God bless you, sir.

It's a thought-crime and anathema to our entire judicial system, the constitution, and everything our country was founded on.

I guess I'd rather be seen as obnoxious than weaselly and snide.

quote:

---

Mr. Gainsborough stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
why dont they just take the witch hat off

---

Because then it would be a slightly dark-skinned dummy hanging from a rope.

Good God.

jeez guys

then set it on fire

quote:

---

Maradon! enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
Also what the fuck? they didn't hang witches, they burned them

---

I don't really think she has too firm a grasp on historical accuracy anyway...

quote:

---

"Look at Louisiana, it's the same thing, what if a black family burned crosses, or nooses it would be the same thing, " says Lynch.

---

... yeah...

They did hang witches as well as burning and drowning though, btw.

Faelynn LeAndris fucked around with this message on 10-16-2007 at 03:12 AM.

quote:

---

Maradon! said:
Also what the fuck? they didn't hang witches, they burned them

---

I can't tell if this is supposed to be sarcasm or not.

Very VERY few witches were actually burned. Most were hung. The whole "burn the witch" thing is a popular misconception.

I live about 30 miles away from Salem and there are witches being burned there all the time.

Stalwart Steve fucked around with this message on 10-16-2007 at 07:20 AM.

quote:

---

Maradon! had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
Also what the fuck? they didn't hang witches, they burned them

---

No, they weighed them.

quote:

---

Quoth Maradon!:
Incidentally, the idea of a "hate crime" creates two classes of people before the law based on nothing more than opinions allegedly held by the accused.

It's a thought-crime and anathema to our entire judicial system, the constitution, and everything our country was founded on.

---

This isn't true, as the actual opinion of the criminal toward the victim or class of victim is irrelevant in determining whether something is a hate crime. Couldn't you be bothered to do the least bit of research on this before forming strong opinions?

Hell, there's even a recent semi-high-profile case that illustrates the point, where the defendant is claiming he isn't guilty of a hate crime against gays because he's got gay leanings himself--and the prosecutor rebutted pointing out that the defendant's feelings toward the victim are irrelevant, the relevant factor being that the victim was chosen because of his membership in a particular class (in this case gay).

So never fear, hate crimes laws have nothing to do with Orwellian thought crimes.

quote:

---

And the Replyobots combined to form Khyron, who roared:
No, they weighed them.

---

Heaven help them if they weighed the same as a duck...

quote:

---

Mightion Defensor's fortune cookie read:
Heaven help them if they weighed the same as a duck...

---

hawhawhawhawhawhawhawhawhawhaw

quote:

---

Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Bloodsage who doth quote:
This isn't true, as the actual opinion of the criminal toward the victim or class of victim is irrelevant in determining whether something is a hate crime. Couldn't you be bothered to do the least bit of research on this before forming strong opinions?

Hell, there's even a recent semi-high-profile case that illustrates the point, where the defendant is claiming he isn't guilty of a hate crime against gays because he's got gay leanings himself--and the prosecutor rebutted pointing out that the defendant's feelings toward the victim are irrelevant, the relevant factor being that the victim was chosen because of his membership in a particular class (in this case gay).

So never fear, hate crimes laws have nothing to do with Orwellian thought crimes.

---

In practice they don't, no, in practice they are based on atavistic guilt as you indicate, but the justification used by their proponents is that the attitude of the accused should have a bearing on the sentence.

quote:

---

Quoth Maradon!:
In practice they don't, no, in practice they are based on atavistic guilt as you indicate, but the justification used by their proponents is that the attitude of the accused should have a bearing on the sentence.

---

That's because so many people don't understand--or bother to research--the laws, though. Nor are they really based on any guilt complex, since, at least in the case I cited recently, the law doesn't specify that the group singled out must be minority or oppressed or anything at all. As a matter of fact, there's yet another recent case going on where a beating is probably going to be ruled a hate crime because the victim was chosen because he was white.

Like I said, it's the fact that a victim was chosen because of his/her race, ethnicity, orientation, or whatever that counts. Not the perpetrator's feelings for the person. Choosing to mug a handicapped person, for example, not because one hates that class of people but rather because the person would be less able or likely to fight back, would qualify as a hate crime.

