by Elwher » Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:01 pm
by Scomagia » Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:23 pm
Elwher wrote:I do not believe that "Hate Crime" legislation is at all justifiable, at least under US law.
First, It is punishment for thought, not action. The action that is being punished is already criminal under statutes for murder, manslaughter, or assault; the only reason for the additional punishment is what the perpetrator thought about the victim.
Second, it should be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. That guarantees equal protection under the law, yet if I am a member of a protected class I am protected more fully than if I am not a member of one. That is not, to me at least, equal protection under the law.
Reactions?
by LiberNovusAmericae » Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:39 pm
by Inggland » Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:44 pm
by Inggland » Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:46 pm
Inggland wrote:Hate can only be done in private or if the person allows the hating person to say things like that, or else they get sent to jail for 23 years and phones in their room are thrown and if the other person doesn't have that crime they can keep their phone but they can't allow the hater to have it or else the sharing person gets the same punishment.
by Unithonia » Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:46 pm
LiberNovusAmericae wrote:Hate crime laws are constitutional unless they are specifically biased towards a specific group. (ie. prescribing harsher punishments for an attack against a black than an attack against a white).
Conserative Morality wrote:You're supporting a sense of rationality over rational concerns, which would result in the conclusion that rationality is of no inherent benefit.
by Kowani » Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:46 pm
by Des-Bal » Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:51 pm
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by The New California Republic » Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:54 pm
by Scomagia » Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:13 pm
Inggland wrote:Inggland wrote:Hate can only be done in private or if the person allows the hating person to say things like that, or else they get sent to jail for 23 years and phones in their room are thrown and if the other person doesn't have that crime they can keep their phone but they can't allow the hater to have it or else the sharing person gets the same punishment.
Or when nobody is around then you have to dab because dabbing is toxic and a hate symbol in Ingglish loving culture
by Kowani » Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:13 pm
Inggland wrote:Inggland wrote:Hate can only be done in private or if the person allows the hating person to say things like that, or else they get sent to jail for 23 years and phones in their room are thrown and if the other person doesn't have that crime they can keep their phone but they can't allow the hater to have it or else the sharing person gets the same punishment.
Or when nobody is around then you have to dab because dabbing is toxic and a hate symbol in Ingglish loving culture
by San Lumen » Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:24 pm
Elwher wrote:I do not believe that "Hate Crime" legislation is at all justifiable, at least under US law.
First, It is punishment for thought, not action. The action that is being punished is already criminal under statutes for murder, manslaughter, or assault; the only reason for the additional punishment is what the perpetrator thought about the victim.
Second, it should be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. That guarantees equal protection under the law, yet if I am a member of a protected class I am protected more fully than if I am not a member of one. That is not, to me at least, equal protection under the law.
Reactions?
by Saiwania » Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:35 pm
San Lumen wrote:Bigotry and racism have no place anywhere and one should be able to be prosecuted for it.
by Scomagia » Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:43 pm
San Lumen wrote:Elwher wrote:I do not believe that "Hate Crime" legislation is at all justifiable, at least under US law.
First, It is punishment for thought, not action. The action that is being punished is already criminal under statutes for murder, manslaughter, or assault; the only reason for the additional punishment is what the perpetrator thought about the victim.
Second, it should be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. That guarantees equal protection under the law, yet if I am a member of a protected class I am protected more fully than if I am not a member of one. That is not, to me at least, equal protection under the law.
Reactions?
Bigotry and racism have no place anywhere and one should be able to be prosecuted for it. Why shouldn't Dylan Roof be charged with a hate crime in addition to murder?
How is it unconstitutional? Just because your not one of the groups mentioned doesnt mean they have more rights than you.
There can be anti white crimes too.
by San Lumen » Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:45 pm
Scomagia wrote:San Lumen wrote:Bigotry and racism have no place anywhere and one should be able to be prosecuted for it. Why shouldn't Dylan Roof be charged with a hate crime in addition to murder?
How is it unconstitutional? Just because your not one of the groups mentioned doesnt mean they have more rights than you.
There can be anti white crimes too.
