Hate Crime Legislation

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Yes

So every third party should just be allowed to intervene in a court case? That’s ridiculous. That would be chaos.

You are dodging a question: if he violates a court order, would you allow him to walk free or be punished for that crime?

I fail to see how filming outside the courthouse counts as disrupting the trial. If he entered the courtroom with intent to disrupt, then it would be a different story.

More limits should be placed on certain court orders.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

So every third party should just be allowed to intervene in a court case? That’s ridiculous. That would be chaos.

You are dodging a question: if he violates a court order, would you allow him to walk free or be punished for that crime?

I fail to see how filming outside the courthouse counts as disrupting the trial. If he entered the courtroom with intent to disrupt, then it would be a different story.

More limits should be placed on certain court orders.

His actions nearly influenced the trial enough to have the case thrown out entirely. Is that disruptive enough?

He even apologised for his actions himself.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I fail to see how filming outside the courthouse counts as disrupting the trial. If he entered the courtroom with intent to disrupt, then it would be a different story.

More limits should be placed on certain court orders.

His actions nearly influenced the trial enough to have the case thrown out entirely. Is that disruptive enough?

He even apologised for his actions himself.

I looked further into it now, and your right. I still don't like how some of it was handled though. The court of appeals made the right decision.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

His actions nearly influenced the trial enough to have the case thrown out entirely. Is that disruptive enough?

He even apologised for his actions himself.

I looked further into it now, and your right. I still don't like how some of it was handled though. The court of appeals made the right decision.

Oh yeah, I think so. Both sides have their points, but the appeals court probably made a good call in the end. I’m not trying to say, of course, that my view is the only one, but rather, that there is a story of complexities behind these cases that often gets left out in debate. Thanks for having this conversation!

[Elwher]

Of course that is one of the differences. But, you cannot be convicted of both murder and manslaughter for the same incident, only one or the other. Hate crimes should be the same thing; either you are convicted of murder or of hate crime, not two separate charges.

Actually if you're charged with murder you're also charged with manslaughter. You can be charged with murder but convicted of manslaughter as a lesser included crime. What you're talking about has no impact on the actual sentencing it's just how the charge is listed.

I understand that, but if you are charged with assault and with hate crimes you can be convicted on both counts as separate offenses. If you are charged with murder and manslaughter you can only be convicted on one of the two.

[Bear Stearns]

Elections should be decided by a game of cornhole.

[The New California Republic]

Elections should be decided by a game of cornhole.

?

[San Lumen]

Actually if you're charged with murder you're also charged with manslaughter. You can be charged with murder but convicted of manslaughter as a lesser included crime. What you're talking about has no impact on the actual sentencing it's just how the charge is listed.

I understand that, but if you are charged with assault and with hate crimes you can be convicted on both counts as separate offenses. If you are charged with murder and manslaughter you can only be convicted on one of the two.

Why shouldnt the motive of a crime come into play when charges are filed? Why shouldnt Dylann Roof have been convicted of multiple hate crimes charges? He stated at trial he wanted to cause a race war.

The Synagogue shooter likely will be too. His motive was anti semitism and white genocide conspiracy theories.

[Des-Bal]

I understand that, but if you are charged with assault and with hate crimes you can be convicted on both counts as separate offenses. If you are charged with murder and manslaughter you can only be convicted on one of the two.

Give me an example of that happening.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Right because that totally happens.

It DOES happen, at least among the Jihadists (or "Earthquakists" in Tornado Queendom terms). The Shias might be a different story, but I'm not sure.

Every Muslim does jihad numerous times in our life. You'll have to find an accurate term to convey what you mean.

[Bear Stearns]

Occupy Wall Street is a hate movement.

[Elwher]

I understand that, but if you are charged with assault and with hate crimes you can be convicted on both counts as separate offenses. If you are charged with murder and manslaughter you can only be convicted on one of the two.

Give me an example of that happening.

We can start in 1964, when the defendants accused of killing James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner were tried and acquitted of murder. They were then charged with the Federal crime of Civil Rights violation.


18 U.S. Code § 249 mandates that a person will be charged if they "attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—
(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—
(i) death results from the offense; or
(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill."

This is in addition to any state charges that the same offense may engender.

That is why I do not believe in the justice of these laws.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Give me an example of that happening.

We can start in 1964, when the defendants accused of killing James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner were tried and acquitted of murder. They were then charged with the Federal crime of Civil Rights violation.


18 U.S. Code § 249 mandates that a person will be charged if they "attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—
(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—
(i) death results from the offense; or
(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill."

This is in addition to any state charges that the same offense may engender.

That is why I do not believe in the justice of these laws.

