NATION

PASSWORD

Hate Crime Legislation

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
Elwher
Minister
 
Posts: 3064
Founded: May 24, 2012
Corporate Bordello

Hate Crime Legislation

Postby Elwher » Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:01 pm

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?
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
Ambrose Bierce

User avatar
Scomagia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14843
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby 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?

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.
"The Universe has as many different centers as there are living beings in it. Each of us is the center of the Universe, and that Universe is shattered when they hiss at you, 'You are under arrest.'"-Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
Cry about "gotchas".
Build pathetic strawmen of your opposition.
Cry about "bullying".
Shift the goalposts.
Make snarky shitposts.

User avatar
LiberNovusAmericae
Minister
 
Posts: 2042
Founded: Mar 10, 2018
Capitalist Paradise

Postby LiberNovusAmericae » Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:39 pm

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).
The name of this nation is not grammatically correct Latin.
Armaros wrote:I don't believe you're fascist, but you're definitely bad.
Deltanium wrote:“The only chance you have of getting laid is if you stick your head up a chicken’s ass and wait.”

-Alyssa I
Farnhamia wrote:It's not much of a pejorative. Not actionable.
For those of you who actually think Cuba is a success. Antifa is a terrorist group. My Political Positions.
Death to Socialism! Death to religion!
Bienenhalde wrote:Why should any government care about so-called "rights" which are nothing more than your arbitrary and subjective opinion?
EnLigHtEnMeNt DeStRoYeD!
Ifreann wrote:Stop pushing fascist propaganda.
Criticizing left wing violence =/= fascist propaganda.

User avatar
Inggland
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 20
Founded: Feb 03, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Inggland » Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:44 pm

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.
I'm Inggland, I control Inggli, and I'm a loving country.
I'm a kingdom of wonders. I seriously am.

User avatar
Inggland
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 20
Founded: Feb 03, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby 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.

Or when nobody is around then you have to dab because dabbing is toxic and a hate symbol in Ingglish loving culture
I'm Inggland, I control Inggli, and I'm a loving country.
I'm a kingdom of wonders. I seriously am.

User avatar
Unithonia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 503
Founded: Jan 08, 2018
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby 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).

Seconded
White, Cis, Straight Male and proud of it. Irish Nationalist, so get out Britain or I'll hit you with a potato.
Pro: IRA, GOP, Equal Rights, Libertarianism, Low Tax Rates, Militarism, Legalism, Fianna Fail, Brexit, LGBT rights
Anti: BLM, Violent protests, Socialism, Nazism, Alt-Right Groups.
Extremely Pro: United Ireland, Armed Forces, Free Markets, Scottish Independence, MAGA, Republic of Ireland.
Extremely Anti: Terrorism, Antifa, United Kingdom, PIRA, Communism, Socialism, Social Justice
STRAIGHT OUTTA DUBLIN
I SUPPORT A UNITED IRELAND
This
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.

User avatar
Kowani
Senator
 
Posts: 4305
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Kowani » Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:46 pm

Nah. What Scomagia said.
Narcissistic (Hedonistic) Nihilist. Yes, I am edgy. I know. Open to TG’s.
Atheist and still proud of it. Technophile to the extreme.
Catalan Separatist.
Oh, and a Pragmatist. Somehow.
Neanderthaland wrote:
Christian Confederation wrote:Contraception can't fail if you don't have sex in term no unwanted pregnancy.

Your entire religion is based on the idea that this isn't true.

User avatar
Des-Bal
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27502
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:51 pm

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"
Welcome to the internet, our men are men, our women are men, our children are FBI agents.

Founding Member The Sovereign League

Red Eclipse Executive Slave Traders: Anonymity Guarantee

User avatar
The New California Republic
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12788
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:54 pm

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.
Last edited by Friedrich Nietzsche on Thu Jan 03, 1889 13:05 pm, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the complete victory over Caesar's Legion, and the pacification and annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.
Current President of The NCR: Aaron Kimball.
Current NCR Ambassador to The World Assembly: Colonel James Hsu, NCR Army (Ret.)
.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Scomagia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14843
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby 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

What the hell are you trying to say? I tried to parse it out but your posts read like word salad.
"The Universe has as many different centers as there are living beings in it. Each of us is the center of the Universe, and that Universe is shattered when they hiss at you, 'You are under arrest.'"-Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
Cry about "gotchas".
Build pathetic strawmen of your opposition.
Cry about "bullying".
Shift the goalposts.
Make snarky shitposts.

