C'mon Beestie, tell us what you really think.

Right, pick the correct charge and stick with it, but manslaughter is manslaughter.

The burning cross argument is silly, it can be assault if meant that way... but race is not an issue. The motivator does not matter, just the crime.
It is like saying a drunk driving accident is littering because glass is left on the highway. But, those using the argument know that, it is just a red herring because they know they are losing the debate.

In Australia, if someone is charged with a crime and it goes to a jury, upon deliberation, if the jury thinks that the crime suggested is too harsh, there are options for the jury to consider which have lesser penalties, such as rape being downgraded to sexual assault for example. Murder to manslaughter.

Tell me, if a burning cross or some other well known intimidation method is placed on my front lawn, does that still fall under the hate crime legislation? The idea that only minorities can face terror tactics is also blatantly untrue. What disturbs me more is that even if the law did, do you know how hard it would be to get terror and intimidation charges to stick on a protected group who commits the crime against a white person? Nothing more then enforced 'collective white guilt' going on here.

I don't know...has a racial/religious/etc. minority ever been charged with a hate crime against a white christian person?

I forgot all about this... I was attacked once at a gas station by this insane drunk chick because I was white and bald. It was crazy.
Was that a hate crime?... she sure hated me for some reason, something about bald white guys I guess.
Of course not.
I probably would have gone to jail for defending myself if her boyfriend had not spirited her away before the cops got there.

She had probably seen some TV expose on skinheads and failed to notice you don't have swastika tattoo on your forehead.

She had something going on.

No, the evidence determines the charge, and the jury evaluates the evidence. If there is doubt as to which charge is correct, both can be made, for the jury to choose.

yeah... that works.. in my happy little world the laws are a little simpler and populous a little more free thinking and prone to work things out in their own collective heads. there's a simple matter of what's is 'right' and what is 'wrong'.. we all ought to know on a basic level what that is. killing someone is wrong.. generally.. there are reasons to do so (personally I believe in the right of vendetta.. assuming the person is wise enough or worldy enough or whatever enough to know when that ought to or can be invoked). why? do we need laws to tell people how to feel about the facts of a case? it's a basic flaw in society..? there's this fella in atlanta going to court right now.. apparently he killed some kid to get some 'street cred' got the teardrop tattoo and a tattoo of the word 'killer' on his arm.. uh? guilty? I don't know, but he'd be really hard pressed to convince me otherwise. there is no law now nor ever that can really 'protect' anyonw from a hate crime.. if someone is going to commit that crime for that sort of a reason.. they are going to. and nothing short of hell or highwater is going to stop them. anywhoo...

You are agreeing with me. One charge, that is what I am saying, for the crime, based on the eividence.
Manslaughter is manslaughter. Not one charge for one "race" (there is only one race) and another for another.
However, the jury does not choose the charge, the state/county/fed does. Sometimes, they will make recomendations, but that is rare here in the US.

The state/county/fed chooses which charges to send to the jury, and the jury chooses which, if any, charges to convict on. Usually, it's just one charge, and the jury just gets to pick yes/no, but sometimes the jury gets to pick among several possibilities. So someone could be charged with assault, and a hate crime, and the jury decides based on presented evidence whether the assault is a hate crime, or a simple assault. Or, for that matter, whether an assault happened at all.

Hate crime charges are an excuse, it's just "white guilt" and a social illness.
It is criminal and a fabrication/feel good politics, nothing more.
If it were evenly applied, this would be a different conversation.

Hate Crime threads are fun!

The simple flaw in hate crime laws is that it makes murder of one person more serious than murder of a different person. Why would a gay/black/policeman/muslim/white person be more valuable to society than anyone else. rkzenrage had it 100% correct. Manslaughter is manslaughter, no matter who the victim is. Anything different is not only unconstitutional, it's immoral.

The worst thing about it for me is that a possible assault crime is now a FEDERAL case investigated by the FBI.
So stupid, moronic, inane that it numbs my mind!!!!
Not only that the point of this is because the idiots say that some sheriffs or cops are not enforcing laws for blacks or gays...
If that is the case WHO THE FUCK IS GOING TO CALL THE FBI YOU MOUTH BREATHER?

The argument behind hate crimes are not, or at least shouldn't be, that blacks or gays are more important to society than straight whites, just that killing someone just because of their skin color or sexuality is worst than killing someone for another reason.

Whether you agree with a hate crime being worst than regular manslaughter or not, when it comes to murder the justice system does judge by intent so it does follow the pattern. If I kill someone in self-defense, kill someone by accident, and kill someone in cold blood I'm going to get different time in jails for each if any jail time at all.

Well if the court is already taking intent into consideration, why more legislation? Why more complicated rules? Why more pressure on the DA to decide rather than the court?

No idea, I'm agnostic on this issue.

I'm assuming because they think that extra work is justified but who knows.

The DA doean't have to decide. The DA can charge both, and the jury decides.

I'm not sure, but I think part of the rationale may be to have a better idea of how prevalent racially motivated crime is.

Another part of the rationale may be that whilst the actual murder is a crime committed against an individual, if it it is motivated by race-hate it also becomes a crime against the wider group.

Nonsense, if I kill you because you're British, it doesn't make a whit to the millions I didn't kill.

But then hanging Brits by tree branches was never an afternoon activity.

Stop wallowing in the past and move on.

Yeah, pierce. Lynchings and nooses hanging from trees and trucks 'n' stuff are ancient history.

It doesn't even happen anymore does it?

Nope. Today we drag them from behind a pickup - especially if they are gay.

I thought that we were tying them to fenceposts in freezing weather after beating them within an inch of their lives, leaving them to die?

Someone needs to update the fag killing protocols or we'll just have people killing them every which way, and then nothing will have been accomplished.

Precisely, intent, circumstance and motive are not the same thing. Motive means nothing and when physical evidence is present, is rarely brought to bear in court at all by the prosecution. There is no reason to if their case is made by facts and evidence, it is only used in circumstantial cases. Waste of time otherwise and confuses the issue.
In fact, the defense will often try to use it as a red herring to confuse the jury.