Illegal Immigrants Now Considered A "Protected Class" Subject To "Hate Crime" Laws.

[Peikko 1,575]

Let's put it in this light. Do you think it's right for hate crimes to only be able to be used in cases of race/gender/religion? What if someone hates another person because they are wealthy or the other person is poor? What if the person for some reason in their heart loathes anyone who owns a dog or a cat and kill them? What if someone kill someone because they have a beard and they have always hated beards, can't stand them.... Wouldn't a 'hate' crime apply in those cases as well? What makes race/gender different/so special.

Depends on the youngster... It's easy to be disconnected from a situation that you do not understand. The best thing to do there is try to educate them a little more on how harmful it can be to some to bring up such things.... At the end of the day, a prank is a prank and a joke is a joke....

You aren't seriously asking that question from a position of ignorance are you?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You aren't seriously asking that question from a position of ignorance are you?

No, it's a fair/legitimate question when we're talking about crimes.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Of course all crimes are "hate crimes" by default... but let's ignore that fact.

Sorry Paul, but that just isn't true. The fact that you suggest that it is discredits you.

[Peikko 1,575]

No, it's a fair/legitimate question when we're talking about crimes.

You are feigning ignorance on this, seriously?

Pogonophobia based crime? Dude, get real.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You are feigning ignorance on this, seriously?

Pogonophobia based crime? Dude, get real.

very real and a very real point. Just because it doesn't effect you, doesn't mean it doesn't effect other people....

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't see a protected class at all. I see someone was murdered and the perpetrators getting their just due.

yup

[justashooter 430]

If people like you would keep a proper sense of perspective as to the reality of what an undocumented migrant is, then such laws would indeed be unnecessary. Criminal scum indeed.

undocumented migrant?

is that anything like unliscensed pharmacist (drug dealer)?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

No, it's a fair/legitimate question when we're talking about crimes.

Paul, your title is misleading ie. the issue was race not their immigration status. However, you are spot on with regards to hate crimes.

If the "standard" penalty is not strong enough for this situation then the "standard" should be raised.

I notice that in these cases the actual motive doesn't have to be proven conclusively only that the person hates the group in question. IE a person may say they hate an ethnic group. They may attack an individual of that group. However it can not always be proven that in that specific instance the person attacked the individual with the intent to threaten the community as a whole.

Some crimes that would not end up being hate crimes still fit the description of threatening a community. For instance if a serial murder kills multiple people in an area the whole community may feel threatened. Same thing with a serial robber etc.

It seems that for a hate crime to occur a community somewhere must feel threatened. How is this established? Do you take a poll of the surrounding community to determine if they were actually threatened?

I think that having a "hate crime" in the books is unnecessary in our society. Maybe in the past when the KKK were powerful and conclusively threatened the african-american population it was necessary. I don't think we can have true equality in this country until subjective laws such as these are abolished.

[Peikko 1,575]

Paul, your title is misleading ie. the issue was race not their immigration status. However, you are spot on with regards to hate crimes.

If the "standard" penalty is not strong enough for this situation then the "standard" should be raised.

I notice that in these cases the actual motive doesn't have to be proven conclusively only that the person hates the group in question. IE a person may say they hate an ethnic group. They may attack an individual of that group. However it can not always be proven that in that specific instance the person attacked the individual with the intent to threaten the community as a whole.

Some crimes that would not end up being hate crimes still fit the description of threatening a community. For instance if a serial murder kills multiple people in an area the whole community may feel threatened. Same thing with a serial robber etc.

It seems that for a hate crime to occur a community somewhere must feel threatened. How is this established? Do you take a poll of the surrounding community to determine if they were actually threatened?

I think that having a "hate crime" in the books is unnecessary in our society. Maybe in the past when the KKK were powerful and conclusively threatened the african-american population it was necessary. I don't think we can have true equality in this country until subjective laws such as these are abolished.

I am surprised at your post to be honest.

The ordinance of hate crime deals with issues that underlie certain actions that simple assault can never cover and a lot of it has to do with the fact that someone who attacks people based on a perception of them having superficial characteristics that bind them to a 'group' has a very different mental capacity from someone who attacks individuals based on the actions of the individual and the probability of repeating the offense is 1000 times greater in the former than the latter.

Are you also forgetting group endorsement factor? Or are you pretending that those who hate on specific groups like Jews or homosexuals, or African Americans or Asians are random individuals? You honestly must know that this is not the case, that hate crimes are a product of like minded people getting together and fueling each others hatred and as such is far more insidious than criminal activity that is individual based and driven.

Here's the thing, in American society people are free to be racist scum bags, they can hate anyone they choose for any potty reason they choose, they can have websites and rallies and try to persuade other people to agree with them and that's fine and dandy as a freedom (no matter what I personally think of Hitler worshipers and the like) but with that freedom comes the responsibility to protect any group (and that is any group) that becomes a target group that suffers from intimidation and actual harm. Hate crime laws are one way to ensure that those who deliberately hate upon a target group and who would for example weekly beat up a member of that target group (you must know that this is a common phenomena? Racist thugs plan and execute these types of crimes regularly, it's not a matter of spontaneous loss of control like a bar fight) are sent a message that society does not support or condone these actions and that those found guilty of actual harm will be properly penalised,. Sure, we could beef up the penalties for fighting, and imprison every person who gets involved in a fight, but does that actually make sense to you? Should someone who gets drunk and has a fight with a friend over a girl be treated the same as a group of like minded thugs who plan on beating up a member of their target group? Should teens who tag freeway bridges and walls be treated the same as adults who target synagogues and paint racist and anti-Semitic slogans? I do not think so for one minute.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I am surprised at your post to be honest.

