Hate Crime Bill Might Make Md. A Pioneer

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Washington Post

Hate Crime Bill Might Make Md. A Pioneer
O'Malley Weighs Measure Including Homeless Victims

By Lisa Rein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 17, 2009

Maryland would become the first state to list the homeless as a class protected from hate crimes under legislation that is headed to Gov. Martin O'Malley's desk.

The groundbreaking measure, championed by one of the legislature's most conservative Republicans, was approved in the House of Delegates four minutes before the General Assembly adjourned at midnight Monday. O'Malley (D) is reviewing the bill, which also adds penalties for violent crimes against people targeted because of their gender or disability.

Advocates called the law a symbolic and practical victory in the absence of similar protections in federal law and spoke of the often vicious crimes against the homeless. The D.C. Council is considering similar legislation. Maine gives judges discretion in sentencing for crimes against the homeless, and Alaska includes them in its vulnerable victims statute. A conviction in Maryland for a violent crime will carry an additional sentence of up 20 years and a $20,000 fine.

Sen. Alex X. Mooney (R-Frederick) says his first attempt to pass the bill, four years ago, was motivated by cynicism: He was offended by legislation adding sexual orientation to the list of protected categories, which also covers race, religion and national origin.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/16/AR2009041604132.html

[customerserviceguy]

1. I'm very wary of this whole "hate crime" notion

that an incorrect set of thoughts in a perpetrator's head somehow makes his crimes more punishable.

Here's a thought for you: If an unemployed man shoots and kills an AIG bonus-sucking executive, should that be prosecuted merely as a homicide, or as a homicide and a hate crime?

[primavera]

2. Neither

The unemployed man should be given a medal! :-)

[customerserviceguy]

32. I know a lot of homophobes

who would use the very same justification for shooting a state representative for voting for equal marriage.

[harmonicon]

3. I know what you mean, but I'm more concerned about what it may inversely imply

For instance, if someone attacks me, will there just be a writ of "boys will be boys"? Should I be able to handle assault better than someone else because I'm a straight white man? The worst is the sub-category, almost "less than" crime, which is called "domestic violence", as if it's less violent to attack someone you live with. Crazy shit, indeed.

[customerserviceguy]

33. Ah, but we already make those distinctions in law

A killer appears to jump out of the bushes, kills someone, since it could have happened to anybody, we give him the death penalty.

A person murders a co-worker, and we give him life in prison, because the co-worker should have had a chance to see the murderer was wack, and gotten another job.

And someone murders a family member, we give the killer twenty years in prison because when you live with someone, you should really know how freaky they are.

A spouse kills his/her spouse, and we look for extenuating circumstances, especially if the killer is the wife.

Sadly, it's already reflected in the law as practiced.

[FudaFuda]

4. thought crime

I agree. A murder is a murder, a rape is a rape. The motivation behind such crimes is evil regardless of whether racism, homophobia, or whatever had to do with it. We should punish the act, not the thought.

[Theobald]

5. I was a victim of a hate crime once

Three men hated the fact that they didn't have enough money so they went out and tried to get some. They didn't feel like working at a legitimate job so they decided to do some freelance work and take it from someone who looked like they had some. The tools of their trade were thier arms, fists, and a baseball bat; aluminum, McGregor Brand, with green letters. They approached me and in a genial manner and asked me to provide them with the cash they needed. However they hated the fact that I did not have any to give them, so they proceeded to split my head open, fuck up my knee and bruise the shit out of my arm. These men did not hate me, they just hated the situation I put them in. The fact that they were Puerto Rican and I was white was, and is, irrelevant. If they had attacked me because I was white, I don't think they should have been charged with a more serious crime.

[FudaFuda]

9. Damn, that sucks

I'm sorry you went through that. Pretty obvious your noggin still works good though, cuz you've got the sense to understand the stupidity of the issue. A murder results in a dead person, and the murderer is to be punished accordingly. No offense to anyone who falls into the groups traditionally protected by 'hate crimes', but your corpse is not more tragic or worthy of sympathy than my corpse. Punishment should be determined by the criminal's action, not the criminal's thoughts.

