Right or wrong, people are allowed to be racists, bigots, homophobes... in this country, as long as that bigotry doesn't interfere with the rights of others. Does that make any sense?
It certainly does; however, when people are beaten up for being gay, I'd say their rights are being interfered with, and therefore some extra penalty might properly be applied upon conviction -- which brings us back to hate-crime legislation.
It certainly does; however, when people are beaten up for being gay, I'd say their rights are being interfered with, and therefore some extra penalty might properly be applied upon conviction -- which brings us back to hate-crime legislation.
Agreed -- and I'm not a big fan of hate-crime legislation, but it seems to me that an attack "provoked" by someone's skin color or other perceived group status (religion, sexual orientation, etc.) should be punished more severely than a fight that started over, say, an argument about politics.
...but it seems to me that an attack "provoked" by someone's skin color or other perceived group status (religion, sexual orientation, etc.) should be punished more severely than a fight that started over, say, an argument about politics.
I would have to disagree. IMHO No one deserves special treatment simply because they're black, or gay, or whatever.
perhaps you think that it doesn't matter if a robbery is commited with a gun or not either. As long as the gun isn't used, it's the same as a robbery done without a gun? Is that what you want?
No, it's not. It's based on the victim, not the crime committed. Quit lying to yourself.
nor is hate crime. it's based on the motivation of the criminal.
Bullshit. Then the status of the victim wouldn't be brought into it, only the motivation.
so, you want to abolish 1st degree, 2nd degree...etc?
Not really. I just don't think the status of the victim should matter. Only the crime committed should matter.
perhaps you think that it doesn't matter if a robbery is commited with a gun or not either. As long as the gun isn't used, it's the same as a robbery done without a gun? Is that what you want?
No, what I'm saying is, who is robbed shouldn't matter.
No, it's not. It's based on the victim, not the crime committed. Quit lying to yourself.
wrong.
Bullshit. Then the status of the victim wouldn't be brought into it, only the motivation
it's based on WHY the criminal did it. not all murders of homosexuals are done because they are homosexuals. If you kill a homosexual BECAUSE you want to rob him , it isn't a hate crime, if you kill him BECAUSE he is a homosexual, it is. Hate crimes aren't based on the victim, the they are based on the motivation of the assailent.
Only the crime committed should matter.
again, don't you think the "degree" matters?
No, what I'm saying is, who is robbed shouldn't matter.
who is robbed isn't the point. the point is the motivation. If you aren't armed, you aren't motivated to kill anyone, which is different that if you are armed, which indicates a motivation to kill someone if they resist.
Hate crime is based on the motivation of the criminal, not the victim.
No, what I'm saying is, who is robbed shouldn't matter.
what matters is if the assailant intended to kill the victim. That he had a gun indicates an intention to kill if resistance is met. This has nothing to do with the victim. It has everything to do with the motivation of the criminal.
Armed robbery is punished more seriously than regular robbery, and in most jurisdictions, simply leading the victim to believe that one is armed with a deadly weapon (such as brandishing an unloaded or toy gun) is treated as armed robbery.
It's facile to say robbery is robbery, period, end of story; the law recognizes mitigating and aggravating factors in many crimes, and attempts to protect society by adjusting sentences accordingly. If someone's actions are intended to strike at an entire group, I don't see the law's recognition of that motivation as a granting of "special rights."
You've provided nothing to make be believe otherwise.
it's based on WHY the criminal did it. not all murders of homosexuals are done because they are homosexuals. If you kill a homosexual BECAUSE you want to rob him , it isn't a hate crime, if you kill him BECAUSE he is a homosexual, it is. Hate crimes aren't based on the victim, the they are based on the motivation of the assailent.
Twist it all you want, it still boils down to the status of the victim more than the crime itself. You're giving special status to the victim, not the crime committed. FYI: Hating someone or a group of people isn't a crime, nor should it be.
again, don't you think the "degree" matters?
Sure, if you beat someone near death, it's a lot worse than throwing one punch. Once again I state, it has nothing to do with the status of the victim, but the crime committed.
who is robbed isn't the point. the point is the motivation.
Yes it is, otherwise why even bring up the fact that they're gay, or black, or Jewish....?
If you aren't armed, you aren't motivated to kill anyone, which is different that if you are armed, which indicates a motivation to kill someone if they resist.
