Man Is Held in Anti-Muslim Stabbing of Cabdriver

[audtatious]

You haven't been driven through many trailer parks, I take it?

fixed that for you.
and no

U Mad

[IBCoupe]

The ones that DON'T say that Blacks / Gays / Women / Jews / Mormons / the elderly / etc are to blame for all of society's ills.

Every group gets a free pass but the white hetero male. We're the ones that are expected to "be more tolerant".

Irrationally high expectations do not hate make.

[AZhitman]

I could say the same of all those other demographics.

...which is why legislation based on "classes of people" was a bad idea to begin with, EVEN if they had the best of intentions.

[IBCoupe]

Wait, you're conflating two completely different things - a societal view of some as being more likely than others to be hateful, and the legal mechanism of a very specific mens rea condition opening one up to additional charges and punishment.

In all reality, the operating mechanism of hate crime legislation is no different than any other non-strict-liability crime. There are many other charges that require a very specific state of mind in order to proceed.

Given your background, I'm sure you're already familiar with this, Greg, but I'll elaborate: for example, if you're in a national park and you shoot at a park ranger who happens to have been sleeping with your wife, and the reason you shot at him was personal, you have violated U.S.C. Random Crime A, which involves intentionally shooting at a federal officer.

If, however, you take that same exact action with the specific intent to prevent that park ranger from doing his job in discovering and arresting you for growing marijuana in the woods, that's an additional charge. Not only do you get charged with U.S.C. Random Crime A (intentionally shooting at a federal officer), but you also get charged with U.S.C. Random Crime A-2 (intentionally shooting at a federal officer so as to impede the officer in his offical duties).

Hate crime legislation is no different - it just so happens you might disagree with the criminalization of this particular special intent.

[AZhitman]

If, however, you take that same exact action with the specific intent to prevent that park ranger from doing his job in discovering and arresting you for growing marijuana in the woods, that's an additional charge. Not only do you get charged with U.S.C. Random Crime A (intentionally shooting at a federal officer), but you also get charged with U.S.C. Random Crime A-2 (intentionally shooting at a federal officer so as to impede the officer in his offical duties).

What if he's also a Black Muslim homosexual?

it just so happens you might disagree with the criminalization of this particular special intent.

I think it's safe to say that I do.

"Hate" is simply too nebulous. I mean, in your first example, no one would disagree that a man would likely feel "hate" for someone sleeping with his wife... yet "homewrecker" isn't a protected class.

[IBCoupe]

A victim who happens to be one of those few things isn't enough to incur the wrath of hate crime laws. Again, we're talking about a very specific mental state. You had to have the special intent of interfering with your victim's official duties, or you had to have the special intent of targeting your victim on the basis of his qualifying feature, or you had to have the special intent of scaring your victim away from testifying against you.

"Homewrecker" isn't a protected class because, as I've written before, it's about the message you're sending to the public. "I'll kill people for sleeping with my wife" speaks to a smaller audience (well, I suppose, that depends on one's wife... maybe it's not so small an audience) than "I'll kill people for being gay." The hate crime legislation, at its heart, doesn't care about your feelings - it cares about your reasoning, and the action on that basis.

[BusyBadger]

Because we're rapidly heading towards well-covered ground...

have-lefties-abandoned-tolerance-and-re ... 79578.html

[AZhitman]

...and to judge my "reasoning" is to know my thoughts.

I've known people with MUCH more deep-seated hate for certain groups than the Grand Wizard and Adolf Hitler rolled together... Yet a prosecutor would never know. Had that person committed a crime against a "protected class", there'd have been no hate crime charge tacked on.

Saying "I hate Chinks" is no crime. I can scream it at the top of my lungs, paint it on the side of my car, walk right through Chinatown carrying a sign that says it. If I commit a crime against an Asian person, to then add additional charges that WOULD NOT be added to another person who commits the same crime, doesn't publicly proclaim their "hate" (but thinks it every waking moment), is disparate treatment, and, as such, is unfair. It's a lesser punishment for an equally culpable (and equally vile) person.

[IBCoupe]

It's not a strict liability thing, Greg. It's something that has to be proved. You can't just allege it and have it be the case - there has to be a basis that is believable.

[stebo0728]

It's not a strict liability thing, Greg. It's something that has to be proved. You can't just allege it and have it be the case - there has to be a basis that is believable.

Either way you slice it, its prosecution of emotion and thought, it sets an ill precedent, and its wrong.

[AZhitman]

It's not a strict liability thing, Greg. It's something that has to be proved. You can't just allege it and have it be the case - there has to be a basis that is believable.

You're flailing. You're not going to go very far as an attorney if you think thoughts can be proven. It's flawed and you know it.

[IBCoupe]

Motive already has to be "proved" (insofar as you need to get 12 people to believe you) for many other charges. This isn't new.

It may be flawed, but it's not flawed for the reasons you two just said.

[stebo0728]

My point is that thought and emotion is not a motive that should be punishable by law.

[IBCoupe]

And my point is that, if that's the case, there's a great deal more than hate crime legislation in our legal system that you should be opposed to.

[audtatious]

And my point is that, if that's the case, there's a great deal more than hate crime legislation in our legal system that you should be opposed to.

That is true as premeditated murder comes with a heavier sentence than other forms of homicide.