Someone on DU has fallen for the "Special Rights" RW meme when it comes to Hate Crime Laws

It's a variant of the phrase, and you can find it in the latest breaking news section.

Hate Crimes Laws are not about "Special Rights", they're about EQUAL RIGHTS.

And they're also not about "Thought Crimes", they punish REAL CRIMES.

Some criminals don't just look for opportunity or vendetta as a basis for their crimes, some criminals really do base who they will steal from, whose houses they will burn down, and sometimes who they will assault and even murder not on those first two things, but on the color of their victim's skin, what religion they are an adherent of, their sexuality, and plenty of other things as well.

Do you want a criminal who could target you because of not what they think you have in your house, but because of who you are, out on the streets after a short period of prison?

Maybe we can have a tolerance program in prisons that can reduce the additional sentencing given to criminals convicted of hate crimes, but I will always support hate crimes laws because they say to criminals that it is not OK to apply their hatred and bigotry onto innocent people.

Honestly that's a pretty stupid reason to support hate crimes laws because it specifically makes it a thought crime. You murder someone because they are gay or because they slept with your wife and it's still a murder.

Would you want a non-criminal who wrote a thousand page opus on how great it would be to beat the shit out of asians walking around, even if they haven't committed any crime yet?

A better justification is that Hate Crimes punish two crimes. The punish the actual lawbreaking (vandalism, murder, rape, etc.) and the attempt to terrorize a community. If a racist beats up a black guy, it's not just an assault on that black guy - it's intended as a message to the black community - you'd better watch out. That's why Hate Crimes laws are justified in my opinion.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Hate crimes terrorize a community, not just individuals.

"Would you want a non-criminal who wrote a thousand page opus on how great it would be to beat the shit out of asians walking around, even if they haven't committed any crime yet?"

In general I am against locking up non-criminals. But that is just me. It is a quaint and old fashioned idea.

Presumably you knew that, but maybe not. You are one of those inclined to assume the worst.

Bryant

Consider my comment a clarification on your intended meaning. Some people leap straight from hate as an extenuating circumstance to a crime, to hate as a crime in and of itself, without much hesitation.

What is a meme? Sorry, don't know that term.

I think all criminal acts of violence are hatred because the criminals show an utter disrespect for the humanity of the victim. To me, there's really no difference between someone killing another person for the $50 in their pocket or because they're black, white, yellow, gay, bi, etc. The criminal is still taking an innocent life for their own selfish desires. What motivates the crime is immaterial to me.

Your post suggests that a criminal who preys on people because of prejudice is somehow more of a danger than a criminal who preys on people for money. And lastly, murder is still illegal no matter what the driving force behind it.

That's exactly the point. Hate crimes are a form of terrorism. They intimidate and hurt entire communities of people, not just the individuals affected.

For instance, if the Klan burns a cross on a black family's lawn, the threatening message to every other African American in that community is very clear.

In contrast, if a member of the Klan robs an individual African American person without communicating any general threat related to the victim's ethnicity, it is not a hate crime.

I'm sorry, but you are absolutely wrong when you say there are not "special rights" granted. The hate crimes legislation allows for additional resources to police departments to investigate and prosecute those crimes. So, if a member of my lilly-white waspy family is bludgeoned to death in the street, the police department could conceivably back-burner the investigation because this laws allows for more money, manpower and resources to go after someone who bludgeoned to death a black citizen or a gay citizen.

We're all citizens of the same community. These laws actually further segregate us, codifying our differences as being legally "special" instead of demanding that police forces treat EVERY crime as a crime against the larger community.

.

I just made it all up to amuse you. What a crazy, nutty concept, huh? Y'know that we're all supposed to be equal members of the same community! What a laugh riot.

:eyes:

.

Oh, I forgot the n/t.

(I love these deep "subject line" discussions).

.

and I can't make heads or tails of your post. It makes no sense whatsoever.

We all felt terrorized and afraid..

Judging by your other posts here, I'm sure that you felt very very afraid.

.... IS a special crime - it's a crime that wouldn't have occurred otherwise. It's a special circumstances crime, ala terrorism.

So just criminal acts of violence are hatred? By that belief, how would you define the Massacre at Wounded Knee, or the Pogroms against the Jews in Tsarist Russia, or better yet the Holocaust?

All of those acts of violence were not criminal because the laws at those times allowed them to occur with no punishment for the perpetrators, because they were not committing criminal acts! Those crimes were committed based on hatred and fear of the victims, and it was acceptable by many at the time.

Someone who prey on victims because of race, religion, sexuality, is more dangerous because they are sending a message to all members of that particular group.

How can motivation mean nothing, it's one of the things that prosecutors look for, and sometimes it plays a very important part in criminal cases.

It what separates manslaughter from premeditated murder. Why do you need to create even MORE classifications of crimes with which judges and juries must contend? If the mitigating circumstance is race or sexual orientation, the prosecutor can and should point those facts out to the judge and jury and should seek appropriate redress. And he should be just as zealous in prosecuting ANY murderer, not just the murderers of these newly-created "special classes" of people. People who have been demanding "equal rights" in all other aspects of life -- except for this aspect of revenge and vengeance, when emotions run high. Now they don't want to be treated the same. They want special classifications, special laws pointing out that if you kill them, they're special-er than if you kill a "regular" citizen.

