|
Hate crimes exist at the federal level, correct? This makes it possible to charge someone with a crime when local or state authorities start looking like they will sweep it under the rug. This seems like an argument in favor of keeping hate crimes as a separate offense rather than as a sentencing enhancement to an ordinary crime.
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 10:25 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, just California Could have sworn it was banned elsewhere too, but looking it up you're right, just California. Edit: knew it was thrown out in the Mathew Shepard case, but its cuz the judge considered it basically a temp insanity defense, which isn't recognized in Wyoming. hangedman1984 fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Hate crimes exist at the federal level, correct? This makes it possible to charge someone with a crime when local or state authorities start looking like they will sweep it under the rug. This seems like an argument in favor of keeping hate crimes as a separate offense rather than as a sentencing enhancement to an ordinary crime. The Fed's ability to get jurisdiction, particularly for gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability hate crimes is somewhat limited. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I have yet to find a single instance of the gay panic defence being used successfully in the us. The first time it was used that I can find, in 1987, the defendant was executed. The murder of Gwen Araujo and the subsequent trial (trials, actually. The jury was hung on the first one!) where her murderers were held to lesser charges was actually the impetus for these laws. quote:At the party, she was discovered, by forced inspection (conducted by Brown) to be a transgender woman, following which the men with whom she had sexual relations became enraged and violent. Magidson, after vomiting, put her in a chokehold. Later, he punched her in the face and began to choke her, but was pulled off by others. At some point after that, Paul Merél, Emmanuel Merél, and Brown left the house. José Merél struck her in the head with a can of food and a frying pan. Nabors and Cazares left in Magidson's truck to go to Cazares's house to get shovels and a pickaxe. A brutal, premeditated killing that required multiple hours and multiple people taking the time to gather supplies, and then coordinating to dispose of the body. Second-degree murder and manslaughter. Hate crime charges were dropped. One of the killers only got six years for this. joat mon posted:The defense does not excuse murder, but is an argument for lesser culpability. For example in the California trans panic cases, the jurors (eventually) found second degree murder, and another pled to manslaughter. Read the description of that murder above and tell me if a young cisgendered woman had gone through that that the charges would have been 2nd-degree and manslaughter. The jury would have thrown the drat book at them. California is addressing a discrepancy in how society treats trans-people. The accused will not lose access to any defense they might have had their crime been committed against a cisgendered person. They only lose access to a defense rooted in bigotry towards trans-people and society's acceptance of that bigotry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
joat mon posted:... I don't think hatecrime as it presently exists will lead to a Socially Unacceptable Belief Registration Act. (Though it would have a sexier, much disguised acronym) Communally Offensive Belief Registration Act.  (note: I'm only using Jarmak's avatar because of what it is, I don't think he'd actually go for such a thing or would even bother using it in this arguement)
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
It blows my mind that in the year 2016 there are still people arguing against hate crime laws.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Oh it's really easy to do when you're a straight white male who will never be the victim of prejudice or violence because of the mere fact of your existence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
On the one hand, I can see the logic in doling out punishment and the like based on actual harm done, irrespective of any sort of intent...on the face of it, that seems fair and reasonable. But on the other, I can also see the logic behind singling out crimes motivated purely by, as others have said, a blatant rejection of the rights of 'other' groups....i dunno...