User avatar
Kowani
Senator
 
Posts: 4305
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby 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

Y’know this is an OOC part of the thread, right?
Narcissistic (Hedonistic) Nihilist. Yes, I am edgy. I know. Open to TG’s.
Atheist and still proud of it. Technophile to the extreme.
Catalan Separatist.
Oh, and a Pragmatist. Somehow.
Neanderthaland wrote:
Christian Confederation wrote:Contraception can't fail if you don't have sex in term no unwanted pregnancy.

Your entire religion is based on the idea that this isn't true.

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 24938
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby 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?

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.

User avatar
Saiwania
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14869
Founded: Jun 30, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby 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.


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.
Last edited by Saiwania on Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Scomagia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14843
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby 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.

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.
"The Universe has as many different centers as there are living beings in it. Each of us is the center of the Universe, and that Universe is shattered when they hiss at you, 'You are under arrest.'"-Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
Cry about "gotchas".
Build pathetic strawmen of your opposition.
Cry about "bullying".
Shift the goalposts.
Make snarky shitposts.

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 24938
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby 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.


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

User avatar
Scomagia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14843
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby 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.

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.
"The Universe has as many different centers as there are living beings in it. Each of us is the center of the Universe, and that Universe is shattered when they hiss at you, 'You are under arrest.'"-Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
Cry about "gotchas".
Build pathetic strawmen of your opposition.
Cry about "bullying".
Shift the goalposts.
Make snarky shitposts.

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 24938
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby 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.

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

User avatar
Bezkoshtovnya
Senator
 
Posts: 3833
Founded: Sep 06, 2014
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby 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).

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.
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.
ΦΣK
------------------

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 24938
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby 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.


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

User avatar
United Muscovite Nations
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16723
Founded: Feb 01, 2017
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby 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.

^
Formerly United Marxist Nations, Dec 02, 2011- Feb 01, 2017. +33,837 posts Eastern Orthodox Christian. Christian Anarchist and Monarchist. Supporter of Pan-Arabism.
Even the apologists of industrialism have been obliged to admit that some economic evils follow in the wake of the machines. These are such as overproduction, unemployment, and a growing inequality in the distribution of wealth. But the remedies proposed by the apologists are always homeopathic. They expect the evils to disappear when we have bigger and better machines, and more of them. Their remedial programs, therefore, look forward to more industrialism.
Pro and Anti: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=uni ... id=1166847

User avatar
Xmara
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1862
Founded: Mar 31, 2014
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby 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?

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.
/ˈzmaːrʌ/
Info
Our Leader
Status- Code Green- All clear
I mostly use NS stats, except for population and tax rates.
We are not Estonia.
A 16.8 civilization, according to this index.
Flag Waver
Respect the science!


About Me | Great Quotes from NS | Side note: I’m female.

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 127057
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby 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.

Bloody Romans and their thought crimes.
Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Banter For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Snark That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Sarcasm.
He/Him
What do we have that they should want?
We have a wall to work upon!
We have work and they have none
And our work is never done
My children, my children
And the war is never won

The enemy is poverty
And the wall keeps out the enemy
And we build the wall to keep us free
That's why we build the wall
We build the wall to keep us free
We build the wall to keep us free

User avatar
Elwher
Minister
 
Posts: 3064
Founded: May 24, 2012
Corporate Bordello

Postby 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.


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.
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
Ambrose Bierce

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 24938
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby 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.


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.
Last edited by San Lumen on Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Dogmeat
Minister
 
Posts: 2131
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Dogmeat » Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:00 pm

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.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Auristania, Auzkhia, Bear Stearns, Bezkoshtovnya, CaJaRo, Crockerland, Darussalam, Dooom35796821595, Ethel mermania, Goldwater, Google [Bot], Hardholm, Ifreann, Ostroeuropa, Pasong Tirad, Qilai, South Odreria, Thanatttynia, Torrocca, Viridus, Washington Resistance Army, Xeng He, Yahoo [Bot]

Advertisement

Remove ads