Hate Crimes Legislation- Are They Constitutional?
Read the article this discussion is about
- dricha18
- buzzcook
- animalspirit
- dmosse
- buzzcook
- Franc28
- buzzcook
- Franc28
- buzzcook
- Franc28
This archived discussion is "read only".
« Previous 1 2 Next »
» dricha18 - I am not a drone!!
In response to message posted by RussHicks:I don't consider myself a "drone" or "cell" to society's "body"! I am an individual, I do not exist for the benefit of the state or society. Any dividends that society recieves from me living a fairly moral lifestyle are just that, extras. I live for my own sake first.
And the cancer analogy,...what, do you HATE cancer? Doesn't it have a right to thrive too? Yes, this example does fall flat in that cancer could be considered an invading parasitical entity that only survives at the expense of a host--but then, in the United States, I consider the IRS a parasitical entity as well that feeds upon me.
I am in agreement with you on "aggravating factors". Not all murders are equivalent. Premeditation outweighs the "purse snatching that went too far" scenario. But that is what the sentancing stage in a trial is for. Hate is an emotion, but not a crime in itself.
I don't think I can plausibly assert overthrowing the US govt would be worse than the Holocaust. Overthrowing a government can be justified in cases where tyranny exists, that in itself can't be compared to the killing of millions of people. But this is all hypothetical. Stalin DID kill more people than Hitler. And it seems that war crimes are in the eyes of the beholder(Greece has named Pres. Clinton and other members of NATO as war crime offenders for the bombing of Yugoslavia--you dont hear much about that on the evening news!)
I wholeheartedly agree with you that the right to a randomly selected jury has been subverted beyond recognition in this country. Whichever lawyer has the best "jury selection" skills will of course win the trial. If the prerequisite condition is agreeing (or not agreeing) with the death penalty, then the decision of the jury has been pre-decided.
-- posted by dricha18
» buzzcook - Re: Re: anti-lynching et al...
So your position is that those members of a lynch mob who do not kick or beat or pull on the rope, are free of responsibility and should receive no punishment.You do not think that there would be a chilling effect on members of a group to see one of their own mutilated and hanging from a tree.
I also infer from your post to Mr Hicks that you feel that individuals deserve no right to live free from fear.
Lynching has several discrete definitions depending on whether your looking at the law or pop culture etc.
Race is not a necessary component. Neither is minority status.
It's that "Four Freedoms" thing.
-- posted by buzzcook
» animalspirit - Take Me to Your Queen!
In response to message posted by dricha18:Protests of individuality in response to an off-the-cuff Borg reference? How original or “individual” is that?
And the cancer analogy,...what, do you HATE cancer? Doesn't it have a right to thrive too? Yes, this example does fall flat in that cancer could be considered an invading parasitical entity that only survives at the expense of a host
Although we are told causal factors could be internal, external or a combination thereof, cancerous HUMAN cells attack other cells to the overall detriment of the body. Malignant cancer cells or “hate crime” perpetrators - whether they be natural-born or naturalized - which flag and target certain types of cell/human populations necessitate counter-flagging and counter-targeting by the immunity/justice system to register and address the damage done.
I am in agreement with you on "aggravating factors". Not all murders are equivalent. Premeditation outweighs the "purse snatching that went too far" scenario. But that is what the sentencing stage in a trial is for. Hate is an emotion, but not a crime in itself.
The "hate crime" issue boils down to the sentencing stage. Beyond the bumper sticker term "hate crime," the difference isn't merely the emotion or the amount of the emotion, but in the circumstances of the crime and its overall effect upon society. Thus assessments of the internal thinking of the offender impinge not on “emotion” but intent. In a “hate crime” situation the victim has been targeted on the basis of perceived identity. Thus an entire targeted population or perceived target population has been attacked. “Hate thoughts” are constitutionally protected; “hate actions” - expressions via violence - directed at a target population are not.
I don't think I can plausibly assert overthrowing the US govt would be worse than the Holocaust. Overthrowing a government can be justified in cases where tyranny exists, that in itself can't be compared to the killing of millions of people. But this is all hypothetical. Stalin DID kill more people than Hitler. And it seems that war crimes are in the eyes of the beholder(Greece has named Pres. Clinton and other members of NATO as war crime offenders for the bombing of Yugoslavia--you dont hear much about that on the evening news!)
When I wrote:
You can plausibly assert that an overthrow of the US government and crushing resistance would be worse than a holocaust.
"crushing resistance" meant to include the deaths of millions in the manner of Stalin's repression.