Yes, a lot of people misunderstand and the rhetoric on both sides is rather silly, but it really has nothing to do with thought control as you alleged earlier.

quote:

---

100% USDA grade-A Bloodsage
Choosing to mug a handicapped person, for example, not because one hates that class of people but rather because the person would be less able or likely to fight back, would qualify as a hate crime.

---

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about the Spice Girls:
That's because so many people don't understand--or bother to research--the laws, though. Nor are they really based on any guilt complex, since, at least in the case I cited recently, the law doesn't specify that the group singled out must be minority or oppressed or anything at all. As a matter of fact, there's yet another recent case going on where a beating is probably going to be ruled a hate crime because the victim was chosen because he was white.

Like I said, it's the fact that a victim was chosen because of his/her race, ethnicity, orientation, or whatever that counts. Not the perpetrator's feelings for the person. Choosing to mug a handicapped person, for example, not because one hates that class of people but rather because the person would be less able or likely to fight back, would qualify as a hate crime.

Yes, a lot of people misunderstand and the rhetoric on both sides is rather silly, but it really has nothing to do with thought control as you alleged earlier.

---

I'm not 100% sure I understand the wordplay here.

Assume that I wanted to murder someone, and I didn't care who at all. I'm not predjudiced against any race, class, gender, or sexuality. I considered my options and decided that I'd have better luck picking up someone of the same sex at a gay bar than someone of the opposite sex at another bar. I then lure them to a dark alley and strangle them to death with a rope made out of barbie doll hair.

Does the fact that I chose a gay man for being more likely to be lured to his death than a straight woman mean that the crime would qualify as a hate crime?

And if so, would the opposite hold true - if I thought I had a better chance of luring a straight woman away with me and thus I picked her for the victim as a result, would that then qualify as a hate crime?

quote:

---

Bloodsage attempted to be funny by writing:
That's because so many people don't understand--or bother to research--the laws, though. Nor are they really based on any guilt complex, since, at least in the case I cited recently, the law doesn't specify that the group singled out must be minority or oppressed or anything at all. As a matter of fact, there's yet another recent case going on where a beating is probably going to be ruled a hate crime because the victim was chosen because he was white.

Like I said, it's the fact that a victim was chosen because of his/her race, ethnicity, orientation, or whatever that counts. Not the perpetrator's feelings for the person. Choosing to mug a handicapped person, for example, not because one hates that class of people but rather because the person would be less able or likely to fight back, would qualify as a hate crime.

Yes, a lot of people misunderstand and the rhetoric on both sides is rather silly, but it really has nothing to do with thought control as you alleged earlier.

---

Wouldn't that make any murder, assault, rape, prank, or whatever qualify as a hate crime?

That's a real question btw, I'm not trying to be a smartass. If what you just said though; that choice of victim has nothing to do with race, minority status, or whatever isn't the root. What is then?

Because most crimes involve mixed groups of races, status, or whatever.

quote:

---

Faelynn LeAndris wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Wouldn't that make any murder, assault, rape, prank, or whatever qualify as a hate crime?

That's a real question btw, I'm not trying to be a smartass. If what you just said though; that choice of victim has nothing to do with race, minority status, or whatever isn't the root. What is then?

Because most crimes involve mixed groups of races, status, or whatever.

---

No. It's not relevant that the victim is a member of any protected class (because literaly everyone is), but because they were chosen as a result of their race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or handicapped status.

That being said, even though it isn't important by the letter of the law, the accused's feelings toward the class of victim usually IS taken into account in order to determine whether it was the primary motivation for the crime.

For example, there's a local case in the works here wherein a guy has been robbing Hispanic businesses. There's talk of trying to get it classified as a hate crime, but the point of contention is whether he targetted these businesses because they were Hispanic or whether he targetted them because they generally do not speak English well and therefore have a more difficult time reporting the crime to police.

Same thing with handicapped people; it's a lot easier to show in court that it's a hate crime because someone doesn't like damn dirty cripples than it is to claim it's a hate crime because the dude's in a wheelchair and can't chase after you easily.

quote:

---

The logic train ran off the tracks when Sakkra said:
No. It's not relevant that the victim is a member of any protected class (because literaly everyone is), but because they were chosen as a result of their race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or handicapped status.