If the law specifically protected groups to which not everyone belongs then the law would be both immoral and unconstitutional. That's why it's not a specific crime to beat up a black person for being black but rather for beating anyone on the basis of their race. Everyone belongs to the protected classes, otherwise it wouldn't be constitutional.
by Scomagia » Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:49 pm
San Lumen wrote:Scomagia wrote:If the law specifically protected groups to which not everyone belongs then the law would be both immoral and unconstitutional. That's why it's not a specific crime to beat up a black person for being black but rather for beating anyone on the basis of their race. Everyone belongs to the protected classes, otherwise it wouldn't be constitutional.
which is why hate crimes law includes all hence i don't see how they are unconstitutional according the the OP.
by San Lumen » Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:52 pm
Scomagia wrote:San Lumen wrote:
which is why hate crimes law includes all hence i don't see how they are unconstitutional according the the OP.
I was quibbling with your wording here: "Just because your not one of the groups mentioned doesnt mean they have more rights than you." Maybe it implied something you weren't trying to say? It reads like you're supporting specific protections for individual classes of people. I see that's probably not what you meant.
by Bezkoshtovnya » Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:59 pm
LiberNovusAmericae wrote:Hate crime laws are constitutional unless they are specifically biased towards a specific group. (ie. prescribing harsher punishments for an attack against a black than an attack against a white).
Dante Alighieri wrote:There is no greater sorrow than to recall happiness in times of misery
Charlie Chaplin wrote:Nothing is permanent in this wicked world, not even our troubles.
by San Lumen » Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:03 pm
Bezkoshtovnya wrote:LiberNovusAmericae wrote:Hate crime laws are constitutional unless they are specifically biased towards a specific group. (ie. prescribing harsher punishments for an attack against a black than an attack against a white).
I largely second this position. Unless the punishment for a hate crime is different according to the groups involved I dont really see an issue.
Plus, in regards to your position on the state of mind or thought being a factor in a crime, that has always been a factor such as the degrees of murder.
by United Muscovite Nations » Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:28 pm
Scomagia wrote:Elwher wrote:I do not believe that "Hate Crime" legislation is at all justifiable, at least under US law.
First, It is punishment for thought, not action. The action that is being punished is already criminal under statutes for murder, manslaughter, or assault; the only reason for the additional punishment is what the perpetrator thought about the victim.
Second, it should be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. That guarantees equal protection under the law, yet if I am a member of a protected class I am protected more fully than if I am not a member of one. That is not, to me at least, equal protection under the law.
Reactions?
I used to agree with this line of thinking before it was pointed out to me that we already punish crimes differently based on intent. If we fight and I kill you, that's going to result in different penalties and charges than if I crept up behind you and killed you in cold blood.
Technically speaking anyone can be a victim of a hate crime because everyone is a member of protected classes. If someone assaults you for your race, that's a hate crime. I'm not familiar with any US legislation that specifically criminalizes attacks against Jews as a hate crime but doesn't do so for, say, White people. So, there's no 14th Amendment violations, either.
by Xmara » Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:29 pm
Elwher wrote:I do not believe that "Hate Crime" legislation is at all justifiable, at least under US law.
First, It is punishment for thought, not action. The action that is being punished is already criminal under statutes for murder, manslaughter, or assault; the only reason for the additional punishment is what the perpetrator thought about the victim.
Second, it should be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. That guarantees equal protection under the law, yet if I am a member of a protected class I am protected more fully than if I am not a member of one. That is not, to me at least, equal protection under the law.
Reactions?
by Ifreann » Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:37 pm
The New California Republic wrote:Mens rea is a well-established component of criminal law. It allows us to differentiate intentional acts from accidental ones, which can make a world of difference in terms of deciding whether someone is criminally liable or negligently liable for something, and can also make the difference between someone being charged with murder or manslaughter.
by Elwher » Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:19 pm
The New California Republic wrote:Mens rea is a well-established component of criminal law. It allows us to differentiate intentional acts from accidental ones, which can make a world of difference in terms of deciding whether someone is criminally liable or negligently liable for something, and can also make the difference between someone being charged with murder or manslaughter.
by San Lumen » Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:20 pm
Elwher wrote:The New California Republic wrote:Mens rea is a well-established component of criminal law. It allows us to differentiate intentional acts from accidental ones, which can make a world of difference in terms of deciding whether someone is criminally liable or negligently liable for something, and can also make the difference between someone being charged with murder or manslaughter.
But why should there be a different punishment if I kill someone due to their race as opposed to killing them because I just do not like them?
The killing was just as intentional in either case, and the victim is just as dead. Mens Rea is still the same, I had a deliberate intent to commit the crime. It is just a different reason.
by Dogmeat » Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:00 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cyptopir, Haganham, Keltionialang, Liberal gunslingers, Omphalos, The Lone Alliance, The Vooperian Union
Advertisement