[Creideiki]

19. I'll try to type slowly and use small words

You were not a victim of a hate crime. Darn. One of those words had two syll...crap. It was long for you.

They did not pick you because of you.

One of my ex-boyfriends was the target of an assault because he was walking in a gay neighborhood. He was put into the hospital in intensive care because he was walking with another guy. I had to deal with the fact that he was picked because someone hates the mere possibility that he was different from them. The intended message was that gay people are not wanted.

Like I said, I'm sorry. Some of those words are probably too long. Let me try again.

Hate crimes are acts of terrorism. Why do you love the terrorists and hate Murrica?

[Theobald]

23. I was being facetious kemo sabe

I know I wasn't the victim of a hate crime, my point was why should someone get more jail time because it was a hate crime? The assholes cracked my head open with a baseball bat, they should go to jail for it, however I don't think they should go to jail longer if they did it because I was gay. Speaking of gay the spot where it happened, right next to Van Cortland Park in the Bronx is a notorious gay cruising area, so maybe they did target me because they thought I was gay, but it doesn't matter, a hate crime designation is superfluous in my opinion.

[KamaAina]

11. But vandalism isn't always vandalism

Without hate crime laws, spray-painting swastikas on the headstones in a Jewish cemetery would be treated the same as spray-painting "Chip Luvz Bonnie" on the wall of a drug store.

[FudaFuda]

13. judicial discretion and misdemeanor/felony distinctions can cover that.

in my state (and yours is probably similar) destruction of property is a misdemeanor if the value of the property destroyed (or the repair value) is less than $2500.00 Over $2500.00 is a felony.

If a misdemeanor, the punishment is not more than $500 fine and/or not more than one year in jail.

If a felony, the punishment is not more than $2500 fine and/or not less than one year, not more than 10 years in jail.

Restitution, if ordered, is separate from any fine.


The worthless skinhead punks who vandalized the jewish cemetary certainly caused more than $2500 damage. They can go away for a long time.

The idiot who painted 'Chip Luvz Bonnie' can pay for the drug store's wall to be repainted (restitution), plus a 3-day suspended sentence and 90 days' probation. That way he doesn't go to jail at all, unless he commits some other crime in the next 3 months.


No 'hate crime' laws required.

[ardvark]

18. would it be more ok to spraypaint MY ancestor's tombstones?

because we're not Jewish?

[KamaAina]

22. No, but it is less OK to spraypaint the Jewish ones

it strikes terror into the hearts of all Jews nearby.

Just out of curiosity, what might the hypothetical no-good punks spraypaint in your family plot?

[ardvark]

29. people DO vandalize non-jewish cemeteries

and franky, I dont consider our cemeteries any less sacred

[davidinalameda]

60. do they vandalize them because they're non-Jewish cemeteries

or because they are cemeteries period

[customerserviceguy]

34. And both are nasty crimes

Why does the feeling of the victim matter more when there is a religious/racial/gender angle, and not the misdeed itself?

[KamaAina]

39. Because the victims don't necessarily have to have the swastika painted on their house

all Jews (or members of any protected group; the graffiti could as easily read "Die Fags!") around it can be said to be victims. The hate crime is meant to terrorize the entire group.

[customerserviceguy]

41. And 'regular' crime

does not terrorize the population as a whole? Sounds like faulty logic to me. When my neighbor is robbed, for no apparent reason, then I am threatened with robbery as well. Am I rational to think, "The robber got my neighbor because he was black/Jewish/gay, therefore, I am safe,"? No, I'm going to conclude that the robber is willing to break and enter into my house, too.

[Behind the Aegis]

46. Try this logic.

"And 'regular' crime does not terrorize the population as a whole?"

It does and I don't recall the other poster indicating anything to the opposite.

"When my neighbor is robbed, for no apparent reason, then I am threatened with robbery as well."

This is true.

"Am I rational to think, "The robber got my neighbor because he was black/Jewish/gay, therefore, I am safe,"?"

If the house was spray-painted with "fag/nigger/kike" and other signs hate was the motivator, then if you aren't gay,black,Jewish chances are you will not be a target. So, it would stand to reason, you would feel safe, relatively.