FYI: Most armed robberies do not result in the death of anyone.
Hate crime is based on the motivation of the criminal, not the victim.
Fiddle Faddle. Like I've said, why even address the issue of the victim's status? The critical factor in all this is the status of the victim. The decisive issue isn't motivation, but the status of the victim.
what matters is if the assailant intended to kill the victim. That he had a gun indicates an intention to kill if resistance is met. This has nothing to do with the victim. It has everything to do with the motivation of the criminal.
I repeat, the status of the victim shouldn't matter, and that's what you're using as your litmus test.
Armed robbery is punished more seriously than regular robbery, and in most jurisdictions, simply leading the victim to believe that one is armed with a deadly weapon (such as brandishing an unloaded or toy gun) is treated as armed robbery.
Correct. And non of it has to do with the status of the victim.
It's facile to say robbery is robbery, period, end of story; the law recognizes mitigating and aggravating factors in many crimes, and attempts to protect society by adjusting sentences accordingly. If someone's actions are intended to strike at an entire group, I don't see the law's recognition of that motivation as a granting of "special rights."
I'm not saying robbery is robbery, period. I'm saying the status of the victim is irrelevant.
Yes it is, otherwise why even bring up the fact that they're gay, or black, or Jewish....?
it's not the fact that the victim is anything...it's the fact that the assailant's motive was the fact that they were this or that. The assailant is the one who decided that the status of the victim was the reason for the crime, a hate law only recognises this fact.
if you are saying that crimes should be prosecuted without any consideration to the motive, than a car accident that kills someone and someone who intentionally runs someone over are the same thing.
if you are saying that crimes should be prosecuted without any consideration to the motive, than a car accident that kills someone and someone who intentionally runs someone over are the same thing.
Your argument doesn't hold water, Crabby.
Can't you see that your motive argument is all based on the status of the victim?
You're creating a litmus test, and under your litmus test you're not saying that someone that is run over on purpose is a worse crime than an accident. You're saying someone who is intentionally run over because they're black or whatever is worse than someone intentionally being run over for some other reason. Which is all based on the status of the victim.
it's the crime that is based on the status of the person
Crime is always based on the status of the victim. A diamond thief isn't going to steal cow shit out of a farm yard. They're going to go after diamond stores/dealers.
the law is only trying to accurately define the crime, not the victim.
Don't you see that the crime is the same, regardless of the victim? Murdering a white male because you want his wallet, leaves him just as dead as if you kill a black man because you're a racist.
the criminal is the one defining the victim, the law is only trying to recognise that this was the case.
The criminal is always the one that defines the victim. A bank robber, if he kills, is going to kill bank employees, not shoe salesmen.
Can't you see that your motive argument is all based on the status of the victim?
no, it's based entirely on the motive of the assailant.
if it was based on the victim, than pretty much all crime would be hate crime.
You're saying someone who is intentionally run over because they're black or whatever is worse than someone intentionally being run over for some other reason. Which is all based on the status of the victim.
GEORGE W. BUSH: We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road or not. The chicken is either for us or against us. There is no middle ground.
TONY BLAIR: I agree with George.
COLIN POWELL: Now to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road.
HANS BLIX: We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.
SAEED AL SAHAF, Iraqi Head of Information: The chicken did not cross the road. This is a complete fabrication. We do not even have a chicken.
It returned not only $$$ to our economy on the order of 7 to 1 spent
Care to back that up? Tell me exactly what we've gotten from our space program? What products and services do americans use everyday, that have come about because of the space program?
no, it's based entirely on the motive of the assailant.
Once again: Then why even consider the status of the victim?
if it was based on the victim, than pretty much all crime would be hate crime.
That's pretty much what I'm saying. You don't commit a crime against someone because you love them. That's why special groups shouldn't get special consideration, simply because of their status as a victim.
My question is if you are a white guy and you hate your neighbor for any number of reasons such as he parties all night disturbing your peace, tresspasses on your property, litters on your property, calls you all sorts of vulgar names and because of that you decide to kill him, why should you get a lesser sentence if he happens to be white but a stiffer sentence if he is black or gay?
Why, crabs, isn't it a violation of equal protection for a white person that beats ups a black or a gay because they hate them to get a harsher sentence than a white guy that beats up his white neighbor because he hates him? For the purposes assume that all the facts of the beating are the same except the race or sexual orientation of the victim.
