Hate Crime Legislation

[Elwher]

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?

[Scomagia]

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.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

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).

[Inggland]

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.

[Inggland]

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

[Unithonia]

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).

Seconded

[Kowani]

Nah. What Scomagia said.

[Des-Bal]

Pro hate crime legislation insofar as it does not criminalize an act that isn't already illegal and that it's applied on the basis of the category not sub-category. That is to say yes for "harsher sentence for racially motivated attack" not "harsher sentence for racially motivated attack exclusively when the victim is an alaskan native"

[The New California Republic]

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.

[Scomagia]

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

What the hell are you trying to say? I tried to parse it out but your posts read like word salad.

[Kowani]

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

Y’know this is an OOC part of the thread, right?

[San Lumen]

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.

[Saiwania]

Bigotry and racism have no place anywhere and one should be able to be prosecuted for it.

Being a bigot or racist isn't a crime in and of itself, even if a crime was committed; if it can be determined that the racism had nothing to do with the incident. I have ways to give Black, Asian, etc. people a chance, but to also not put myself into environments or situations where they're in the majority.

[Scomagia]

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.

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.

[San Lumen]

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.

which is why hate crimes law includes all hence i don't see how they are unconstitutional according the the OP.

[Scomagia]

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.

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.

[San Lumen]

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.

Ah ok. I didnt realize how that came off. I did not mean to imply that there ought to be specific protections for individual classes of people

[Bezkoshtovnya]

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.

[San Lumen]

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.

Dylan Roof was charged and convicted on hate crime charges in addition to other charges. His motivation for murder was driven by hate and bigotry

[United Muscovite Nations]

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.

^

[Xmara]

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?

As many others have pointed out, what differentiates a hate crime from any other crime is kind of like what differentiates first degree murder and second degree murder. If you want to argue semantics here, then we shouldn't differentiate between first degree murder and second degree murder because one was well thought out and preplanned and the other one was spur of the moment.

Also, the 14th amendment does not work that way, as also previously pointed out. So if a guy attacked you because you are (presumably) white and it can be proved that he attacked you because of your race, then he would be charged with hate crime and would be treated the same as someone who attacked a guy because he was black.

[Ifreann]

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.

Bloody Romans and their thought crimes.

[Elwher]

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.

[San Lumen]

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.

Why shouldnt someone's motivation for the crime be factored in? Dylann Roof was convicted on multiple hate crime charges. He stated as such he committed his massacre because of his white supremacy and neo nazi views and desire to start a race war.

[Dogmeat]

I don't necessarily endorse hate crime legislation, but the idea that you can't take motivation into account when sentencing a crime is... well that's the entire difference between manslaughter and murder. And you didn't complain about that.