Originally Posted by will641

here is a list of points against hate crime laws courtesy wikipedia. say what you want about wikipedia, most of the time they are pretty good.

* Perpetrators of the same criminal act should not be treated differently because they hold different beliefs or motives.
* Over time, these provisions might be disregarded and hate crime laws and associated case law could evolve to the point where speaking out strongly against a particular group or its actions could be construed as a libelous hate crime, violating rights to freedom of expression, thought, religion (among others).
* Penalties that do not include hate-crimes enhancement are already sufficient, in that vandalism, assault and murder have always been illegal and subject to prosecution. The fact that they still occur does not justify infringing on the freedoms of speech and religion.
* It brings the law into disrepute and further divides society, as groups apply to have their critics silenced.
* Religious practices will become subject to government regulation, violating the separation of church and state.
* Allowing a self-declared victim to decide if a crime has occurred violates the principle of objective justice.

Another thing I forgot to mention earlier, was that all these efforts to make the world a less racist one, really have a reverse effect. What most liberals and people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, make everything racial. IMO, they just as racist as any other person, except they don't commit violent crimes.

Political correctness is the worst thing ever!

Originally Posted by euphoricism

Do you have any empirical evidence to back this assertion that minorities lie about being victimized in crimes or are you just being a racist prick?

Originally Posted by euphoricism

Second, it's perfectly just. If you kill a man for absolutely no other reason than he's black/gay/jewish you should indeed get a harsher sentence than if you had a "reason". Americans frown upon random violence. Hate crime statutes are meant to deter random violence against minorities, and allow them to attempt to live without fear.

Originally Posted by AHiltz

Racism is wrong on so many levels. Someone does and others mimic. So, if you have some douche assaulting and or killing others becuase of their race, then you have a very big issue on your hands. One thing leads to another and then you have racial cleansing/holocosts on your hands.

So what I'm saying here is racism is something that needs to be removed. Making harsher penalties for it can act as a deterent, which can hopefully lead to removal.

Originally Posted by Galapogos

I don't think it's wrong for someone to be charged harsher. TBH crime is crime and I don't really care if someone murders someone with intent gets an unfair sentence.

Plus look at a lot of those countries that are fucked up right now. Hatred amongst the different groups of people residing there is a major reason they are so messed up.

I could be speaking out of ignorance though, just throwing that out there.

Originally Posted by will641

It is not equal to punish a man 2x because he is a racist or homophobic or whatever. If a murder is racially motivated, so what? He is still going to get tried for murder.

Originally Posted by Galapogos

I don't think it's wrong for someone to be charged harsher. TBH crime is crime and I don't really care if someone murders someone with intent gets an unfair sentence.

Plus look at a lot of those countries that are fucked up right now. Hatred amongst the different groups of people residing there is a major reason they are so messed up.

I could be speaking out of ignorance though, just throwing that out there.

Originally Posted by grnydrowave2

Yes, lets punish people for their values and belief systems. This is the 21st century folks, so I think it's about time we instated that thought police I've heard so much about.

And as long as we're "removing" people who don't think like us, why stop at racism? There are so many more dangerous things people believe in. I think if we can round up all the racists, pro-choicers, muslims, Bush supporters, vegans, and homosexuals, then lock them up (or better yet, "remove" them), we can gradually take them out of our gene pool, which will lead to a safer, more prosperous future. After all, we don't want another holocaust on our hands.

Originally Posted by will641

Hatred is a byproduct of why those countries such as Venezuala, Libya, Sierra Leone, basically every country in the Middle East, etc. The reason they are fucked up is because of decades of corrupt leaders and horrible dictators, as well as religious radicals.

Originally Posted by will641

Hatred is a byproduct of why those countries such as Venezuala, Libya, Sierra Leone, basically every country in the Middle East, etc. The reason they are fucked up is because of decades of corrupt leaders and horrible dictators, as well as religious radicals.

Originally Posted by euphoricism

I dont even know what to say to that. The killing of an Adulterer is not even remotely comparable to the killings through the decades by groups such as the KKK.

Originally Posted by euphoricism

"Hatred is a byproduct of why those countries such as Venezuala, Libya, Sierra Leone, basically every country in the Middle East, etc. " isn't even a complete sentence. Nor does it even make sense.

I'm beginning to think you're just trolling.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Truthfully, I think this is a judgement based on moral perception and I honestly don't see why the murder of a gay man is any different than an adulterer getting murdered. Call me racist but people tend to overrate their own morality.

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Hmmm, choice? You choose to commit adultery.
You can't, however, choose the color of your skin (or your sexuality. gays are born, apparently)

Originally Posted by euphoricism

Because clearly, there are absolutely no racially motivated crimes committed anymore. You win.

Originally Posted by euphoricism

I dont even know what to say to that. The killing of an Adulterer is not even remotely comparable to the killings through the decades by groups such as the KKK.

Originally Posted by will641

First, I never said there is no such thing as a racially motivate crime. You are spinning it completely.

Originally Posted by will641

That was a mistake on my part. I was writing one thing stopped in the middle of the sentence, went back and changed it, and forgot to complete the sentence .

"Hatred is a byproduct of those countries being fucked up. Countries such as Venezuala, Libya, Sierra Leone, basically every country in the Middle East, etc. [

Originally Posted by euphoricism

If youre not going to punish this man for a hate crime (because hate crimes have been abolished), what are you going to punish him for?

Originally Posted by chardrian

what the world needs now is love sweet love.

oh not just for some, but for everyone.

Originally Posted by galapagos

If hatred is merely a byproduct of the way those countries are run then why does it exist in the US?

Plus is that a fact you've read or are you making an assumption? Not being rude (gotta tread carefully in these kinds of threads), simply asking if you can cite a specific source for this.

Originally Posted by euphoricism

You're really saying we shouldn't arrest the guy when he says "I'm going to kill all the niggers at the NAACP kwanzaa meeting"

Christ.

An even bigger tendency is for the minority to lie about the incident.

Originally Posted by will641

I didn't word that well. I was implying that there are so many false rape cases , so many false sexual harassment law suits, that how do we know there aren't a lot of false hate crime cases. However, be honest, do you think that if you got into a fight with a civil rights activist, not because of he was black, he would say, "no this crime of assault was not racially motivated." Odds are, you will probably think I am racist for saying that and odds are, IMO, that he would say it was motivated based on religion/race/orientation. And, quite frankly if you think that is naive, I think you should take a look in the mirror.

Originally Posted by euphoricism

No.

(as in, No, that doesnt fit, not no I didnt read it again. They weren't charged with a hate crime. Failgasm.)

Originally Posted by euphoricism

Its not a hate crime because NO ONE WAS CHARGED WITH A HATE CRIME.

I mean, I can think of four or five cases just from my intro law class that would fit, and you go with one that never even saw a courtroom.

Originally Posted by euphoricism

No you didn't. You gave me an example of how someone falsifies a rape accusation against 6 white police officers and then goes on TV and says it was about race.

You need to read the legal definition of hate crime, because that does not fit it.

Originally Posted by euphoricism

"hate crime" has a legal definition... A hate crime has to be charged by the prosecution, and decided upon by the jury...

I certainly won't argue with you that certain minority groups use their minority status to gain attention in the media...

But thats an entirely different argument than whether hate crime statutes should be removed...