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
But intent is also the difference between manslaughter and murder. Intent has to form part of the legal system or you'll have innocent people being jailed. Hate crime legislation is like protected class and equal opportunity measures. It shouldn't have to exist but we're nowhere near living in a world where we can put it behind us.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
joat mon posted:The defense does not excuse murder, but is an argument for lesser culpability. For example in the California trans panic cases, the jurors (eventually) found second degree murder, and another pled to manslaughter. Actually the law needing to be altered as society changes in order to remain able to protect the vulnerable is the entire point of the way our system is set up. It's not so much 'constitution be damned' as it is 'the literal point of giving the legislative branch the powers it has'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
I think my eyes just glazed over the last three pages. I genuinely tried to read the argument against hate crime laws and then my brain slid off the page. Maybe it's part of my natural "living in Alabama" defense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
Midnight Voyager posted:I think my eyes just glazed over the last three pages. I genuinely tried to read the argument against hate crime laws and then my brain slid off the page. But don't you see?!? THOUGHTCRIMES!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:But don't you see?!? THOUGHTCRIMES*!!! *Posters may or may not actually know what thoughtcrimes are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
jivjov posted:On the one hand, I can see the logic in doling out punishment and the like based on actual harm done, irrespective of any sort of intent...on the face of it, that seems fair and reasonable. I do too, but only in an ideal world where it doesn't matter if the victim is gay or trans. we don't live in that world and to be frank never will
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Why is banning the gay panic defense such a bad thing other than "that's not how it's typically done?" Even if it's not used successfully very often it's troubling that it's still employed so often, I don't see why it shouldn't just be taken off the table entirely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Isn't this explicitly banned in a lot of places? It doesn't have to be explicitly banned to not be valid. Many states haven't accepted them as "valid" defenses in a decade or more, and occasionally attempting to use the defense is used as further proof the defendant needs to be punished - particularly if this was brought up in a case where a hate crime law applies. Yardbomb posted:What? Why would you not be upset, jesus christ. Most invalid defenses don't actually have laws against them. There's no law against, say, defending your murder by saying "but the guy I killed was a Jew/had red hair/ate pineapples/didn't like Morrissey". But you're pretty much never going to get out with a no crime or a lesser charge for trying those. Same goes with trying a trans/gay panic "defense" in a lot of states.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Yeah, if you said for instance that you were afraid the black teen was about to hulk out and make himself able to block your gunfire with his muscles, why you'd be laughed off into prison!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Man I guess there must be some news on the marriage equality front. I wonder what Roy Moore did this time, there's over 5 pages of posts! Oh... 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
jivjov posted:On the one hand, I can see the logic in doling out punishment and the like based on actual harm done, irrespective of any sort of intent...on the face of it, that seems fair and reasonable. How do you feel about conspiracy charges?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:How do you feel about conspiracy charges? How do you mean?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Man I guess there must be some news on the marriage equality front. I wonder what Roy Moore did this time, there's over 5 pages of posts! Roy Moore doesn't like the American Bar Association's proposed rules that make harassment and discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status while being a lawyer. http://m.wvtm13.com/news/moore-speaks-out-against-suggested-ethical-misconduct-rules/38585660 The Alabama Senate passed a bill that would get the state out of the marriage licensing business and only do recording of marriages performed elsewhere. https://legiscan.com/AL/bill/SB143/2016
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:Yeah, if you said for instance that you were afraid the black teen was about to hulk out and make himself able to block your gunfire with his muscles, why you'd be laughed off into prison! Yes florida is stupid. That doesn't mean the same thing would work in say, Hawaii. You would also never have a law specifically against it either. fishmech fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
jivjov posted:How do you mean? Conspiracy to commit X. You don't have to do X, just plan to do so. Do you think it should be a criminal charge, though it doesn't require any act that is itself criminal? Or consider employment law. If I have 3 people on a team facing layoffs, I can't lay off Jane just because she's a woman, but I can lay her off if I choose randomly. Only difference is why I perform the act, not what the act is. Acceptable?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Conspiracy to commit X. You don't have to do X, just plan to do so. Do you think it should be a criminal charge, though it doesn't require any act that is itself criminal? Yeah, that's exactly why it's such a sticky situation...
