Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF I didn't say it made it worse. The fact that the crime took place BECAUSE of the bias is what's at issue here.
Originally Posted By barboy "I'm no attorney, but even I know that in order to convict someone of a hate crime, the prosecution has to prove that the crime was motivated by bias. Sometimes that is difficult to prove." No, Just to let you know the state doesn't have to "prove" anything to get a conviction. The state only needs to persuade or convince a jury with or without proof. "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't always apply.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF Put the goalposts back. I'll let SPP weigh in on the conviction bit, since I don't know what I'm talking about...
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Exactly right Barboy. It has no bearing on the victim if it was a " hate crime ". The damage is the same. The REAL reason liberals like hate crime laws is because they get a chance to stick it to a person who dared attack one of their special groups like gays or some other minority. It makes them feel better because they think they are helping out the poor minorty who was preyed upon by some bigot or homophobe. It's more liberal PC nonsense gone wild. If someone does a crime you nail them for the crime, not who they did the crime too or why they did the crime. The race or the sexuality doens't matter. To show how silly this is and why liberals make no sense when you really look at their " ideas " just ask youself why attacking a rich republican isn't a hate crime? Or attacking someone who looked at you funny isn't a hate crime? Or any other attack for that matter. These same " concerned " libs will then insist Tookie Williams or some other convicted murderer NOT get executed, but instead get treatment and compassion. Coulter has a great chapter in her latest book about this exact topic and she nails it as usual. It's why her book was number 1 for so long.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I didn't say it made it worse. The fact that the crime took place BECAUSE of the bias is what's at issue here.> That is correct; for instance, the Jewish center that is the original topic here wouldn't have been attacked in the first place if the attacker hadn't hated Jews in general. In addition, the rationale behind hate crimes is that the attacker plants fear - terrorizes, if you will - an entire group with his actions. Perhaps now, for instance, Jewish people who frequented that center might be scared of going there. That affects the whole community. Other examples: black people (or white people) might be afraid of going into the "wrong" neighborhood, even for something as mundane as answering an ad for a used car; say, a black guy wants to answer an ad for a car that seems appealing, but opts not to go because a black guy was beat up by a white gang in that neighborhood recently (or vice versa). He misses out on that car for no good reason. Or a gay couple is afraid to give each other a simple peck on the cheek in public because they're afraid of violence. That's (one of the) rationales behind hate crimes. Agree with it or not (and I'm pretty ambiguous), but if you want to know the rationale, there it is.
Originally Posted By barboy "I didn't say it made it worse. The fact that the crime took place BECAUSE of the bias is what's at issue here.." Hey Blue, it's more than obvious that I didn't say that you said that it is worse---so why make that declaration??? Anyway, care to answer my question? How is it WORSE for the victim?
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF Dabob said it better than I could. Also, bias-motivated crimes, from what I see in the news, are especially heinous and violent.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Dabob, none of that matters to the victim. A crime is a crime is a crime. Are you saying terrorists should get LONGER sentences than say a person who shoots his wife how he hates? If so, then why are liberals always pushing for a terrorist bill of rights and other protections for them. YOu see, nothing on the left is ever consitent. It's not consistent because you guys operate on emotions and feelings. Hate crime laws are simply a way to make people FEEL better because they can really stick it to that "homophobe" or "bigot". It's all about the feeeeelings and not practicality or common sense with the left. In my opinion.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It's more liberal PC nonsense gone wild.<< Yesterday you said it was never used against blacks who attack whites. Then you shifted to 'almost never' when one example was provided. Then when it was shown that 20% of hate crime victims were white, you said it makes authorites 'guess' at the intent. Then when that's shown to be wrong as well, you resort to this. It's clear that on this subject, like so many others in world events, you never let facts never get in the way of your opinion.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It's all about the feeeeelings<< Michael Savage called. He'd like you to stop lifting his material.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It's clear that on this subject, like so many others in world events, you never let facts never get in the way of your opinion.> Boy howdy. Add to that the "terrorist bill of rights." I've seen Beau use that phrase countless times as though something like that actually existed; of course, it's a phrase he got from his radio, like so much else, and it just makes it that much harder to take him seriously.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Dabob, none of that matters to the victim. A crime is a crime is a crime.> You missed the point. The rationale is that NOT ONLY are, for example, the Jews who actually got hurt in that attack victims, but so is anybody who's now scared stiff to go to that community center. The additional penalty is meant as punishment for what the perp did to terrorize others not involved in the actual attack. Agree or disagree, that's the reasoning; it has nothing to do with whether the direct victim is "more hurt" or not. <Are you saying terrorists should get LONGER sentences than say a person who shoots his wife how he hates?> Well, it's hard to get longer than a life sentence, which is presumably what someone convicted of murder one gets... but actually, Beau, there are highly conservative people that you normally agree with who are arguing exactly that for terrorists. Even if they've hurt NO ONE and are caught in the planning stages, they will likely be subject to greater penalties than someone caught in the planning stages of a non-terrorist crime, for the very reason stated above; if successful, they terrorize thousands or millions of people, not just the direct victims. Highly conservative (and liberal, by the way) people argue for exactly that - but apparently you didn't know that and haven't been told what to think about it yet.
Originally Posted By barboy "the Jewish center that is the original topic here wouldn't have been attacked in the first place if the attacker hadn't hated Jews in general." Very,very true.......but so what!! Hey, my friend in Venice Beach Calif. would not have been gunned down in the street if the perprtrator would not have been motivated by greed(he was looking to rob my friend). bias or greed.....does it really matter.
Originally Posted By mele Well, Beau, if you or your family are ever the victims of a hate crime, you can prove how stupid you think the laws are by asking for less jail time for the perpetrator. Problem solved.
Originally Posted By mele <<bias or greed.....does it really matter.>> It does matter. Our legal system makes distinctions between crimes all of the time. Our society feels that some crimes are worse than others. Of course Beau doesn't think homophobes should be prosecuted because of their hate. Big surprise there.
Originally Posted By barboy "(hate crimes) are especially heinous and violent." once again....so what, so is decapitating another because one likes to collect heads. Is it any worse than if one likes to specifacally target Asians skulls?
Originally Posted By jonvn "This is a very empty answer. Got anything else?" OK, motive and intent are very different things and both are used in prosecution and in sentencing. Motive is the reason you commit the crime. For example, you robbed someone because you wanted money for drugs. Intent is how your planning of the crime. So, how this generally works is that if someone gets killed, their spouse is usually looked at as a suspect because you often have a motive even though you didn't intend to do it. That is called a crime of passion. Motive, but no intent. Accidents have neither motive nor intent, although you can still be criminally liable for them, if you did something via negligence or recklessness. You don't have motive or intent if you are speeding, run a red light, and kill someone to go to jail over it. Nearly all crimes have both motive and intent, though. Some have one, some have the other, some have neither. You can actually be prosecuted for having intent to do something, but never doing it. For example, conspiracy to commit a crime. You don't actually have to commit the crime in order to be prosecuted for it. In 1993, the SCOTUS ruled unanimously that hate crime laws and enhanced sentences based on intent are Constitutional. Chief Justice Rehnquist noted at the time that judges have always been allowed to consider the motive when imposing sentences. He also noted that hate crimes inflict distinct emotional harm on the victim and can cause other social problems. This is how it is, and how it has been. This is why we have multiple degrees for felonies such as murder in the first, second or third degree, on down to various degrees of manslaughter. Motive and intent are very important matters in the law, and that is what hate crimes address.