The ordinance of hate crime deals with issues that underlie certain actions that simple assault can never cover and a lot of it has to do with the fact that someone who attacks people based on a perception of them having superficial characteristics that bind them to a 'group' has a very different mental capacity from someone who attacks individuals based on the actions of the individual and the probability of repeating the offense is 1000 times greater in the former than the latter.

Are you also forgetting group endorsement factor? Or are you pretending that those who hate on specific groups like Jews or homosexuals, or African Americans or Asians are random individuals? You honestly must know that this is not the case, that hate crimes are a product of like minded people getting together and fueling each others hatred and as such is far more insidious than criminal activity that is individual based and driven.

Here's the thing, in American society people are free to be racist scum bags, they can hate anyone they choose for any potty reason they choose, they can have websites and rallies and try to persuade other people to agree with them and that's fine and dandy as a freedom (no matter what I personally think of Hitler worshipers and the like) but with that freedom comes the responsibility to protect any group (and that is any group) that becomes a target group that suffers from intimidation and actual harm. Hate crime laws are one way to ensure that those who deliberately hate upon a target group and who would for example weekly beat up a member of that target group (you must know that this is a common phenomena? Racist thugs plan and execute these types of crimes regularly, it's not a matter of spontaneous loss of control like a bar fight) are sent a message that society does not support or condone these actions and that those found guilty of actual harm will be properly penalised,. Sure, we could beef up the penalties for fighting, and imprison every person who gets involved in a fight, but does that actually make sense to you? Should someone who gets drunk and has a fight with a friend over a girl be treated the same as a group of like minded thugs who plan on beating up a member of their target group? Should teens who tag freeway bridges and walls be treated the same as adults who target synagogues and paint racist and anti-Semitic slogans? I do not think so for one minute.

You're thinking of this too much like an A+B situation. You're not looking at the bigger picture at all.

The more you point out differences, the more angst and anger you're going to have. The more incidents you're going to have. You're creating a situation to where racism/hatred will always be in front of everyone. You can't stop it. You never will. You send a black man to jail longer because of a "hate crime" for killing a white guy, then a part of the "black community" is going to be up in arms for that black man getting a stiffer penalty for killing a white guy.... Same thing from any other ethnic group that has someone be charged with a "hate crime." You create this idea that those crimes are more important because the victims were not of their race/"group." This is why we have/had a non-discriminatory standard of Pre-meditated, random/consequence of another crime(second degree), or accidental. It doesn't matter who you are, what you are. All that matters if you did the crime. When it comes to smaller crimes and intimidation crimes, we have laws for that in most states and we also have a civil justice system to penalize the hell out of people who do atrocious things as well.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Paul, your title is misleading ie. the issue was race not their immigration status. However, you are spot on with regards to hate crimes.

If the "standard" penalty is not strong enough for this situation then the "standard" should be raised.

I notice that in these cases the actual motive doesn't have to be proven conclusively only that the person hates the group in question. IE a person may say they hate an ethnic group. They may attack an individual of that group. However it can not always be proven that in that specific instance the person attacked the individual with the intent to threaten the community as a whole.

Sorry, but the bolded part is just plain wrong. Much like in cases of capital punishment, the standard of proof is higher for hate crimes. Many D.A.'s decline to prosecute a case as a hate crime because of that standard.

Some crimes that would not end up being hate crimes still fit the description of threatening a community. For instance if a serial murder kills multiple people in an area the whole community may feel threatened. Same thing with a serial robber etc.

False. If a murderer or serial violent criminal commits numerous crimes in one area, the terror of the community is a biproduct, not the main intention.

It seems that for a hate crime to occur a community somewhere must feel threatened. How is this established? Do you take a poll of the surrounding community to determine if they were actually threatened?

I think that having a "hate crime" in the books is unnecessary in our society. Maybe in the past when the KKK were powerful and conclusively threatened the african-american population it was necessary. I don't think we can have true equality in this country until subjective laws such as these are abolished.

Hate crimes are on the books still today because racism is still a pervasive issue in this country that has been deemed unacceptable. Mandatory minimums, hate crimes, and sentencing guidelines are all the same, they are essentially punitive damages assessed to eradicate certain undesireable elements.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Hate crimes are on the books still today because racism is still a pervasive issue in this country that has been deemed unacceptable. Mandatory minimums, hate crimes, and sentencing guidelines are all the same, they are essentially punitive damages assessed to eradicate certain undesireable elements.

What you're talking about is a pipe dream.

[The_Dude 1,142]

What you're talking about is a pipe dream.

No Paul, law enforcement nor the SCOTUS cannot stop you from being a racist, but they can try to stop you from acting out upon those thoughts and ideals.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

No Paul, law enforcement nor the SCOTUS cannot stop you from being a racist, but they can try to stop you from acting out upon those thoughts and ideals.

Did I say anything differently?

All I said, is that it's a pipe dream. It's never going to happen. Not without literal brainwashing and/or genocide on anyone who's considered to a be a racist/bigot by society. Which is a very find line at that these days.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Did I say anything differently?

All I said, is that it's a pipe dream. It's never going to happen. Not without literal brainwashing and/or genocide on anyone who's considered to a be a racist/bigot by society. Which is a very find line at that these days.

Maybe not Paul, but we are never going to rid the world of despots and tyrants, but should we stop trying?