That being said, even though it isn't important by the letter of the law, the accused's feelings toward the class of victim usually IS taken into account in order to determine whether it was the primary motivation for the crime.

For example, there's a local case in the works here wherein a guy has been robbing Hispanic businesses. There's talk of trying to get it classified as a hate crime, but the point of contention is whether he targetted these businesses because they were Hispanic or whether he targetted them because they generally do not speak English well and therefore have a more difficult time reporting the crime to police.

Same thing with handicapped people; it's a lot easier to show in court that it's a hate crime because someone doesn't like damn dirty cripples than it is to claim it's a hate crime because the dude's in a wheelchair and can't chase after you easily.

---

See that's where it is completely and totally confusing.

You say it's because they were chosen because they were a specific race, class, whatever; but then say it's not relevant to the law how the person commiting the crime concidered/thought of the victim. Which still leads me to believe any group targeting another group for a crime (Which is pretty much all cases) falls within hate crime.

And using your hispanic store owners point, wouldnt that still be irrelevant? COncidering he STILL targeted hispanics specifically whether it was because they were hispanic or because by BEING hispanic there was a good chance they didn't speak english well enough to report the crime.

A male rapist (typically) targets only women specifically, so wouldn't that still qualify? Women are being targeted specifically for rape. And who knows he may be targeting them because he hates women and his mother went at him with the metal hangers.

Your responce didn't help much.

Bloodsage is correct in that the accused's feelings towards the victim does not matter for purposes of the law when considered in a vacuum. However, they ARE generally taken into account during the investigation and trial in order to determine that a bias was the motivation and not just an incidental factor.

As far as the rape thing, it would be very difficult to prove in court that someone raped another because of their gender and not due to the accused's own sexual preferences (which like race, are not taken into account).

Also, the vast majority of prosecutors generally do not go for classifying crimes as bias unless it is very clear cut. They'll likely go for the unenhanced charge which, in most cases, is easier to prove in court. Take the dude robbing a guy in a wheelchair for example; Assuming the rest of the case is straightforward, it's much less risky to get a conviction for robbery which is still a felony. It's a lot harder to prove that it was due to a bias towards the handicapped and not because of the fact it may have made the crime easier to commit.

quote:

---

Khyron startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
I'm not 100% sure I understand the wordplay here.

Assume that I wanted to murder someone, and I didn't care who at all. I'm not predjudiced against any race, class, gender, or sexuality. I considered my options and decided that I'd have better luck picking up someone of the same sex at a gay bar than someone of the opposite sex at another bar. I then lure them to a dark alley and strangle them to death with a rope made out of barbie doll hair.

Does the fact that I chose a gay man for being more likely to be lured to his death than a straight woman mean that the crime would qualify as a hate crime?

And if so, would the opposite hold true - if I thought I had a better chance of luring a straight woman away with me and thus I picked her for the victim as a result, would that then qualify as a hate crime?

---

As a matter of fact, that was almost exactly the scenario in the real case I mentioned earlier: I forget the jurisdiction, but some dudes decided to mug a gay dude because a gay person was an easier target and it's being prosecuted as a hate crime despite the fact that one defendant confessed to being gay himself and therefore could have no malice toward gays. The prosecutor pointed out that it's the act of choosing a victim based on race, orientation, whatever that counts, not any personal animosity.

quote:

---

Verily, the chocolate bunny rabbits doth run and play while Sakkra gently hums:
The determining factor by which something is considered a bias crime is that it is motivated by the victim's race/religion/ethnicity/sex/whatever. Just because a white guy beats up a black guy doesn't mean it's a hate crime, unless he beats the guy up BECAUSE he is black, and any other factors are just incidental.

Bloodsage is correct in that the accused's feelings towards the victim does not matter for purposes of the law when considered in a vacuum. However, they ARE generally taken into account during the investigation and trial in order to determine that a bias was the motivation and not just an incidental factor.

As far as the rape thing, it would be very difficult to prove in court that someone raped another because of their gender and not due to the accused's own sexual preferences (which like race, are not taken into account).