I live on a very mixed block. Half my neighbors are gay, half are not. So, an attack on one neighbor, even a gay one, would not necessarily mean gays are the target, unless we know other facts from the crime scene. So, Mel, gay, comes home and finds his home (still has roof damage from Katrina THREE AND A HALF FUCKING YEARS LATER) has been robbed, the entire neighborhood would become uneasy. If it is discovered it was a past lover, a co-worker, or "payback", then most of us will not be overly worried we will be violated. If it is discovered that the burglar also left anti-gay messages all over the house, then half the block would feel safer, and half would "lock and load."

[ThomCat]

56. It matters more because the aim of the crime is to threaten

or terrorize the entire group. And it is always a group that is vulnerable and frequently the target of such threats and terrorism. That is what makes it a hate crime.

When one group is constantly bombarded, as a group, with threats and violence
and when every member has to fear being targeted because people are out to get that group

then an attack against any one member is a threat against all of them. All of them have to be on high alert that they are being targeted next. It's not just a crime against one person. It is a crime against one, and a threat against everyone else that they are next.

If you, as a straight white man, are the target of a crime it's because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It doesn't mean anyone is out to get all straight white men. Straight white men don't need to be on alert that someone is out to get them. Straight white men don't need to be hyper vigilant and feel like there is a war against them.

I'm sorry you don't understand. It's not a thought crime. Hate crimes are declarations of war.

[Paladin]

17. Thoughts Are Not Punished.

People are free to harbor all the ugly thoughts their twisted little souls desire. It's only when those thoughts are put into harmful action against another person that these sorts of statutes come to play. If you think that's an incorrect viewpoint, prove me wrong.....

[customerserviceguy]

35. Ah, but "hate" crimes are dealing with the thoughts

that the perpetrator had when screwing over the victim. Why isn't a crime merely a crime, and the victims worthy of the same justice, no matter what the motivation of the perpetrator? Is that unequal justice? I say that it is.

[ThomCat]

57. You are obscessed with this idea of thought crimes.

If you aren't willing to let go of your pet phrase and think beyond it then you won't get it.

Regardless of what he's thinking, we don't care about his thoughts.

It's the fact that he's announcing a threat against the entire community. That's not a thought. That's a threat.

He's targeting someone for being part of a group, meaning that the entire group is his target, not just the one person. Because the entire group is his target his one attack is almost certainly to be only the first of many, or the first that has been caught. He has a war against the entire group. He is targeting the group as well as the individual.

So because his crime is an announcement of war against the group, it is treated like part of a larger campaign. A campaign of crime is more serious than an individual crime.

Targetting a group is more serious that targetting an individual.

That isn't a "nasty through." It is bigotry.

If you can't get that, and insist it's just a "thought crime" then you don't understand the fight against bigotry.

[Oak2004]

62. All criminal law deals with thoughts as well as deeds

If I stabbed you in the chest and killed you, it would be murder.

If I was standing in the kitchen chopping vegetables and chatting with you when an excited English Mastiff ran into the kitchen, knocked me over, the knife plunged into your chest, and you died, it would be a horrible freak accident.

The difference between the two hypotheticals presented here? What I was thinking at the time of the stabbing.

[DatManFromNawlins]

66. Apples and oranges

Let's just take murder (different states have different contexts, but let's just use the basics)

1st degree murder: premeditated. You planned to kill someone.
2nd degree murder: murder that happens during the commission of another felony
3rd degree murder: any other murder where the intent was to harm and not kill the victim

They're all murder. Person is dead, and intent is taken into consideration by the judge. No further "hate crime" charge needed. Sentencing should be about what people do TO people, not what they think about them. You don't get the bonus prize of "hate crime" just because you happened to hate the person you killed enough to plan his demise. That you thought it through was enough.

If I hate people from the Northeast because I believe they're all a bunch of egotistical, insufferable twits who are ruining the country, am I going to be charged with a hate crime?

No.

If I hate someone's family because they're all douchebags and I start killing them, am I going to be charged with a hate crime?

No.

