I think an "equal protection" argument works better.

Post #55,328 by Another Scott 10/7/02 4:38:35 PM Reply	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 by Silverlock 10/7/02 4:43:10 PM Reply	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 by mhuber 10/7/02 11:00:28 PM Reply	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 by Ashton 10/8/02 12:25:35 AM Reply	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 by bbronson 10/8/02 9:08:19 AM Reply	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

Welcome to IWETHEY!