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Or consider employment law. If I have 3 people on a team facing layoffs, I can't lay off Jane just because she's a woman, but I can lay her off if I choose randomly. Only difference is why I perform the act, not what the act is. Acceptable? But that is exactly what businesses do? Fabricate a reason to lay off the person they want to get rid of, often by selective enforcement of the rules. It's not easy to prove unless someone fucks up and writes something down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:But that is exactly what businesses do? Fabricate a reason to lay off the person they want to get rid of, often by selective enforcement of the rules. I was addressing the legal situation of motivation affecting legality, not whether the laws we have of that nature are universally effective. It's not easy to prove a hate crime either, unless someone fucks up and yells a slur. Conspiracies can be hard too. Are you saying that difficulty in enforcement means they should be taken off the books? (But what rule enforcement affects layoffs? If someone is in violation of policy you fire them, you don't lay them off.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Conspiracy to commit X. You don't have to do X, just plan with one or more other people to do so. In addition to two or more people planning together, most jurisdictions also require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. joat mon fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Fixed. Sure, I don't think that contradicts my point, which is that you don't need to commit a criminal act (the overt act, if required, need not be itself criminal or even harmful) but instead just have made a plan with someone. It's the intent -- the motivation for creating a plan and making the possibly-harmless overt act -- that lies at the core of the crime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Hate crimes exist at the federal level, correct? This makes it possible to charge someone with a crime when local or state authorities start looking like they will sweep it under the rug. This seems like an argument in favor of keeping hate crimes as a separate offense rather than as a sentencing enhancement to an ordinary crime. Yeah, I'm pretty sure this is a big part of the rationale. Hate crime statutes allow the feds to step in where state authorities have a long history of toothlessness or outright complicity with acts of violence against unpopular minorities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Now you're trying to make a tone argument? I haven't mischaracterized anything, you however have shown repeatedly and without exception that you lack either the capacity and/or the education/training to participate in any sort of legal discussion with a level of nuance above "this is my desired outcome" so I guess I'm not surprised you don't understand? No it's not a tone argument, you're just wrong, and this is pretty hilarious from someone who is appealing to Orwell because he doesn't understand either what thoughtcrime is or what the justifications for hate crime laws actually are. The crime is depriving groups of people of their civil rights. Attacking or murdering people for participating in basic functions of civil society like voting, politically organizing, living and working, worshipping, marrying, raising a family, etc goes beyond an ordinary crime; it destroys the core parts of our open democratic society. The first 200 years of American history is a lesson that reluctance to ensure everyone can exercise their civil rights in safety, free of intimidation from private groups or individuals makes the constitution's guarantee of republican government and individual rights meaningless. Okay, that's the crime: depriving people of their civil rights, not "doing something illegal while being a bigot". That's why motivation from animus against the group for their race, religion, sex, national origin, orientation, or whatever is part of the mens rea. If you lynch someone or throw acid in their face for cutting you off in traffic or for stealing your lawnmower that doesn't intimidate anyone else into relinquishing the exercise of their civil rights out of fear. Even if it turns out later that you were a white supremacist, if it's not the reason you committed the crime, it's not a hate crime and it's not a threat to anyone else's civil rights. If you do it because it's a black person voting or a gay couple getting married, it is. Argue that it's unnecessary if you want and that judge's discretion is all that's necessary to handle it*, but it's not loving thoughtcrime, it's not making mens rea into the crime, it's not punishing people for Bad Thoughts or any of that. *I'd still disagree, because the nature of widespread prejudice is that the justice system is administrated by people and that prejudice is corrupting. If the problem is that judges tacitly approve of the crime and are using their discretion to give lesser sentences or local juries are just nullifying then "oh well judges can use their discretion to give harsher sentences" isn't much of a solution VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Mar 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Ordinary crime already deprives people of their civil and human rights.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I was addressing the legal situation of motivation affecting legality, not whether the laws we have of that nature are universally effective. It's not easy to prove a hate crime either, unless someone fucks up and yells a slur. Conspiracies can be hard too. Are you saying that difficulty in enforcement means they should be taken off the books? My dad was friends with this old white guy (since deceased) in Mississippi. He owned his own small business and needed an admin assistant. He asked the staffing agency why they kept sending black woman because he intended to hire a white woman. Obviously, all hell broke loose. He didn't get it at all. In his mind, he was just being honest and thought he was saving everybody's time. In the end, he had to interview black woman that he had no intention of hiring. Is that a better outcome? Should he have been fined or jailed for hiring a white girl anyway? The best option would be "don't be an old racist," but he was way past that possibility. The laws are absolutely needed. This old white guy was 100% in the wrong. At the same time, what black woman enjoys working for someone that they know for a fact thinks they are less of a person than a white lady? It's complicated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Ordinary crime already deprives people of their civil and human rights. The immediate victims yes. Hate crimes deprive whole segments of society of their civil rights because they intimidate people into ceding the exercise of them. You don't have to lynch every single would-be black voter to suppress their voting rights through fear. You don't have to bash every gay person to keep them from participating equally on civic life. The government has an interest in preventing that, and that's the justification for laws against this kind of antisocial crime. E: That's the justification anyway. Maybe it's superfluous (it's not) but it's not thoughtcrime. