Bush Expected to Veto 'Hate Crimes' Bill

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

That's not how it works, or how it ought to work.

In a fatal car accident, was it manslaughter, negligent homicide, or murder? How can you tell without hearing from the witnesses? Was the defendant drunk? Speeding? Did they know the victim? Was there bad blood between them? Was the car in good repair? Did the victim leap out in front of the car?

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.

[Aliantha]

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.

[9th Engineer]

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.

[bluecuracao]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Right, pick the correct charge and stick with it,

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.

[cowhead]

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...

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

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.

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.

[Happy Monkey]

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.

[bluecuracao]

Hate Crime threads are fun!

[spudcon]

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?