, nothing to do with passengers. like slugging a conductor will get you in extra deep shit than slugging joe schmoe on the street. i just don't see the need.

I was thinking that injuring a conductor during transit could possibly put passengers at risk of injury.

The other point that doing so would also cause delays in transit etc. So protecting the conductor serves to help/protect others as well.

[SatCam]

This will help protect all those gangs who seduce and brutally beat racists for no reason other than the fact that theyre racists

[boosterp]

If you commit a crime because of who or what that person is, its a hate crime. That's really only the definition for me. Shepard's case is reasonably clear cut that it indeed was a hate crime but I'm obviously biased as I have only heard of it after the fact and wasn't at the trial or read any transcripts of it.

By that logic than a man who targets a woman or a child is committing a hate crime and should be charged with such.

[Syd]

By that logic than a man who targets a woman or a child is committing a hate crime and should be charged with such.

And? It's still a hate crime, based in hatred of a certain type of person. That means the person in question is in need of rehabilitation above and beyond that of a regular crime.

Also, cops having "extra" protection has less to do with cops and more to do with assaulting a cop preventing society from protecting itself.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Yeah, it’s an outrage! Next thing will be thought crimes against mods! Before you know it the bastards will be cutting you off before you even have a chance to finish a senten

[A.J.]

I understand the intention but ultimately feel that it's redundant given pre-existing criminal and civil rights legislation.

Much like any proposed legislation (e.g. gun control)