Originally Posted by EagleTed

IMO, Federal hate crimes violate the very amendment the Left uses to justify their passage, ie, "equal protection under the law" in the 14th. OTOH, the 14th, also imo, doesn't nationalize every conceivable crime some would wish to protect against, as it could easily be used by a illogical and subjective Court to nationalize all crimes.

Originally Posted by wiggidy

Makes me wonder why they would have to add specifics about ethnicity and religion. It's as if they are saying it's ok to hate some groups but not the ones specified in the bill.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I'm not positive, but I don't believe the bill says anything specific about any group. I think it just classifies a "hate crime" as one that is committed exclusively based on the race, religion (or now sexual orientation) of the victim.

Originally Posted by wiggidy

They have more protection from the law. That's a benefit.

However, I'm still wondering about the specifics. If a white male is attacked because he is a white male, does he receive the same treatment?


edit: If two guys are getting in a fight outside of a bar, and another guy calls the other one a "faggot" before they fight but he doesn't know he's gay, does he get in more trouble for the assault?

Originally Posted by timj219

How do they get "more protection"? The victim is already a victim before the perp is charged. That's not 'more protection".

As for your questions. Yes if a white male is attacked because he is a white male then the perp can be subject to hate crime prosecution. So a fanatical member of farakhans gorup who picks out a random victim because he wants to "get whitey" could be prosectured for a hate crime.
No the use of offensive language is not in itself basis for a hate crime prosecution. If the "faggot" yeller did not start the fight in order to get a faggot then it's just a bar fight.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I don't agree with hate crime legislation, so I can't speak for advocates of such policy, but I believe I understand the actual principle of the matter. This is my understanding of their argument

A "hate crime" is a crime that is committed with the intention of not only victimizing a particular person, but also intimidating a particular group. If a bunch of white guys in an area beat up a black guy simply because he's black, there is the crime of simple assault. However, there is also the underlying 'crime' in the message that they're sending to other black people who were not the actual victim - "you better not come around here or you're going to get your ass kicked." That is, the "hate crime" is a crime against a person and a de facto threat to all other people who share a particular characteristic with that person.

I don't support this sort of distinction as some kind of special crime. It is already a crime to assault/rape/murder, and it is also a crime to threaten/terrorize. So, in the scenario I mentioned earlier, I think it should be up to the DA to make the case that the perpetrators committed a de facto crime of threatening or terrorizing others in addition to their original victim. I see no reason to create new, "special", crimes when existing ones already cover behavior. This just strikes me as political grandstanding.

Originally Posted by EagleTed

IMO, Federal hate crimes violate the very amendment the Left uses to justify their passage, ie, "equal protection under the law" in the 14th. OTOH, the 14th, also imo, doesn't nationalize every conceivable crime some would wish to protect against, as it could easily be used by an illogical and subjective Court to nationalize all crimes.

Originally Posted by John Drake

The courts don't determine Federal Crimes, do they? Bank Robbery was federalised by Congress at the urging of Elliott Ness, who argued they were a favorite tactic of revolutionaries, kidnapping was nationalised by the Lindbergh Act, again, partially because of it's revolutionary cachet.

Hate crimes strike at the very basis of American freedom, which is tolerance of diversity.

Originally Posted by timj219

I don't know what it takes to prove threatening or terrorizing a group but I suspect it's a pretty high bar. Higher than can be met by the beating or killing of an individual absent any specific widely circulated public statement of intent. What the legislation does is lower the burden of proof in the cases of certain well recognized and longstanding institutionalized prejudices. I'm not sure if I'm sold on the idea either but ou can make the argumetn that longstanding prejudices which frequently lead to violence are harmful to the society as a whole and that discouraging them is a legititmate law enforcement aim and a legitimate reason for new definitions of law.

Originally Posted by CSA

If I beat a man to death for raping my 5 year old daughter, it's becaue I hate that son of a bitch, should child rapists be part of hate crime law?

Originally Posted by Cari

Sexual orientation does not imply which way you orient yourself. If a straight person gets beat up outside a gay bar because the gay people hate him, they can be subject to the same penalties if it were the other way around. There are no groups singled out in this bill, it applies to anyone who is targeted simply because of their race, ethinicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, what ever that may be.