The gay front would like to be viewed as the latest chapter of the civil rights movement. According to their reasoning, gays are America's newest oppressed minority, seeking fairness, justice, and the right to pursue happiness in the same manner as other social groups in the country. Homosexuals today feel they are fighting the same battle that blacks fought 40 years ago.
But, in fact, the gay movement is the civil rights movement turned on its head.
in the example you provide (disturbing your peace, tresspasses on your property, litters on your property), the hate comes from having crimes commited against him, so it's not a hate crime. If that is the reason that is.
if the black or gay neighbor broke the law by disturbing the peace and violating the private property of his white neighbor because his neighbor was white...that would be hate crimes.
if the black or gay neighbor broke the law by disturbing the peace and violating the private property of his white neighbor because his neighbor was white...that would be hate crimes.
Can't you see by your own statements you're admitting it's the status of the victim that is the defining factor?
THX, we're just going to have to give this one up. You believe that it's the status of the victim, I and others believe that it's the motivation of the perp, and neither side is going to change the other's mind.
Motivation is reognized by our system of law as an aggravating factor; it is the major difference between manslaughter and murder.
Can't you see by your own statements you're admitting it's the status of the victim that is the defining factor?
violating the private property of his white neighborbecause his neighbor was white...that would be hate crimes.
becauseis a word that defines the assailant's motivation.
the neighbor's status is the defining factor of the assailant,the motivationproduced by this factor is what defines the law as a hate law.
if the victim's race or sexual orientation were the defining factor of the law, all crime against someone who is different than the assailant would be hate crime, and that is simply not the case.
(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder  in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for  life:
(1) causes the death of a human being with premeditation  and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another;
(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or  attempting to commit criminal sexual conduct in the first or  second degree with force or violence, either upon or affecting  the person or another;
(3) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect  the death of the person or another, while committing or  attempting to commit burglary, aggravated robbery, kidnapping,  arson in the first or second degree, a drive-by shooting,  tampering with a witness in the first degree, escape from  custody, or any felony violation of chapter 152 involving the  unlawful sale of a controlled substance;
(4) causes the death of a peace officer or a guard employed  at a Minnesota state or local correctional facility, with intent  to effect the death of that person or another, while the peace  officer or guard is engaged in the performance of official  duties;
(5) causes the death of a minor while committing child  abuse, when the perpetrator has engaged in a past pattern of  child abuse upon the child and the death occurs under  circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life;
(6) causes the death of a human being while committing  domestic abuse, when the perpetrator has engaged in a past  pattern of domestic abuse upon the victim or upon another family  or household member and the death occurs under circumstances  manifesting an extreme indifference to human life; or
(7) causes the death of a human being while committing,  conspiring to commit, or attempting to commit a felony crime to  further terrorism and the death occurs under circumstances  manifesting an extreme indifference to human life.
(b) For purposes of paragraph (a), clause (5), "child abuse"  means an act committed against a minor victim that constitutes a  violation of the following laws of this state or any similar  laws of the United States or any other state: section 609.221;  609.222; 609.223; 609.224; 609.2242; 609.342; 609.343; 609.344;  609.345; 609.377; 609.378; or 609.713.
(c) For purposes of paragraph (a), clause (6), "domestic  abuse" means an act that:
(1) constitutes a violation of section 609.221, 609.222,  609.223, 609.224, 609.2242, 609.342, 609.343, 609.344, 609.345,  609.713, or any similar laws of the United States or any other  state; and
(2) is committed against the victim who is a family or  household member as defined in section 518B.01, subdivision 2,  paragraph (b).
(d) For purposes of paragraph (a), clause (7), "further  terrorism" has the meaning given in section 609.714, subdivision  1.
HIST: 1963 c 753 art 1 s 609.185; 1975 c 374 s 1; 1981 c 227 s  9; 1986 c 444; 1988 c 662 s 2; 1989 c 290 art 2 s 11; 1990 c 583  s 4; 1992 c 571 art 4 s 5; 1994 c 636 art 2 s 19; 1995 c 244 s  12; 1995 c 259 art 3 s 12; 1998 c 367 art 2 s 7; 2000 c 437 s 5;  2002 c 401 art 1 s 15
I don't see anything in here saying the motivation of the perp makes any difference, only the INTENT to commit the act.