I see little difference in this and the same-sex marriage issue (except the obvious love-murder thing): I am totally opposed to the concept of "civil unions," too. Why? Not because I oppose the relationships, but because the Constitution says we're all created equal under the law, and therefore every citizen should be afforded the same rights. Granting a "civil union" creates a sub-species of citizens, people who the court decrees don't actually have all the same rights assured them in the Constitution. A person's choice of life partner is no fucking business of the courts. The constitution says so...we're all created equal. So I demand nothing less than full parity in all aspects of the law. Demanding parity when it's something like marriage, but then saying there should be special situations in other aspects of the law, well, that's not "equal." Hate crimes create a "special class" exactly as civil unions create a "special class. We're either created equal or we're not. You can't pick and choose who gets to be more equal in certain circumstances.

.

If necessary.

To my knowledge, in the cases of both Joseph Byrd and Matthew Shepherd, the established racist/homophobic attitudes of the perps were not admissible.

That's just plain stupid.

But, on the other hand, I really don't think it makes the crime itself worse.

If either Joseph or Matthew had been random victims. Or even involved in the classic "drug deal gone bad" it wouldn't make what happened to them any less heinous.

Being dragged behind a truck until you are decapitated by a culvert or beaten to a pulp and tied to a fence on a bitterly cold night are both ugly ways to die.

I'd want the perps to be prosecuted and get MAX time whatever their motivation.

group of people.

I lived in Boston. Those murders terrorized an entire city. "A whole group of people" whose special circumstance was that they lived in Boston. Was that their fault? Should they all have just up and moved out?

They were a whole group of people, a group of people terrified to open their doors to the gas man or the electric company, being sent a message that just because you live here, you could be next.

But that's different, I guess. The Boston Strangler wasn't just killing blacks or gays.

Hmm.

.

Big difference, and it shows the flaw in your analogy.

Motivation is not the same as geography.

And those who inflict domestic violence or murder of their spouses or children have often carried out a campaign of terror and intimidation for years.

Also, gang violence cripples and terrorizes the decent citizens in a community. That type of intimidation and fear knows no race or identity either.

I think most, if not all, violent crime is intended to intimidate.

And as I said above, having a history of racist or prejudiced views should ABSOLUTELY be able to be used as evidence to arrest, detain and interrogate a suspect. It should also be presented as evidence in a trial. So far as Hate Crime legislation being used for this purpose, I am 100% on board.

But as far as automatically increasing a sentence?

I'm not convinced that is either needed or useful.

And so far as arresting people for stating racist or homophobic thoughts?
Absolutely NOT!

That could far too easily shift to suppressing a political opposition.

Police, politicians, and children (to name just three obvious examples) are already given a privileged status when it comes to crimes committed against them, simply because of who they are.

How are these crimes different from other crimes whose victims are deliberately chosen based on the victims' inclusion in some broad category of race, sex, gender identity, etc.?

I'll have to use it sometime.

Thing is, I'm actually a little bit sympathetic to the argument against hate crimes legislation. I do think that the idea of terrorizing a community should play a part and should be considered in sentencing, for example, but I do have some (not much, but some) Constitutional queasiness against establishing statutes that make it an order-of-magnitude more serious to do this or that act of violence or intimidation against another individual based on their race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

But on balance, I still support such laws.

"but I do have some (not much, but some) Constitutional queasiness against establishing statutes that make it an order-of-magnitude more serious to do this or that act of violence or intimidation against another individual based on their race, gender, religion or sexual orientation."

I bad guy stalks too couples who've just left the theater, a black couple and white couple. He follows them for a few blocks, until they're both about to hop into their Bimmers. He decides to put his gun to the temple of the white guy because he now knows that if he gets busted for capping the black guy he'll get a longer, harsher sentence.

So then...wasn't the white guy killed specifically because of his race? Because of the class of people he belonged to? Not according to this new law. His death wasn't as serious, just because he was white.

.

it's pretty far fetched. "Oh, I'm a street thug, and I'm thinking like a criminal mastermind, weighing my sentencing options if I get caught..."

You obviously see the issue, though. That is why you chose not to address the discrepancies by attempting to belittle my example. By doing so, you only serve to validate my concern and underscore the hypocrisy of a "hate crime" bill.

.

You're using a ridiculous hypothetical, which is pretty typical in these discussions.

I'm gonna keep supporting hate crimes legislation just to piss you off. Happy?

Isn't this entire thread based upon an OP calling out DUers for their ignorance in buying the "special class" meme?

This just gets curiouser and curiouser.

.

Over and over again opponents of hate-crime legislation criticize these laws for affording "privileged status" to a specific subset of society.

My intent was to demonstrate that this "privileged status," if such it may be called, is already afforded to wide sections of society.

It's not that a certain person is singled out as "special;" the issue is that certain crimes are punished with greater severity when those crimes entail mitigating circumstances (motivations of racial intimidation; murdering a congressman, etc.)

All people are (in theory) equal under the law; all crimes are not.

I support them, but people often don't understand the most compelling argument for them.

This is my personal problem with Hate Crime laws. They will be misused in the South where they will become the equivalent of a legal lynching of any Black criminal who dares to prey on anyone outside his or her own group. A White who lynches a Black on the other hand will have to be a card carrying member of the KKK to be convicted of a hate crime in Dixie--with his dues paid up.

Be careful of the punishment you design for your enemy.

You stated it so much better than I was apparently able.

I was ridiculed in an earlier posting for my example of an urban crime, but then...I'm from an urban area in the Northeast. I used an urban example. But yours is PERFECT. And it is one none of the hate-crime advocates seem willing to address. This is a ludicrous law that leaves loopholes which the real hater can drive Mack trucks through. But they refuse to see that side of it. They can't see that the law is only as strong as the most clever lawyer. They thing that just by giving it a label it will...oh, fuck...I don't think they're thinking much at all.

.