Originally Posted By barboy This response is to all that keep bringing up the fact that hate crimes are laws----yes, we get it already in fact we knew it before it was even said on this topic. The fact that the law was passed bipartisanly, the fact that the Supremes upheld the law, the fact that motivation as a factor in sentencing has been around for many years or that many precedents apply does not mean that the law is sound, fair or high quality public policy. A stronger argument is to show why the law is needed(which has been presented on a limited basis so far). Dabob2 made the most compelling points so far. I take issue with the law for two reasons: redundancy and 1st Amendment issues.
Originally Posted By DAR Scenario: Let's say a white supremacist group blows up a black church. Kills everyone in the church, but five of the victims are white people who were at the church. Now what happens in this scenario, does the whole incident become a hate crime? Or does it only apply to the certain victims in this case?
Originally Posted By jonvn " the fact that motivation as a factor in sentencing has been around for many years or that many precedents apply does not mean that the law is sound, fair or high quality public policy." The reason it is sound public policy is because motive and intent are part of what makes our laws what they are. These sorts of "hate" sorts of motives are simply additional categories for criteria that already exist. There have been many examples here how this works, and why. "Now what happens in this scenario, does the whole incident become a hate crime?" Again, this goes to the intent and motive of the criminals. That's what this is all about.
Originally Posted By barboy DAR to know the answer we would need to know whether the ones who blew the church up purposely targeted a black church due to their hatred of blacks. If the church had 100 members and 99 were white and 1 was black and the terrorist group hated blacks and targeted the church knowing that a black would be victimized I'll bet that the state could successfully pursue the matter as a hate crime.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Again, this goes to the intent and motive of the criminals. That's what this is all about.>> But the end result is that a crime was committed, regardless of motive and intent, there are victims.
Originally Posted By barboy And Kar2oon your cop killing analogy seems very appropriate because and it follows that one who favors harsher penalties for "cop killers" would favor harsher penalies for hate motivated crimes. Since I think that all life is equally valuable whehter the pres of US, an infant, a teacher, an Asian, bisexual or someone elderly I am not in favor additional penalties for crimes against emergency personnel.
Originally Posted By jonvn "But the end result is that a crime was committed" It's not just the end result. More than just that is taken into account. That appears to be a stumbling block here. You don't just go by the end result. This is why there are varying degrees for felonies. As has been said before, you can be convicted of murder in the first, second, or third degree. Or you can be convicted of manslaughter, in the first, second or third degree. The end result in both cases is that a crime was committed, and that someone ended up dead. But because intent and motive are taken into account, we have varying degrees or levels of what you can be convicted of.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Now what happens in this scenario, does the whole incident become a hate crime? Or does it only apply to the certain victims in this case?< they were killed as part of a hate crime - period....won't matter if they are white /blacl asian or anything else- the factor that caused their death was motivated by hate
Originally Posted By DAR <<The end result in both cases is that a crime was committed, and that someone ended up dead. But because intent and motive are taken into account, we have varying degrees or levels of what you can be convicted of. >> And is it fair to the victims loved one's?
Originally Posted By barboy Something tells me(and I don't know if there is a precedent) that if one hatefully targeted and ultimately shot up the home of a a black family and it turns out that actually a white family lived there that the state could pursue the matter as a hate crime--- just guessing on this one.
Originally Posted By jonvn You don't have to actually commit the crime. You can be convicted of conspiracy to commit a criminal act. So, probably, yes.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Since I think that all life is equally valuable whehter the pres of US, an infant, a teacher, an Asian, bisexual or someone elderly I am not in favor additional penalties for crimes against emergency personnel.<< Actually, to be clear, I'm in favor of harsher penalties for any murderer. But the fact is, if someone kills a president, that is not the same as if they kill me. The loss of the president impacts the world, so it stands to reason that while no one blows off the seriousness of killling an average person as unimportant, the punishment for killing a president ought to be the maximum allowable under the law. It's a case of a killing being worse, and another worser.
Originally Posted By barboy "Actually, to be clear, I'm in favor of harsher penalties for any murderer" well, can't get any harsher than death unless you mean torcher(which I know you don't) first then hanging or whatever method a state may use.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "unless you mean torcher" Like a torchiere lamp? Or, hey wait a minute, you mean TORTURE...... OHHHHH....
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>well, can't get any harsher than death<< You're right. I should have said 'harsh'.
Originally Posted By DAR << the punishment for killing a president ought to be the maximum allowable under the law.>> I agree with that no question, but it should also be considered for the average citizen. In God's eyes both are equal.