I don't see anything in here saying the motivation of the perp makes any difference
with premeditation and with intent
premedication and intent...motivation
"child abuse" means an act committed against a minor victim
how is a "child abuse" crime different than a "hate" crime?
causes the death of a human being while committing  domestic abuse  Â
how is a crime against a spouse different from a "hate" crime?
while committing, conspiring to commit, or attempting to commit a felony crime to further terrorism and the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life.
why is the motive of terrorism different than the motive of a "hate" crime?
with intent to effect  the death of the person or another, while committing or  Â attempting to commit burglary, aggravated robbery, kidnapping,  Â arson in the first or second degree, a drive-by shooting,  Â tampering with a witness in the first degree, escape from  Â custody, or any felony violation of chapter 152 involving the  Â unlawful sale of a controlled substance  Â
why is the intent to commit burglary, robbery, kidnapping, arson different than a "hate" crime?
while committing or  attempting to commit criminal sexual conduct  Â
why is the intent to commit criminal sexual conduct different than a "hate" crime?
No, they all would be considered "Murder in the first degree" What you are asking for is that we convict them of first degree murder and then convict them of another crime based on their thoughts. Is this not double jeopardy?
How would you choose what crime was committed in hate and what was not? Would belonging to a neo-nazi group automatically make the crime a hate crime? Do we really want to effectively outlaw groups that we find offensive and who would decide? How can you prove a hate crime if the person does not flaunt their hatred for the protected group? Could graffiti be considered a hate crime and who decides what words or symbols would be banned? If I find the Democratic party to be offensive and my neighbor puts signs in his yard with Democratic party symbols on it, would that be a hate crime?
Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life:
If a person "causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of the person or another, while committing or attempting to commit burglary" out of hatred for their race, would we need to locate that person when he is reincarnated and throw him in jail for his second life imprisonment?
So many questions arise from this type of law.
One last one, could the events of 9/11 be considered a hate crime?
crabs: in the example you provide (disturbing your peace, tresspasses on your property, litters on your property), the hate comes from having crimes commited against him, so it's not a hate crime. If that is the reason that is.
That makes no sense. He could still hate him. I guess you believe if there is cause to hate then it isn't hate?
THX, we're just going to have to give this one up. You believe that it's the status of the victim, I and others believe that it's the motivation of the perp, and neither side is going to change the other's mind.
You still have an equal protection problem. I know that liberals don't give a rat's ass about the constitution but it is there.
crabs wrote: the neighbor's status is the defining factor of the assailant, the motivation produced by this factor is what defines the law as a hate law.
the neigbor's status? Why can't you see then that there is an equal proitection problem?
Hate laws are a violation of equal protection. If I were to beat you, assuming you are white, within an inch of your life and I am subject to 30 years imprisonment shouldn't I also be subject to 30 years imprisonment if you are black? That would be equal protection under the law. If however, if someone used the n-word while he is beating a black man in the same manner, why should he be subject to say 50 years imprisonment? Can't you see that the neither the victims or the defendants are treated equally for the same crime? Please remember that hate by itself is not a crime, at least not yet.
By your logic, jethro, no one should support any self-proclaimed Christian leader because one of that ilk, Jerry Falwell, for years sold a videotape which charged that Bill Clinton was both a major drug smuggler and a serial killer. There are nutcases at the political extremes -- what else is new?
what part of extreme left didn't you understand, pieter? I mean your post implies that all Christians leaders are extremists. I have no doubt that is what you meant but I expect that you will deny that.
From what I read of your posts, you seem to define the "extreme left" as anyone more liberal than VP Cheney. Your link seemed to imply that no sane person could ever consider voting for a Democratic candidate because all them liberals think alike, and here's what one thinks, therefore that's what they all think. I merely pointed out that using your logic, no one should support any self-styled Christian leader because of some of the sleazier actions of Jarry Falwell. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
And if that wasn't what you were implying by what you linked, try explaining yourself when you do post links.
It certainly does; however, when people are beaten up for being gay, I'd say their rights are being interfered with, and therefore some extra penalty might properly be applied upon conviction -- which brings us back to hate-crime legislation.
it's your phrase, you tell me.
I already did.
It certainly does; however, when people are beaten up for being gay, I'd say their rights are being interfered with, and therefore some extra penalty might properly be applied upon conviction -- which brings us back to hate-crime legislation.
