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

[Peikko 1,575]

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.

Hate crime statutes are not designed to prevent racism, but they do enable law enforcement to prevent racists from promoting their hatred when it leads to acts of violence and intimidation. Those who set out of a weekend to beat up someone from their target group are not made more angry by the fact that they will be severely punished for such actions, they are already consumed by that hatred. These crimes are not more important, but they are different. A bar brawl is very different from a gang of thugs beating the ####### out of a homosexual. Defacing a synagogue with racist and anti-Semitic slogans is very different from tagging a motorway bridge. Different crimes, different motivation, different penalties, all as it should be.

[Staashi 371]

I don't see a lot of illegal Europeans and Canadians being beaten up, so I'm guessing

his nationality had something to do with it.

Yes - and we know that they do exist as evidenced here on VJ.

But seriously, I had a gay uncle whom we didn't know was gay until he was killed outside a gay bar in California in the mid-80s. Without any provocation by my uncle, he was attacked by a group of young skinheads who jumped on him as he walked out of the bar. They kept yelling epithets at him, beating him with chains and bricks until he died. To me, the moment you start yelling epithets at someone while beating them, it takes a simple little turn from assault to hate crime. Just sayin'.

[Danno 1,228]

According to this guy there is a whole lot more to the story than you are reading on CNN.

Such as this Poor illegal family man was in fact dating one of the charged, sister who was 13.

http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/003482.html

Anyway, it's not a story I am really following, I just noticed it posted here and it was linked from another site.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

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.

It is, and yet how can you prove someone is thinking at the moment of the attack? Remember, other crimes you do not need to necessarily prove motive to convict. Yet in a hate crime you must prove their motive. So beyond a confession, either in written word or taped, it is impossible to prove conclusively that a hate crime occurred. Yet there is something like 10,000 convictions a year. Your telling me that they all confessed? Take premeditated murder. There is some sort of solid proof there like an arranged purchase 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.

Its not automatically false unless you can read minds.

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.

The justice system's role is not to correct racism. Otherwise we might as well convict anyone who is a bigot.

Edited October 19, 2010 by Sousuke

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Hate crime statutes are not designed to prevent racism, but they do enable law enforcement to prevent racists from promoting their hatred when it leads to acts of violence and intimidation. Those who set out of a weekend to beat up someone from their target group are not made more angry by the fact that they will be severely punished for such actions, they are already consumed by that hatred. These crimes are not more important, but they are different. A bar brawl is very different from a gang of thugs beating the ####### out of a homosexual. Defacing a synagogue with racist and anti-Semitic slogans is very different from tagging a motorway bridge. Different crimes, different motivation, different penalties, all as it should be.

How do you conclusively prove a person's motivation. Take the synagogue analogy. There are other reason's to deface a synagogue other than threatening a community.

Without a confession I can't see how you can prove such "thoughts".

Edited October 19, 2010 by Sousuke

[Peikko 1,575]

How do you conclusively prove a person's motivation. Take the synagogue analogy. There are other reason's to deface a synagogue other than threatening a community.

Without a confession I can't see how you can prove such "thoughts".

How do the police prove motive with any crime prosecuted? They find evidence. If someone is a member of a group that reveres Hitler (such groups exist in the US) that would be evidence of a pattern of behaviour that could reasonably lead one to conclude that the actions of vandalizing a synagogue were intended to intimidate and marginalize the Jewish community.

The justice system in the US relies on the prosecution providing evidence that shows not only that the person did the crime, but also the motivation behind the crime in order to procure a proper conviction. There is nothing different in the requirements for a hate crime to be prosecuted, indeed as has been stated the guidelines for the prosecution of a hate crime are probably even more rigorous in their demand for proof that it is a hate crime than for other crimes. The requirement of the provision of evidence beyond reasonable doubt is what US justice relies on, it's not about guesswork or mind reading.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

How do the police prove motive with any crime prosecuted? They find evidence. If someone is a member of a group that reveres Hitler (such groups exist in the US) that would be evidence of a pattern of behaviour that could reasonably lead one to conclude that the actions of vandalizing a synagogue were intended to intimidate and marginalize the Jewish community.

The justice system in the US relies on the prosecution providing evidence that shows not only that the person did the crime, but also the motivation behind the crime in order to procure a proper conviction. There is nothing different in the requirements for a hate crime to be prosecuted, indeed as has been stated the guidelines for the prosecution of a hate crime are probably even more rigorous in their demand for proof that it is a hate crime than for other crimes. The requirement of the provision of evidence beyond reasonable doubt is what US justice relies on, it's not about guesswork or mind reading.

The key difference of course is that in prosecuting a crime, a motive has to be found not proven. If you have a probable motive and solid evidence you can convict. In a hate crime, the motive is supposed to be proven beyond a doubt. To do that you have to be able to get in the head of the person.

[Peikko 1,575]

The key difference of course is that in prosecuting a crime, a motive has to be found not proven. If you have a probable motive and solid evidence you can convict. In a hate crime, the motive is supposed to be proven beyond a doubt. To do that you have to be able to get in the head of the person.

No, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt which is why there are categories of killing and violent assault. If one wants to prosecute murder one, one has to have proof that the killing was done under a specific set of circumstances, and that has to be done beyond a reasonable doubt or the killing will be downgraded to second degree or even manslaughter. Incidentally, how many racists do you know that are secretive about their views? Racists tend to be rather vocal about these things, they join dodgy organizations and behave in very particular ways. The way you talk about 'getting in someone's head' it's as if these people are secretive and closet about their views. I find that odd.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

No, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt which is why there are categories of killing and violent assault. If one wants to prosecute murder one, one has to have proof that the killing was done under a specific set of circumstances, and that has to be done beyond a reasonable doubt or the killing will be downgraded to second degree or even manslaughter. Incidentally, how many racists do you know that are secretive about their views? Racists tend to be rather vocal about these things, they join dodgy organizations and behave in very particular ways. The way you talk about 'getting in someone's head' it's as if these people are secretive and closet about their views. I find that odd.

Circumstances that can be proven through evidence. Again in murder one the motive does not need to be proven.

This might help regarding issue of motive.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/8663/Motive.html