If a kid grabs a cache of weapons and start shooting the kneecaps off of the football players at his hated rival's highschool, is he going to be charged with a hate crime?

No.

And that's why hate crime laws are fucking nonsense. You can't just hate someone, you have to hate a special class of people that a judge feels politically motivated to protect.

[ThomCat]

55. So how do you punish the crime if it's not aimed at one person

but aimed at delivering a message to an entire group of people that they are all targets?

If someone targets a member of a group as a way of saying that they are all under attack, is it just a crime against that one person? Is only that one person victimized?

The members of those groups don't think so. And the legislators have agreed. If your crime targets an entire group of people, and the victim was selected because he's a member of that group, then there is more than one crime there. There is also the crime of threatening and terrorizing the entire group.

If you don't get that, then I'm glad you aren't a judge or a legislator.

[mainegreen]

6. Really, I'd rather see us give more discretion back to judges for sentencing.

Better than mandating punishment X for crime Y, regardless of circumstances.
Judges aren't morons. That's why they're judges. Let's trust them a little bit.

[ThomCat]

58. I don't agree with this at all.

We already see that black people get longer sentences that white people for the same crimes. So judges have always let their prejudices heavily influence their sentences. Is that really what we want?

Do we want sentences based on bigotry, or sentences that punish bigotry?

[Union Yes]

7. Typically you have to belong to a group classified under law..

as being prone to being a victim of hate.


Federal hate crimes protections under law protect African Americans from being terrorized, murdered, from having the KKK burn a cross on their front yard ect. To meet the threshhold of a hate crime. It must be proven in a court of law, that the accused committed their crime due to racial bias or hatred.

Example

1998 Jasper ,Texas. 3 known white supremicists beat and kidnapped a local black man, James Byrd. In his beaten condition, he was tied to a long length of chain. The other was hooked to the rear bumper of a pickup. The 3 men jumped in the truck and began dragging James Byrd to his death. His dentures were found in one spot. 1 mile away they found his head shoulder and right arm, all severed when Byrds dragging body hit a colvert and decapitaed him. According to the prosecutor and medical examiners testimony, Byrd was alive up to that point. Another mile and authorities found his legs and other arm. A couple more miles and they found his mutilated torso. James Byrd was ripped to shreds as he was dragged to death over the course of several miles.

MURDERED FOR BEING BLACK. Targeted by these white supremicists because he was dating a white woman.

John William King, 24 at the time of the murders and already an ex con, was found guilty and sentenced to death. He was covered in racist tattoos.

This is exactly why we have hate crime laws.

Why we need more hate crime laws...

In 1998 a gay person by the name of Matthew Shepard met 2 men in a bar. Russel Henderson and Aaron Mckinney. The 2 men offered Shepard a ride home. They knew Shepard was gay. During that ride they drove to a remote rural location and robbed him at gunpoint. Then they tied Shepard to a barb wire fence arms outstretched like he was hanging on a crucifix. Then the 2 men pistol whipped Shepard to the point they were sure Shepard was dead. They left Shepard to hang by his arms in a bloody gory mess in the freezing cold, thinking he was dead. Shepard was found the next day still hanging by his arms and in a coma. He was taken to a hospital where he died shortly thereafter. Never awakening from his coma.
The coroners report showed several skull fractures.

MURDERED FOR BEING GAY. Apparantly gay people just aren't important enough to warrant federal hate crime protection.

There is a clear reason as to why we have hate crime laws our our books. Sadly they DONOT go far enough.

As a gay person, words cannot express my disgust for my nation and its hate filled history.

[inwiththenew]

10. What about the Newsom murder in Tennessee

Was that a hate crime?

[LostinVA]

24. Knock off the RW talking points -- you are aware it wasn't

[twitomy]

14. And these offenders were punished accordingly..

No hate crimes law required. What do propose, executing the murderer twice?

Equal protection under the law is threatened by these hate crime laws.

If I, a straight man, get the snot beat out of me for whatever reason my attacker gets x months in the pokey.

If a gay person gets the snot beat out of him becasue he is gay, the attacker gets x ++ in the pokey.

Seems to me I got less justice....