It's already a crime to beat someone up.
Agreed -- and I'm not a big fan of hate-crime legislation, but it seems to me that an attack "provoked" by someone's skin color or other perceived group status (religion, sexual orientation, etc.) should be punished more severely than a fight that started over, say, an argument about politics.
...but it seems to me that an attack "provoked" by someone's skin color or other perceived group status (religion, sexual orientation, etc.) should be punished more severely than a fight that started over, say, an argument about politics.
I would have to disagree. IMHO No one deserves special treatment simply because they're black, or gay, or whatever.
then what are you asking me for?
hate-crime law doesn't treat the victim, it it's about how to treat the criminal.
motivation is considered in many laws.
or do you think the pre-meditated crime is the same as the crime of passion?
hate-crime law doesn't treat the victim, it it's about how to treat the criminal.
Yes it does. What is being asked is for special treatment based on the status of the victim, not on the status of the crime.
motivation is considered in many laws.
Yes, but it isn't based on the status of the victim.
or do you think the pre-meditated crime is the same as the crime of passion?
I think murder is murder, rape is rape.... I don't care if it was pre-meditated.
not at all.
it is based in the motivation of the criminal.
nor is hate crime. it's based on the motivation of the criminal.
so, you want to abolish 1st degree, 2nd degree...etc?
perhaps you think that it doesn't matter if a robbery is commited with a gun or not either. As long as the gun isn't used, it's the same as a robbery done without a gun? Is that what you want?
it is based in the motivation of the criminal.
No, it's not. It's based on the victim, not the crime committed. Quit lying to yourself.
nor is hate crime. it's based on the motivation of the criminal.
Bullshit. Then the status of the victim wouldn't be brought into it, only the motivation.
so, you want to abolish 1st degree, 2nd degree...etc?
Not really. I just don't think the status of the victim should matter. Only the crime committed should matter.
perhaps you think that it doesn't matter if a robbery is commited with a gun or not either. As long as the gun isn't used, it's the same as a robbery done without a gun? Is that what you want?
No, what I'm saying is, who is robbed shouldn't matter.
wrong.
it's based on WHY the criminal did it. not all murders of homosexuals are done because they are homosexuals. If you kill a homosexual BECAUSE you want to rob him , it isn't a hate crime, if you kill him BECAUSE he is a homosexual, it is. Hate crimes aren't based on the victim, the they are based on the motivation of the assailent.
again, don't you think the "degree" matters?
who is robbed isn't the point. the point is the motivation. If you aren't armed, you aren't motivated to kill anyone, which is different that if you are armed, which indicates a motivation to kill someone if they resist.
Hate crime is based on the motivation of the criminal, not the victim.
what matters is if the assailant intended to kill the victim. That he had a gun indicates an intention to kill if resistance is met. This has nothing to do with the victim. It has everything to do with the motivation of the criminal.
In most cases, the gun is intended to scare you into submission.
one of the motivations of the criminal.
do we have different penalties for the motivation the scare people with the threat of death as opposed to simply robbing them?
or do we just assume they weren't going to use the gun and treat them like a robber without one?
Armed robbery is punished more seriously than regular robbery, and in most jurisdictions, simply leading the victim to believe that one is armed with a deadly weapon (such as brandishing an unloaded or toy gun) is treated as armed robbery.
It's facile to say robbery is robbery, period, end of story; the law recognizes mitigating and aggravating factors in many crimes, and attempts to protect society by adjusting sentences accordingly. If someone's actions are intended to strike at an entire group, I don't see the law's recognition of that motivation as a granting of "special rights."
Was Reginald Denny's beating a hate crime?
sure was.
wrong.
You've provided nothing to make be believe otherwise.
it's based on WHY the criminal did it. not all murders of homosexuals are done because they are homosexuals. If you kill a homosexual BECAUSE you want to rob him , it isn't a hate crime, if you kill him BECAUSE he is a homosexual, it is. Hate crimes aren't based on the victim, the they are based on the motivation of the assailent.
Twist it all you want, it still boils down to the status of the victim more than the crime itself. You're giving special status to the victim, not the crime committed. FYI: Hating someone or a group of people isn't a crime, nor should it be.
again, don't you think the "degree" matters?
