Oddly, I understand your point entirely because I probably would have argued it when I was younger. Seems like common sense...yet it isn't. Why? The crimes are not the same. Motivation plays a major role in severity (hense we have varying degrees of murder), and different people are impacted when it is/is not a hate crime. Can you honestly say that you understand the other side, because if you can't, I guess we have to say you are either dense or denser.
Motive plays ZERO role in the degree of crime charged. INTENT does. Did he intend to kill? Did he think about it for even a nanosecond prior to acting? These are much easier mental states to assess and punish than is a warped belief system such as racism.
So if one was motivated to kill someone who had just assaulted a child is treated the same as someone who was motivated to kill for money? Maybe the same law applies, but it certainly does is not treated the same in the justice system. No one has yet addressed how they are not the same crimes since Society is impacted differently, since there are more victims with hate crimes.
I addressed that point Cohen. The problem with hate crime laws now is that only certain arbitrary groupings are protected. The paradox is that once we include every group to get rid of this arbitrary discrimination, every crime is going to start getting an extra 5 to 10 added on for being a hate crime. Generally you don't commit a crime against someone because you have warm fuzzy feelings for them.
Ref, your explanation as to why terrorism is treated differently doesn't square with the government's. If a terrorist takes out just one person with, say, anthrax or whatever, it will be handled differently than a driveby. It has to do with the state of mind of the murderer -- not the quantity of victims. Generally your argument against hate crime legislation is a sound one. It breaks down when it comes to what is for you a hot button issue. It's a hot button issue because of the chilling effect terrorist acts have on our society. It's the same for a lot of people with racially motivated crimes. But at least you put up a good, sincere fight. I can respect that. As for the assclown who started this thread, he is a parrot of the smallest variety. Good for nothing but echoing the most simpleminded arguments from the extreme wing of his party, even after his party has largely abandoned those exact arguments. He's like the American left behind in the jungles of Vietnam who doesn't know the war's over, lobbing grenades at shadows, eyes darting back and forth in desperate search of an enemy, any enemy. In the last couple days his replies to my posts, Achebe's and rimrocker's have amounted to a big "NUH UNH!!!" Faced with my replies the best he can manage is "utter crap" and "LMAO." Good ones. How can I argue with logic like that? Faced with rimrocker's stack of articles debunking the stupid theory that Gore invented the Horton thing in 88, he came back with what amounts to Gore, Bradley (who made the assertion in 00), Dukakis, Atwater (who DID invent Horton) and a litany of journalists are lying, because Susan Estrich mistakenly believed the hype of the original bozos who invented the popular myth. Next up: Rush Limbaugh or someone says Hillary killed V. Foster... It's gotta be true... I mean, she's such a b****! You bring nothing here, t4. You recall Phi what's his name and you make me miss Trader_Jorge. And confronted with thoughtful arguments, you say nothing more challenging than "what crap." You continue to shout your simplistic argument about a non-existent double standard. This case will be prosecuted at least as seriously as it would if the situation were reversed. What you somehow fail to grasp (and it really is amazing) is that were the situation reversed it would be white kids faking anti-white racism. Both situations are stupid and both are unconscionable, but it in no way compares to acts of real violence or intimidation committed by real racists against real minorities (or real whites, of which there were none represented in your angry baby story). Oh, yeah. Nice liberals disrespect blacks take. Problem is Jack Kemp and Colin Powell share my views, as do a lot of other moderate Republicans sensitive to the fact that racism still exists in this country. Maybe you'd like to repeat that r****ded PC cop pap to them. And I guess Lott double disrespects black folks, since he longs for segration one week and supports affirmative action the next. Anyway, it's great to have a talk radio parrot around. I got bored with Limbaugh several years back, but at least I can count on you to make sure I don't miss any of his greatest hits. Why don't we talk about social security next? I can talk about how I don't want to pay into a system that will almost definitely not be there for me when I retire and you can tell me how I like to scare little old ladies. Get well soon, Refman. I'd love to have your take in the Lott thread. Get well sooner, t4. I'd hate to lose you to a heart attack brought on by some phantom hate crime story.
If I savagely beat a white man with a baseball bat for no apparent reason (other than I'm an angry SOB), I will be charged with aggravated assault. If I savagely beat a black man with a baseball bat for no apparent reason (other than I'm an angry SOB), I will be charged with aggravated assault and stand a SUBSTANTIAL chance of being charged with a hate crime. Explain to me how that scenario in any way comports with the notion of Equal Protection.
You're getting cute now, Refman. And I don't appreciate it. Hate crime legislation's for James Byrd type scenarios. It's not brought up every time the accused and the victim are of different races. And I think you know that. This kind of argument is beneath you.
I wasn't being cute. I used a concrete (albeit rudimentary) example. If you think that every hate crime scenario is as clear cut as James Byrd, then I think you should probably think again. I nthe scenario I gave don't you find it possible, if not likely, that Jesse Jackson, et al would be screaming for hate crime prosecution? I was waiting for somebody to bring up James Byrd. Can you tell me where the 3 guys are that did it? Death row. What more could you ask for? And there was no hate crime statute on the books. I believe that the 3 guys who did that threw away their human rights when they turned on the truck's ignition. I would be MUCH more happy if THEY would be dragged behind a truck. If the state would let me, I'd drive...I wouldn't even ask for gas money. That isn't being cute...it's the damned truth.