Remember, this is in the time of lynching. Such a law was necessary, certainly at the time.

The underlying crimes of causing bodily harm, manslaughter and kidnapping are already punishable, by the way, so no extra act is made illegal here.

[Gravlen]

Give me an example of that happening.

We can start in 1964, when the defendants accused of killing James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner were tried and acquitted of murder. They were then charged with the Federal crime of Civil Rights violation.


18 U.S. Code § 249 mandates that a person will be charged if they "attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—
(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—
(i) death results from the offense; or
(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill."

This is in addition to any state charges that the same offense may engender.

That is why I do not believe in the justice of these laws.

Your example makes no sense because you've got the timeline of events mixed up. Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner were murdered in 1964. Nobody went to trial for murder at that time (and hence were not tried and acquitted) because the State refused to prosecute anyone involved. That's when the federal government prosecuted them.

Because Mississippi officials refused to prosecute the killers for murder, a state crime, the federal government, led by prosecutor John Doar, charged 18 individuals under 18 U.S.C. §242 and §371 with conspiring to deprive the three activists of their civil rights (by murder).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Chaney,_Goodman,_and_Schwerner#Investigation_and_public_attention

No murder trial took place until 2005, when Edgar Ray Killen was put on trial.

[Elwher]

We can start in 1964, when the defendants accused of killing James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner were tried and acquitted of murder. They were then charged with the Federal crime of Civil Rights violation.


18 U.S. Code § 249 mandates that a person will be charged if they "attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—
(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—
(i) death results from the offense; or
(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill."

This is in addition to any state charges that the same offense may engender.

That is why I do not believe in the justice of these laws.

Remember, this is in the time of lynching. Such a law was necessary, certainly at the time.

The underlying crimes of causing bodily harm, manslaughter and kidnapping are already punishable, by the way, so no extra act is made illegal here.

Which is exactly why I do not believe that an additional charge is justified; the underlying acts are already crimes under existing laws.

[Elwher]

We can start in 1964, when the defendants accused of killing James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner were tried and acquitted of murder. They were then charged with the Federal crime of Civil Rights violation.


18 U.S. Code § 249 mandates that a person will be charged if they "attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—
(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—
(i) death results from the offense; or
(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill."

This is in addition to any state charges that the same offense may engender.

That is why I do not believe in the justice of these laws.

Your example makes no sense because you've got the timeline of events mixed up. Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner were murdered in 1964. Nobody went to trial for murder at that time (and hence were not tried and acquitted) because the State refused to prosecute anyone involved. That's when the federal government prosecuted them.

Because Mississippi officials refused to prosecute the killers for murder, a state crime, the federal government, led by prosecutor John Doar, charged 18 individuals under 18 U.S.C. §242 and §371 with conspiring to deprive the three activists of their civil rights (by murder).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Chaney,_Goodman,_and_Schwerner#Investigation_and_public_attention

No murder trial took place until 2005, when Edgar Ray Killen was put on trial.

I stand corrected; the acts were investigated by the authorities and it was decided that no prosecution was warranted by the State authorities. My memories of the times was flawed. None the less, § 249 still authorizes a Federal prosecution with o consideration as the any State charges that may have occurred; making the same act two separate crimes if performed for certain reasons.

[Des-Bal]

I stand corrected; the acts were investigated by the authorities and it was decided that no prosecution was warranted by the State authorities. My memories of the times was flawed. None the less, § 249 still authorizes a Federal prosecution with o consideration as the any State charges that may have occurred; making the same act two separate crimes if performed for certain reasons.

Then we're not talking about hate crimes we're talking about how double jeopardy works, or more specifically dual sovereignty. Double jeopardy only applies to one authority which is why you could be charged for the same crime in two states if they both had the authority to do so. This means that any complaint you have 1) does not apply to hate crime legislation at the state level, 2) does not apply to cases where the charge stands on it's own, and 3) applies to lots of things that are not hate crimes.

[Elwher]

I stand corrected; the acts were investigated by the authorities and it was decided that no prosecution was warranted by the State authorities. My memories of the times was flawed. None the less, § 249 still authorizes a Federal prosecution with o consideration as the any State charges that may have occurred; making the same act two separate crimes if performed for certain reasons.

Then we're not talking about hate crimes we're talking about how double jeopardy works, or more specifically dual sovereignty. Double jeopardy only applies to one authority which is why you could be charged for the same crime in two states if they both had the authority to do so. This means that any complaint you have 1) does not apply to hate crime legislation at the state level, 2) does not apply to cases where the charge stands on it's own, and 3) applies to lots of things that are not hate crimes.