Sure, if you beat someone near death, it's a lot worse than throwing one punch. Once again I state, it has nothing to do with the status of the victim, but the crime committed.
who is robbed isn't the point. the point is the motivation.
Yes it is, otherwise why even bring up the fact that they're gay, or black, or Jewish....?
If you aren't armed, you aren't motivated to kill anyone, which is different that if you are armed, which indicates a motivation to kill someone if they resist.
FYI: Most armed robberies do not result in the death of anyone.
Hate crime is based on the motivation of the criminal, not the victim.
Fiddle Faddle. Like I've said, why even address the issue of the victim's status? The critical factor in all this is the status of the victim. The decisive issue isn't motivation, but the status of the victim.
what matters is if the assailant intended to kill the victim. That he had a gun indicates an intention to kill if resistance is met. This has nothing to do with the victim. It has everything to do with the motivation of the criminal.
I repeat, the status of the victim shouldn't matter, and that's what you're using as your litmus test.
Armed robbery is punished more seriously than regular robbery, and in most jurisdictions, simply leading the victim to believe that one is armed with a deadly weapon (such as brandishing an unloaded or toy gun) is treated as armed robbery.
Correct. And non of it has to do with the status of the victim.
It's facile to say robbery is robbery, period, end of story; the law recognizes mitigating and aggravating factors in many crimes, and attempts to protect society by adjusting sentences accordingly. If someone's actions are intended to strike at an entire group, I don't see the law's recognition of that motivation as a granting of "special rights."
I'm not saying robbery is robbery, period. I'm saying the status of the victim is irrelevant.
it's not the fact that the victim is anything...it's the fact that the assailant's motive was the fact that they were this or that. The assailant is the one who decided that the status of the victim was the reason for the crime, a hate law only recognises this fact.
if you are saying that crimes should be prosecuted without any consideration to the motive, than a car accident that kills someone and someone who intentionally runs someone over are the same thing.
it's the crime that is based on the status of the person
the law is only trying to accurately define the crime, not the victim.
the criminal is the one defining the victim, the law is only trying to recognise that this was the case.
if you are saying that crimes should be prosecuted without any consideration to the motive, than a car accident that kills someone and someone who intentionally runs someone over are the same thing.
Your argument doesn't hold water, Crabby.
Can't you see that your motive argument is all based on the status of the victim?
You're creating a litmus test, and under your litmus test you're not saying that someone that is run over on purpose is a worse crime than an accident. You're saying someone who is intentionally run over because they're black or whatever is worse than someone intentionally being run over for some other reason. Which is all based on the status of the victim.
it's the crime that is based on the status of the person
Crime is always based on the status of the victim. A diamond thief isn't going to steal cow shit out of a farm yard. They're going to go after diamond stores/dealers.
the law is only trying to accurately define the crime, not the victim.
Don't you see that the crime is the same, regardless of the victim? Murdering a white male because you want his wallet, leaves him just as dead as if you kill a black man because you're a racist.
the criminal is the one defining the victim, the law is only trying to recognise that this was the case.
The criminal is always the one that defines the victim. A bank robber, if he kills, is going to kill bank employees, not shoe salesmen.
Catch ya tomorrow, Crabby. Gotta run. Have a good one.
no, it's based entirely on the motive of the assailant.
if it was based on the victim, than pretty much all crime would be hate crime.
no, that is based on the motive of the assailant.
Why did the chicken cross the road?
GEORGE W. BUSH: We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road or not. The chicken is either for us or against us. There is no middle ground.
TONY BLAIR: I agree with George.
COLIN POWELL: Now to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road.
HANS BLIX: We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.
SAEED AL SAHAF, Iraqi Head of Information: The chicken did not cross the road. This is a complete fabrication. We do not even have a chicken.
It returned not only $$$ to our economy on the order of 7 to 1 spent
Care to back that up? Tell me exactly what we've gotten from our space program? What products and services do americans use everyday, that have come about because of the space program?
NASA is a cost center, plain and simple.
no, it's based entirely on the motive of the assailant.
Once again: Then why even consider the status of the victim?
if it was based on the victim, than pretty much all crime would be hate crime.
That's pretty much what I'm saying. You don't commit a crime against someone because you love them. That's why special groups shouldn't get special consideration, simply because of their status as a victim.