Also, the vast majority of prosecutors generally do not go for classifying crimes as bias unless it is very clear cut. They'll likely go for the unenhanced charge which, in most cases, is easier to prove in court. Take the dude robbing a guy in a wheelchair for example; Assuming the rest of the case is straightforward, it's much less risky to get a conviction for robbery which is still a felony. It's a lot harder to prove that it was due to a bias towards the handicapped and not because of the fact it may have made the crime easier to commit.

---

But bias doesn't have anything to do with it--I'll have to see if I can dig up the case I'm talking about. The dudes didn't have anything against gays; they simply targeted a gay dude because they thought it would make the crime easier. It's the fact that they deliberately plotted to attack a gay person that invokes the hate crime statute rather than any bias on their part.

What makes it possible to prosecute in this particular case is, like some here, the defendants had no clear idea what a "hate crime" is and so confessed that they specifically targetted a gay man. You are correct in that proving the victim was chosen because of his/her race or whatever is difficult to prove and so makes invoking the hate crime thing risky in many situations.

quote:

---

Do you know what your sin is, Bloodsage?
But bias doesn't have anything to do with it--I'll have to see if I can dig up the case I'm talking about. The dudes didn't have anything against gays; they simply targeted a gay dude because they thought it would make the crime easier. It's the fact that they deliberately plotted to attack a gay person that invokes the hate crime statute rather than any bias on their part.

What makes it possible to prosecute in this particular case is, like some here, the defendants had no clear idea what a "hate crime" is and so confessed that they specifically targetted a gay man. You are correct in that proving the victim was chosen because of his/her race or whatever is difficult to prove and so makes invoking the hate crime thing risky in many situations.

---

Local laws may vary. I'm just using the term 'bias crime' since that's the term I'm used to using. I don't mean to imply that it means a bias toward the victim any more than the term 'hate crime' implies hate.

quote:

---

Sakkra had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
No crime = No hate crime

---

1 = hate (0 = hate?)

quote:

---

Noxhil2 needs to hitch a ride with a Vogon constructor fleet.
1 = hate (0 = hate?)

---

quote:

---

Sakkra wrote this stupid crap:
Local laws may vary. I'm just using the term 'bias crime' since that's the term I'm used to using. I don't mean to imply that it means a bias toward the victim any more than the term 'hate crime' implies hate.

---

Hate crime legislation is federal legislation. It stemmed from the murders in the South during the '50s and '60s, which the states (e.g. Mississippi) were unwilling to prosecute. Since the federal government wasn't able to force the state to try the accused under state laws, the feds wrote some laws so they could try them in federal court(e.g. the sheriff who turned dogs on black demonstrators, those who bombed black churches, or those who killed whites who helped the demonstrators).

The fact that other states followed suit is beside the original purpose of the law, which was to do an end-run around states that weren't living up to their responsibilities for upholding law, order, and justice in their jurisdictions. This seems to be a law that has out-lived its era, so it is being interpreted differently to suit the changing times.

Big Easy fucked around with this message on 10-20-2007 at 01:34 AM.

quote:

---

Big Easy wrote this stupid crap:
Hate crime legislation is federal legislation. It stemmed from the murders in the South during the '50s and '60s, which the states (e.g. Mississippi) were unwilling to prosecute. Since the federal government wasn't able to force the state to try the accused under state laws, the feds wrote some laws so they could try them in federal court(e.g. the sheriff who turned dogs on black demonstrators, those who bombed black churches, or those who killed whites who helped the demonstrators).

The fact that other states followed suit is beside the original purpose of the law, which was to do an end-run around states that weren't living up to their responsibilities for upholding law, order, and justice in their jurisdictions. This seems to be a law that has out-lived its era, so it is being interpreted differently to suit the changing times.

---

It may be federal legislation, however most states have their own local versions; in many cases these are more stringent than federal statutes.

Nowadays these cases are far more likely to be tried in a local court as opposed to a federal one. The main reason for this is that the local case will likely include other charges and makes for a more cohesive prosecution. The exceptions are usually if the prosecutor thinks the federal case is stronger and turns it over to them, or the feds ask to take it.