My point was that the existence of legal protections against the subversions inherent in a Stalinist repression does not argue against the existence of legal protections in the shape of aggravating sentencing factors against “Hitlerite” “hate crimes.”
While I agree with your point about war crimes being in the eye of the beholder, I still await a convincing response to my prior query:
If our sentencing practices can including aggravating factors such as death in the commission of another crime, use of a firearm, premeditation, etc., what is the argument in favor of all such aggravating factors except for “hate crime” circumstances?
What is the point of an anti-lynching law?
To deter lynchings, including those of the “white sheet” variety. When usurpation of government judicial functions are involved, aggravating sentencing factors are indicated. Unfortunately, equivalent aggravating sentencing factors don’t apply to those culpable in current instances of the “black robe” variety. As noted by Southern Center for Human Rights Director Stephen B. Bright:
“The perfunctory capital trial - the legal lynching - is not a thing of the past. Those facing the death penalty still receive token representation by court-appointed lawyers in cases infected by racism.”
But, once again, I (more slightly this time) digress.
Russ Hicks
Fight parasitism!
"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took all of it from them."
-- posted by animalspirit
» buzzcook - Re: distinctions
In response to distinctions posted by dmosse:dmosse I'm kinda surprised that someone who's apparently involved in the legal proffesion would suggest doing away with considering motive.
That would do way with most of the discintions between murder in the first degree and killing in self defense as well as the many variations in between.
Motive does make a justifiable difference in how we sentence people for crimes.
A motivation of bigoted hatered for a group is appropriate for consideration in sentencing.
-- posted by buzzcook
» Franc28 - Re: Re: distinctions
In response to Re: distinctions posted by buzzcook:I think it's ridiculous to consider motive.
-- posted by Franc28
» buzzcook - Re: Re: Re: distinctions
In response to Re: Re: distinctions posted by Franc28:Franc28: You have just said that if someone shot another in self defense that person should go on trial for murder and the jury should not be informed of the self defense and the defendat should not be allowed to mention self defense as a extenuating factor.
You have to go further then that though. Every fatal accident has to be investigated as homicide and if possible brought to trial as murder.
Franc28 you also could be saying that the Ted Bundys of the world should be tried in the same way as the person who forgot to de-ice there sidewalk, allowing someone to slip and crack their head. The jury wouldn't be allowed to know if Ted was a vicious serial killer or a lazy guy who miss placed his snow shovel.
-- posted by buzzcook
» Franc28 - Re: Re: Re: Re: distinctions
In response to Re: Re: Re: distinctions posted by buzzcook:"Franc28: You have just said that if someone shot another in self defense that person should go on trial for murder"
Self-defense can be determined objectively. Either the person killed was aiming a deadly weapon or not.
"Every fatal accident has to be investigated as homicide and if possible brought to trial as murder."
Well, that really depends on the manpower available to the police now does it.
"Franc28 you also could be saying that the Ted Bundys of the world should be tried in the same way as the person who forgot to de-ice there sidewalk, allowing someone to slip and crack their head. The jury wouldn't be allowed to know if Ted was a vicious serial killer or a lazy guy who miss placed his snow shovel."
Well, I'm very much against juries. But yes, I don't think someone's record should have an undue influence on the judgment.
-- posted by Franc28
» buzzcook - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: distinctions
In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: distinctions posted by Franc28:"Self-defense can be determined objectively. Either the person killed was aiming a deadly weapon or not."
But even an objective determination of self defense allows for the introduction of motive. Please stay self consistent.
"Well, that really depends on the manpower"
You're the one that wants to send snow shovel boy to the electric chair. You will have to ensure that the cops get the budget they need.
"Well, I'm very much against juries. But yes, I don't think someone's record should have an undue influence on the judgment."
Geez you sure dodged that one. Either that or you don't want to admit that in your world the brutal rape, toture, and murder of a young girl is indistinguishable from a slip on an icy sidewalk.
If I realy believed you thought I was referencing a criminal's history I would be even more disappointed in you.
-- posted by buzzcook
» Franc28 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: distinctions
In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: distinctions posted by buzzcook:"But even an objective determination of self defense allows for the introduction of motive. Please stay self consistent."
No it doesn't. It has nothing to do with motive.
"You're the one that wants to send snow shovel boy to the electric chair."
Uh, who the fuck are you addressing here ? I am strongly against the death penalty.
"Geez you sure dodged that one. Either that or you don't want to admit that in your world the brutal rape, toture, and murder of a young girl is indistinguishable from a slip on an icy sidewalk."
You mean, like how idiots can't distinguish their ass from a hole in the ground ?
-- posted by Franc28
« Previous 1 2 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.