My question is if you are a white guy and you hate your neighbor for any number of reasons such as he parties all night disturbing your peace, tresspasses on your property, litters on your property, calls you all sorts of vulgar names and because of that you decide to kill him, why should you get a lesser sentence if he happens to be white but a stiffer sentence if he is black or gay?
Why, crabs, isn't it a violation of equal protection for a white person that beats ups a black or a gay because they hate them to get a harsher sentence than a white guy that beats up his white neighbor because he hates him? For the purposes assume that all the facts of the beating are the same except the race or sexual orientation of the victim.
The gay front would like to be viewed as the latest chapter of the civil rights movement. According to their reasoning, gays are America's newest oppressed minority, seeking fairness, justice, and the right to pursue happiness in the same manner as other social groups in the country. Homosexuals today feel they are fighting the same battle that blacks fought 40 years ago.
But, in fact, the gay movement is the civil rights movement turned on its head.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Parker20040112.shtml
in the example you provide (disturbing your peace, tresspasses on your property, litters on your property), the hate comes from having crimes commited against him, so it's not a hate crime. If that is the reason that is.
if the black or gay neighbor broke the law by disturbing the peace and violating the private property of his white neighbor because his neighbor was white...that would be hate crimes.
if the black or gay neighbor broke the law by disturbing the peace and violating the private property of his white neighbor because his neighbor was white...that would be hate crimes.
Can't you see by your own statements you're admitting it's the status of the victim that is the defining factor?
THX, we're just going to have to give this one up. You believe that it's the status of the victim, I and others believe that it's the motivation of the perp, and neither side is going to change the other's mind.
Motivation is reognized by our system of law as an aggravating factor; it is the major difference between manslaughter and murder.
violating the private property of his white neighbor because
his neighbor was white...that would be hate crimes.
becauseis a word that defines the assailant's motivation.
the neighbor's status is the defining factor of the assailant,the motivationproduced by this factor is what defines the law as a hate law.
if the victim's race or sexual orientation were the defining factor of the law, all crime against someone who is different than the assailant would be hate crime, and that is simply not the case.
609.185 Murder in the first degree.
(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder
 in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for
 life:
(1) causes the death of a human being with premeditation
 and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another;
(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or
 attempting to commit criminal sexual conduct in the first or
 second degree with force or violence, either upon or affecting
 the person or another;
(3) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect
 the death of the person or another, while committing or
 attempting to commit burglary, aggravated robbery, kidnapping,
 arson in the first or second degree, a drive-by shooting,
 tampering with a witness in the first degree, escape from
 custody, or any felony violation of chapter 152 involving the
 unlawful sale of a controlled substance;
(4) causes the death of a peace officer or a guard employed
 at a Minnesota state or local correctional facility, with intent
 to effect the death of that person or another, while the peace
 officer or guard is engaged in the performance of official
 duties;
(5) causes the death of a minor while committing child
 abuse, when the perpetrator has engaged in a past pattern of
 child abuse upon the child and the death occurs under
 circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life;
(6) causes the death of a human being while committing
 domestic abuse, when the perpetrator has engaged in a past
 pattern of domestic abuse upon the victim or upon another family
 or household member and the death occurs under circumstances
 manifesting an extreme indifference to human life; or
(7) causes the death of a human being while committing,
 conspiring to commit, or attempting to commit a felony crime to
 further terrorism and the death occurs under circumstances
 manifesting an extreme indifference to human life.
(b) For purposes of paragraph (a), clause (5), "child abuse"
 means an act committed against a minor victim that constitutes a
 violation of the following laws of this state or any similar
 laws of the United States or any other state: section 609.221;
 609.222; 609.223; 609.224; 609.2242; 609.342; 609.343; 609.344;
 609.345; 609.377; 609.378; or 609.713.
(c) For purposes of paragraph (a), clause (6), "domestic
 abuse" means an act that:
(1) constitutes a violation of section 609.221, 609.222,
 609.223, 609.224, 609.2242, 609.342, 609.343, 609.344, 609.345,
 609.713, or any similar laws of the United States or any other
 state; and
(2) is committed against the victim who is a family or
 household member as defined in section 518B.01, subdivision 2,
 paragraph (b).
(d) For purposes of paragraph (a), clause (7), "further
 terrorism" has the meaning given in section 609.714, subdivision
 1.