Ref, no offense, but it is being cute. Your example was that if you harmed a black man you'd be up on hate crimes charges. That's just silly. There's nothing on the books to indicate that someone who harms someone of another race is automatically considered for hate crime violations. That's why I brought up Byrd. He was one of the inspirations for hate crimes legislation and, in my opinion, rightly so. Because he was killed for no reason other than that he was black. As in terrorist attacks where someone is killed for no reason other than they are from a country whose politics the killer disagrees with. Both of these situations are chilling, because they mean that just because of the color of your skin or the country you were born in, you can be killed, due to hatred of your race or your country, even if you've done nothing at all to motivate the killer. That's why the law exists. Your argument is a non-argument and, worse, it absolutely is getting cute with something that isn't cute at all. Argue the merits if you like. You're not bad on that. But your take here demeans the argument.
p.s. If you insist on bringing up Jesse Jackson every time you post about race I'd be happy to counter by bringing up David Duke. Don't insult our collective intelligence. It does nothing to further your argument and it does nothing to lessen the opposing one. Or, rather, it does nothing more to help your argument than me bringing up the loyal Republican racist David Duke's helps mine. Maybe Duke's too controversial though. Maybe I'll just bring up Lott every time you bring up Jackson. After all, Lott's the fomer majority leader (STILL a Senator) and Jackson's never been elected to office. My party is actually sensitive to these issues. Is yours?
If I beat the crap out of somebody with a bat for no apparent reason, and that person happens to be black...many people will seek to fill in the blanks. Call it cute if you'd like...but it's accurate. So explain to me why you ignored my substantive response to you bringing up Byrd. SomeoneS are killed, tens or hundreds or thousands at a time...often destroying sections of large public places. That's what has been ignored in the comparison. I gave a ****ing example of how such law could be misapplied and be dangerous in the misapplication. How in the hell is that being cute. disagree with me if you want...call me reactionary if you must...be don't insult me by calling it silly or cute. it is neither. The scenario I pointed out can happen, and if left unchecked WILL happen...just watch.
Refman, the paranoia you display here is a good argument for hate crime laws NOT to go unchecked. I think that with you and all the thousands of paranoid anti-hate crime guys out there, you can trust it won't go unchecked. And I think you know that, if there was a questionable case, it would be all over the news and it wouldn't fly. You do better when you stick to constitutional law than when you speculate that people who murdered someone of another race with a baseball bat will unjustly be sentenced to an extra five years.
And I'll bring up Robert Byrd...you know...Democratic Senator who was recently seen on national TV dropping N bombs. But what's the point? No he hasn't...but he exhibits untold influence...and I think HE is a racist as well. He's a pretty dangerous guy...and with the right influence he could pressure the Feds for improper application of hate crime statutes. Until minorities stop being a large Democratic base. Do you really think that the Dems would be pushing these issues so hard wer it not for the fact that they depend on those votes for their own candidacy? I'm trying very hard not to be insulted by the inference you're making here.
I have read about the misapplication of law. If I remember correctly you have EXPERIENCED the misapplication of law...yet it can't happen with this law? Odd.
There is nothing to indicate whether or not a hate crime was committed in that scenario. You'd have to prove the crime was motivated by racism or bias. Maybe if you were wearing a white hood and drove up in your General Lee, then it'd be a hate crime. The circumstances of crimes often have a bearing in sentencing. Three strikes laws? You get a life sentence for committing the same crime as someone else who might get probation. A boxer who gets in a bar fight isn't held to the same standard as a regular person. Ref many laws can be misapplied, Death Penalty anyone? Bueller? Shall we just dump them all? Certainly not, we make them work as well as possible and continue to improve.
Refman, I spent a great deal of time and energy applauding the Republican party for their renewed commitment to race relations in the Lott thread. Please don't seek offense when it doesn't exist. And please don't invite it, either. I didn't bring Lott or Duke into this thread til you tried to argue that Jesse Freaking Jackson was the problem with hate crime laws. How bout every time abortion comes up I talk about the people who murder the doctors? Your bringing Jackson into this is blatant button pushing and it demeans the argument. You think he exerts undue influence? You have guys in your own party who hold leadership positions and are MORE controversial. But I don't bring them in because I'm trying to have a meaningful, thoughtful discussion here. You blow it when you try to use a hot button figure like Jesse to make your point.
BTW...if you'd like to bash people who kill abortion doctors, I'll be right there doing it along with you. I'm pro-life...but I can't abide murdering doctors or bombing clinics. THAT is analagous to terrorism IMO. Interesting side note, Timing. Would it surprise you at all to learn that I don't support three strikes laws either. I think they're silly.
That's all good Refman. Now finish it off by retracting your Jesse Jackson take. You said he could influence the feds to improperly enforce hate crime laws. Don't you realize how silly that sounds? A hotheaded reverend, former civil rights activist, unduly influencing our justice system? It's ****ing silly. And I repeat, it's beneath you. Your merit based argument isn't bad. It's the best one anyone's come up with to oppose the legislation. But you compromise and flat out ruin any good argument you might have by trying to bring controversial figures into it. Why don't you cite just ONE example of someone who's been improperly prosecuted under these laws? For payback, I'd be happy to cite several who've been unjustly killed under the death penalty.