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Mar 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:My dad was friends with this old white guy (since deceased) in Mississippi. He owned his own small business and needed an admin assistant. Its...not that complicated? He shouldn't be jailed but I would be 100% behind him being fined. You don't get to be a racist poo poo who intentionally discriminates against black people just because "welp, you can't teach an old dog new tricks"
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:The laws are absolutely needed. This old white guy was 100% in the wrong. At the same time, what black woman enjoys working for someone that they know for a fact thinks they are less of a person than a white lady? There is a reason "Why would you even want to stay at a hotel that doesn't want black people there" wasn't a convincing argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No it's not a tone argument, you're just wrong, and this is pretty hilarious from someone who is appealing to Orwell because he doesn't understand either what thoughtcrime is or what the justifications for hate crime laws actually are. VitalSigns posted:The immediate victims yes. Most of this is hard to follow because you don't seem to understand how sentencing works, what mens rea is, or that deprivation of rights is pretty much the core attribute of any crime committed against individual(s). But you seem to (hilariously) be attempting to mock me for not understanding a justification that I was the first to bring up and discus in this thread, pages ago. Aleph Null posted:My dad was friends with this old white guy (since deceased) in Mississippi. He owned his own small business and needed an admin assistant. VitalSigns posted:There is a reason "Why would you even want to stay at a hotel that doesn't want black people there" wasn't a convincing argument. This isn't remotely related to hate crime laws and is covered by a completely different set of anti-discrimination laws.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Most of this is hard to follow because you don't seem to understand how sentencing works, what mens rea is, or that deprivation of rights is pretty much the core attribute of any crime committed against individual(s). I said that all crimes deprive their immediate victims of civil rights, do you have trouble reading or something? The justification for prosecuting hate crimes is because their effects go beyond the immediate victims and their families and intimidate whole communities into reluctance to exercise their civil rights. Jarmak posted:But you seem to (hilariously) be attempting to mock me for not understanding a justification that I was the first to bring up and discus in this thread, pages ago. And yet either you don't understand the justification because you keep calling it thoughtcrime, or you do and were just being hyperbolic with this Orwell crap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
Cool, 3 days later and we're still arguing about hate crimes  Okay, here's my next hot take: As a community, we have a collective obligation to use our laws to establish what is not acceptable. Theft is not acceptable; murder is not acceptable; assault is not acceptable... and so on. In areas where hate crime legislation exists, that is a statement from the community that, furthermore in addition to the usual poo poo, it is not acceptable to enact violence on a racial or social minority as a way of deepening their oppression and/or marginalization. It's not like it doesn't hit trial. The case evidence still has to show that, for example, a couple of muslims were shot execution-style in order to make an example of them. Conversely, there are some states, like Georgia, that lack hate crime legislation. That is the community's way of saying, "Sure, whatever, we don't care. Keep terrorizing those blacks and queers! We only give a poo poo because we found a body, dummy." It's different cultures 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I said that all crimes deprive their immediate victims of civil rights, do you have trouble reading or something? We have ordinary crimes that cover that too, which if you actually bothered to read the thread you would know because... VitalSigns posted:And yet either you don't understand the justification because you keep calling it thoughtcrime, or you do and were just being hyperbolic with this Orwell crap. ...I went into that as the main reason I didn't think that was a good framework to justify/operate hatecrime laws under. edit: deadly_pudding posted:Cool, 3 days later and we're still arguing about hate crimes Not really, Vitalsigns just decided to come in here and spew a bunch unintelligible gibberish 3 days later while trying to rewind the thread back to when people were ignoring the fact I was trying to make a structural argument rather then trying to legalize lynching. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Mar 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 10:25 |
|
|
Debate & Discussion: You Are Racist > HATE CRIMES HATE CRIMES HATE CRIMES HATE CRIMES I take it nothing new has happened. Jarmak posted:We have ordinary crimes that cover that too, which if you actually bothered to read the thread you would know because... You are both equally boring. I think you are boring and also wrong, but you have managed to ramble me out of caring about hate crimes somehow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 18:55
|
|