Post #55,326
10/7/02 4:24:09 PM
|
You're right, but I think hate crime laws unconstitutional
Question: What makes a hate crime a hate crime?
Answer: The reason for selecting the victim.
In other words, the thoughts of the criminal. What the criminal was thinking when planning or carrying out the crime turns a normal crime into a hate crime, for certain kinds of thoughts.
Sounds a bit too Orwellian to me. Sounds like a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
Brian Bronson
|
Post #55,328
10/7/02 4:38:35 PM
|
I think an "equal protection" argument works better.
I too am troubled by hate-crime laws. Yes, members of certain groups have had a history of being treated badly because of their membership. But it seems to me that the [link|http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html|14th Amendment] argues that hate-crime laws are unconstitutional. Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
[...] But I'm sure there are arguments that say that h-c laws don't violate this amendment. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #55,329
10/7/02 4:43:10 PM
|
Nah. Going with brother Bronson on this
It seems you need some "thought police" to determine if the motives were simple opportunism or inspired by hatred.
"A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor."
-- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Post #55,405
10/7/02 11:00:28 PM
|
All crime is thought crime.
There are very, very few situations where the state of mind of the perp is not a deciding factor.
The difference between self defense and first degree murder is the degree of fear that the killer felt. The act is the same. Thus, murder is a thought crime.
Even posession of contraband is a thought crime - if you can convince the relevant authority that you had no idea that you had it (it was stored without your knowledge or consent and despite your reasonable efforts to prevent it) you are probably clear. Thus, it isn't the existance of contraband that is the crime, but the knowledge of the contraband.
----
Whatever
|
Post #55,428
10/8/02 12:25:35 AM
|
We are no longer a Constitutional Republic
Haven't you read the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act yet? It isn't just the XIVth amendment trashed. (And without an Amendment even! to that Constitution we are now disregarding for 'security')
Now if we ever overthrow this cabal, we can talk about undoing lots of illegal laws. And clarify 'hate' crimes too.
Ashton
|
Post #55,476
10/8/02 9:08:19 AM
|
Don't think it's better, though in theory should apply too
I think it's a harder case to argue. I'm sure the law as written doesn't say "white rascists who murder blacks"... Even though that IS how it is enforced. Selective enforcement should make it unconstitutional, but I think that's harder to argue, while the thoughtcrime aspect should be a slam dunk against the First Amd.
Why do I think it's harder? Take affirmative action as used by the governments. Not as advertised, or in theory, but as implemented: racial and gender quotas in hiring, promoting and firing. These laws are written to treat people differently. This is blatantly in violation of the 14th, and yet the laws have been around for a long time. And being written is more clear cut than just being selectively enforced.
Plus, you have to gather all sorts of cases where the h-c law is selectively applied.
I think that adds up to being a harder argument than straight freedom of thought.
Brian Bronson
|
Post #55,331
10/7/02 4:46:42 PM
|
of course you are right, as the prosecutor said
thay are facing the death penalty SWTF. Same as those involved in the dragging crime in Texas. However to Inthane according to that article the records of the case have been sealed so you will not know what was said to the victim that survived unless she tells all.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
qui mori didicit servire dedidicit
|
Post #55,335
10/7/02 5:21:52 PM
|
I might be misunderstanding you.
I didn't say that the records were sealed, I said that the article did not present evidence that the attack was a hate crime by my definition. IMO, an act with intent to target a specific group with the intent to intimidate should technically be considered terrorism, not a "hate crime" - it fits the definition, after all.
End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
|
Post #55,337
10/7/02 6:20:12 PM
|
No we're ok There wasnt enough evidence in the article
to say one way or the other. I brought up the whole thing because if the perps were white and the victims black this would be all day news everyday from now until next year.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
qui mori didicit servire dedidicit
|