HIST: 1963 c 753 art 1 s 609.185; 1975 c 374 s 1; 1981 c 227 s
 9; 1986 c 444; 1988 c 662 s 2; 1989 c 290 art 2 s 11; 1990 c 583
 s 4; 1992 c 571 art 4 s 5; 1994 c 636 art 2 s 19; 1995 c 244 s
 12; 1995 c 259 art 3 s 12; 1998 c 367 art 2 s 7; 2000 c 437 s 5;
 2002 c 401 art 1 s 15
I don't see anything in here saying the motivation of the perp makes any difference, only the INTENT to commit the act.
premedication and intent...motivation
how is a "child abuse" crime different than a "hate" crime?
how is a crime against a spouse different from a "hate" crime?
why is the motive of terrorism different than the motive of a "hate" crime?
why is the intent to commit burglary, robbery, kidnapping, arson different than a "hate" crime?
why is the intent to commit criminal sexual conduct different than a "hate" crime?
different laws for different intents.
different laws for different intents.
No, they all would be considered "Murder in the first degree" What you are asking for is that we convict them of first degree murder and then convict them of another crime based on their thoughts. Is this not double jeopardy?
How would you choose what crime was committed in hate and what was not? Would belonging to a neo-nazi group automatically make the crime a hate crime? Do we really want to effectively outlaw groups that we find offensive and who would decide? How can you prove a hate crime if the person does not flaunt their hatred for the protected group? Could graffiti be considered a hate crime and who decides what words or symbols would be banned? If I find the Democratic party to be offensive and my neighbor puts signs in his yard with Democratic party symbols on it, would that be a hate crime?
If a person "causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of the person or another, while committing or attempting to commit burglary" out of hatred for their race, would we need to locate that person when he is reincarnated and throw him in jail for his second life imprisonment?
So many questions arise from this type of law.
One last one, could the events of 9/11 be considered a hate crime?
crabs: in the example you provide (disturbing your peace, tresspasses on your property, litters on your property), the hate comes from having crimes commited against him, so it's not a hate crime. If that is the reason that is.
That makes no sense. He could still hate him. I guess you believe if there is cause to hate then it isn't hate?
THX, we're just going to have to give this one up. You believe that it's the status of the victim, I and others believe that it's the motivation of the perp, and neither side is going to change the other's mind.
You still have an equal protection problem. I know that liberals don't give a rat's ass about the constitution but it is there.
crabs wrote: the neighbor's status is the defining factor of the assailant, the motivation produced by this factor is what defines the law as a hate law.
the neigbor's status? Why can't you see then that there is an equal proitection problem?
if someone kills you because you are white, it's a hate crime too.
if someone kills you for another reason then where is the equal protection? but I think the better example is assault.
you act like there are no other laws
hate laws don't invalidate the other laws.
Hate laws are a violation of equal protection. If I were to beat you, assuming you are white, within an inch of your life and I am subject to 30 years imprisonment shouldn't I also be subject to 30 years imprisonment if you are black? That would be equal protection under the law. If however, if someone used the n-word while he is beating a black man in the same manner, why should he be subject to say 50 years imprisonment? Can't you see that the neither the victims or the defendants are treated equally for the same crime? Please remember that hate by itself is not a crime, at least not yet.
In a trial, the prosecution does not have to show motive.
I can't imagine why anyone would support the extreme left. Here is another example of their handy work: http://www.takebackthemedia.com/bushnonazi.html
By your logic, jethro, no one should support any self-proclaimed Christian leader because one of that ilk, Jerry Falwell, for years sold a videotape which charged that Bill Clinton was both a major drug smuggler and a serial killer. There are nutcases at the political extremes -- what else is new?
There are nutcases at the political extremes -- what else is new?
I gotta agree with ya there, Pieter.
what part of extreme left didn't you understand, pieter? I mean your post implies that all Christians leaders are extremists. I have no doubt that is what you meant but I expect that you will deny that.
jethro, try emulating your avatar.
From what I read of your posts, you seem to define the "extreme left" as anyone more liberal than VP Cheney. Your link seemed to imply that no sane person could ever consider voting for a Democratic candidate because all them liberals think alike, and here's what one thinks, therefore that's what they all think. I merely pointed out that using your logic, no one should support any self-styled Christian leader because of some of the sleazier actions of Jarry Falwell. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
And if that wasn't what you were implying by what you linked, try explaining yourself when you do post links.