Bush Expected to Veto 'Hate Crimes' Bill

[bluecuracao]

Huh, I just now noticed you edited your post, rk.

Not that it matters, though...I think you're still missing the point.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Happy Monkey gave one example, "burning cross on the lawn", where the crime is more than the sum of it's actual actions. Anybody got any more?

[glatt]

There was a thread recently about someone who's dog was killed, its head cut off and placed on the owner's porch in a gift wrapped box. That was more than just cruelty to animals and littering. It was intimidation/terrorizing the owner.

Race wasn't involved, as far as I know, so it wouldn't fall under this hate crime umbrella, but it's the same idea. The actual damage was more than the sum of its parts. I wouldn't have a problem with the criminal being charged with more than littering/animal cruelty.

Originally Posted by bluecuracao

Huh, I just now noticed you edited your post, rk.

Not that it matters, though...I think you're still missing the point.

What is the point then, be specific please. How are some people's suffering worse than other's?
My "not getting it" means nothing. You did not address the post.

[xoxoxoBruce]

@ glatt. Now this is a good example of where it can go astray.
If I cut the heads off the dogs of two neighbors and one is white/straight/male and the other is not, one gets me prosecuted as a hate crime and the other probably not prosecuted at all, considering it's a minor offense. So my white/straight/male neighbor gets no justice at all.
This was my main objection.... that everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others and that's neither fair nor constitutional.

Wouldn't increasing the penalty for animal cruelty be more effective?

[Happy Monkey]

Anything can go astray.

But, as intended, if you do both crimes, you probably can get any "hate crime" charge dismissed. Unless the white guy is a prominent civil-rights advocate, perhaps, and you intended to discourage him.

I posted that thread, and stated clearly that I don't believe in hate crime and would fight against it if attacked and they tried to use it because I was disabled. (the girl was disabled)
Hate crime legislation is prejudice.

[xoxoxoBruce]

@ HM Did you mean can't? Oh wait, you mean I can't be charged with a hate crime because I did both. I got it now.
Why should I be charged with a hate crime for either? Don't you have to make an assumption of motive unless I actually said I did it for a specific reason? That assumption could be considered a hate crime on the part of the DA in some cases.
See, this is what bothers me about this legislation, to much assuming and that's not justice.

[glatt]

In the dog example, Bruce, would you agree that the actual "crime" here is greater than just the sum of the parts? The owner of the dog is a real victim here, but the littering/animal cruelty charges wouldn't address that.

If I trap a mouse in my basement, and it doesn't die right away, so I smash its skull with a hammer, and then I throw it into the gutter, I'm technically committing the same crimes as the dog killer. But in my opinion, they are vastly different. One is done with the goal of intimidating/terrorizing a human, and the other is not.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

@ HM Did you mean can't? Oh wait, you mean I can't be charged with a hate crime because I did both. I got it now.
Why should I be charged with a hate crime for either? Don't you have to make an assumption of motive unless I actually said I did it for a specific reason? That assumption could be considered a hate crime on the part of the DA in some cases.
See, this is what bothers me about this legislation, to much assuming and that's not justice.

Courts have had methods to determine motive long before hate crime legislation appeared. It's part of the distiction between various degrees of murder and manslaughter. It's part of the definition of libel. And now it can determine whether something is a hate crime or not.

There's nothing legally novel here.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by glatt

In the dog example, Bruce, would you agree that the actual "crime" here is greater than just the sum of the parts? The owner of the dog is a real victim here, but the littering/animal cruelty charges wouldn't address that.~snip

Hell yes, I agree completely, except I think the dog is a pretty important victim, too.
But how do you know for sure the intent? How do you know he just didn't get tired of videotaping the dog?

In my lifetime I've seen enough good intentions go awry, to pave a 12 lane superhighway to hell. Pardon my paranoia, but I'm cautious of changing shit without looking at it in every way possible.
I've also learned the legal system will not always do the right thing where there's wiggle room. Usually political pressure and expediency win out over justice.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Courts have had methods to determine motive long before hate crime legislation appeared. It's part of the distiction between various degrees of murder and manslaughter. It's part of the definition of libel. And now it can determine whether something is a hate crime or not. There's nothing legally novel here.

Novel or not, it gives the DA to much discretion. See my last post. Unless the guilty party clearly states it was a hate crime, I don't trust anybody guessing. You know damn well they will use the threat of escalation to hate crime to force plea bargains. Plead guilty to something you didn't do and get 4 years or we'll go for the death penalty which automatically prejudices the jury. Wow, they are going for the death penalty he really must be a bad guy.

[Happy Monkey]

You could say the same about 1st degree murder/2nd degree murder/manslaughter or libel. Also conspiracy charges when the actual crime never happened or when the defendant didn't do anything illegal themselves. Confession isn't the only thing that can be evidence of intent, and the determination of intent is more than "guessing" or "assuming".

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yes it's more than "guessing" or "assuming", it's also politics, power plays, connections and money. It's never a good idea to make the rules(laws) more nebulous.

[9th Engineer]

Is the bill worded so that there must be evidence proving the crime was motivated by the intent to cause terror, or is that intention assumed by the nature of the victim? If it's the latter then this whole thing is nothing more then a huge power grab by the courts and lawers. It would be no different from the courts that sentenced blacks unfairly who commited crimes against whites before and during the southern civil rights movement.