To a certain extent, you are correct; hate crime legislation is an extremely egregious example of the dual sovereignty issue. As to the State level, if a state law allows for a separate charge like the Federal one, then my complaint stands; if it simply calls for stronger punishment for certain motives then I am less opposed.

It still comes down to one essential question to me. Why should the fact that I assault you because I hate you be treated this differently than if I assault you because I hate your race or gender?

[Gravlen]

Then we're not talking about hate crimes we're talking about how double jeopardy works, or more specifically dual sovereignty. Double jeopardy only applies to one authority which is why you could be charged for the same crime in two states if they both had the authority to do so. This means that any complaint you have 1) does not apply to hate crime legislation at the state level, 2) does not apply to cases where the charge stands on it's own, and 3) applies to lots of things that are not hate crimes.

To a certain extent, you are correct; hate crime legislation is an extremely egregious example of the dual sovereignty issue. As to the State level, if a state law allows for a separate charge like the Federal one, then my complaint stands; if it simply calls for stronger punishment for certain motives then I am less opposed.

It still comes down to one essential question to me. Why should the fact that I assault you because I hate you be treated this differently than if I assault you because I hate your race or gender?

Because in the first you attack a single individual, and in the second you attack a larger group or community.

[Elwher]

To a certain extent, you are correct; hate crime legislation is an extremely egregious example of the dual sovereignty issue. As to the State level, if a state law allows for a separate charge like the Federal one, then my complaint stands; if it simply calls for stronger punishment for certain motives then I am less opposed.

It still comes down to one essential question to me. Why should the fact that I assault you because I hate you be treated this differently than if I assault you because I hate your race or gender?

Because in the first you attack a single individual, and in the second you attack a larger group or community.

Your particular actions are an attack on one person in either case; if you have actually attacked a larger group then a separate charge for each individual you attack is valid.

[Gravlen]

Because in the first you attack a single individual, and in the second you attack a larger group or community.

Your particular actions are an attack on one person in either case; if you have actually attacked a larger group then a separate charge for each individual you attack is valid.

You seem to misunderstand. Here's an example to illustrate:

I attack Bernard because I don't like him. Nobody else needs to worry, because they are not Bernard. I had no reason to attack anybody else, so they can go about their business.

I attack a jew because she is jewish. Other jews are right to be afraid, because I didn't attack her for who she is, as an individual, but for her membership in a specific group. It was not because of anything she did, but because of a membership in a group - which she may not even have voluntarily chosen to be a part of in the first place. I could have attacked any member of the group, and that fact causes (intended) negative effects to that larger group. Trying to prosecute the attacker for every affected individual is folly, however.

The Sussex Hate Crime Project state that while "hate crimes are likely to have significant physical and psychological consequences for victims that are more severe than similar non-hate motivated offences (Corcoran et al., 2015; Iganski & Lagou, 2015)" it also has a significant impact on the larger community:

The impacts of hate crimes are not confined to the individuals directly targeted. Hate crimes are symbolic acts that are intended to send a message of hostility and intolerance to anyone who shares the identity or characteristic of the victim targeted. Violent attacks can signal to entire communities that they are not welcomed or tolerated, and are even hated, and so are likely to have far-reaching emotional and behavioural consequences. Interviews with members of targeted communities, for example, have revealed that hate crimes against others in their communities leave them feeling angry that their group is under attack and vulnerable as they fear that they too will be targeted (e.g., Bell & Perry, 2015; Noelle, 2002; Perry & Alvi, 2012). Entire groups of people, then, may feel stigmatised and rejected, potentially resulting in community tensions and social isolation.

Hate crimes spread fear and anger throughout communities that impact upon people’s actions and their perceptions of society. Individuals themselves do not have to be targeted to be impacted. These types of crimes have the potential to cause injury and distress both at the individual and community level, and they should be seen as such, and prosecuted as such.

[Elwher]

Paul and Joe are both attacked, Paul because he looks rich and Joe because he looks black. Joe's attacker is subject to greater penalties than is Paul's. Does that not mean that Paul is not receiving 'equal protection under law' as promised by the 14th Amendment?

[Gravlen]

Paul and Joe are both attacked, Paul because he looks rich and Joe because he looks black. Joe's attacker is subject to greater penalties than is Paul's. Does that not mean that Paul is not receiving 'equal protection under law' as promised by the 14th Amendment?

No. In the same way that it's not a violation to treat the attackers of Andy and Bob differently, due to the fact that Andy's attacker had planned to murder him while Bob's was reacting to the fact that Bob was sleeping with his wife.

Also, if someone does attack Paul becuase of his race, his attacker is subject to equal penalties as Paul's, who attacked Paul because of his race.