[Behind the Aegis]

30. Absurd and right-wing talking point to boot.

Your own example makes the distinction to a hate crime and you still don't get it. Sad.

[ThomCat]

59. If that gay person gets beat up because he was gay

then his beating was a message to all gay people that they are all at risk. They are all being threatened.

When you get beat up as a straight man it isn't a threat against all straight men. There isn't a declaration of war against straight men. No other straight men in the area need to be worried that they are going to be targeted because they are straight.

That's why hate crime laws exist. The crime isn't against just one person. It's intended as a threat of more attacks against the entire community. It is intended to terrorize the entire community.

Hate crime legislation is intended to punish the act of terrorizing the entire community.

[ardvark]

21. 2 years later, in 2000, a mile from where I lived in Wichita

was an incredibly vicious murder of 5 white people by 2 african american guys

just look at the rap sheets listed of these guys for ONE night - notice no 'hate crime'

http://165.201.143.205/kasper2/offender.asp?id=34109

http://165.201.143.205/kasper2/offender.asp?id=46059

MURDERED FOR BEING WHITE. Apparantly white people just aren't important enough to warrant federal hate crime protection

[LostinVA]

25. Yet another poster with RW talking points about these murders

You and your buddies upthraed need to give it a rest.

[ardvark]

28. this happend in a mile from me

would you feel an obligation to be silent if it happened in YOUR neighborhood, if I made some guilt by association threats?

[customerserviceguy]

42. I see the pattern

arguments that cannot be articulated logically are dismissed with the meme "right wing talking points", and are thus rendered irrelevant.

Yeah, I get the point.

[Behind the Aegis]

12. How would the hate crimes law apply?

[customerserviceguy]

36. Did you see the word 'hate' in the original post?

This Repuke is trying to make a point (even a broken analog clock is right twice a day) about so-called 'hate' crime, that point seems to be that someone targeting a homeless person because of their homeless status is somehow worse than a person attacking a person who has a recognized place to live.

Both victims are attacked, doesn't the idea of 'equal justice under law' apply to victims as well as those accused of crimes?

[Behind the Aegis]

38. All I have seen is you post RW talking points on this thread.

You get drunk and hit a woman and kill her.

I kill my father for insurance money and make the death look like a suicide.

Are both murders equal? If I get a harsher sentence, does it mean your victim didn't get equal justice?

[customerserviceguy]

40. All I'm saying

is that I don't get the justification behind so-called hate crime legislation that seeks to punish one similar crime harsher than another similar crime. Maybe you can explain it in a way that makes sense.

To me, crime is crime, it really doesn't matter what goofy-ass thoughts the perpetrator has in his head while he deprives me of my rights to live unmolested by him. Or that someone else deserves a greater protection than me because of membership in a different group.

Your avitar indicates you are of the Jewish faith. I'm an atheist. Does your murder by a neo-Nazi deserve a harsher punishment than my murder by a religionist?

[Behind the Aegis]

45. Let me try this....

Not all crimes are the same, if they were all penalties would need to be the same. The two prior examples I gave you (vehicular homicide and murder 1) demonstrate a difference in "thought" but the actions resulted in the same end, murder. A group roaming around looking for money decide to rob someone and do it, the motivation (thought), "get money." When the same group targets a specific group, we'll say gays, the motivation (thought) is not only to "get money" but "to harass and terrorize" a target group. Even if this group of roaming thugs is only targeting gays that night is irrelevant, the message sent is to the entire gay community. Basically, the hate crime law extends punishment because there are TWO victims, the actual victim and the community of the victim.

"Does your murder by a neo-Nazi deserve a harsher punishment than my murder by a religionist?" It would depend. If the neo-Nazi murdered me because I am a Jew and you were murdered by a "religionist" because of something other than your status as an atheist, then yes, my murderer would deserve a harsher penalty, barring any other circumstances. The same would be true if you were gunned down by a wacko "religionist" because "you are a G-dless heathen," and I was murdered by a neo-Nazi, not because I was gay or Jewish, but simply "in the wrong place at the wrong time," then your murderer would deserve the harsher penalty. It would be no different than the other scenario I described.

Do you see a difference between the following messages being spray-painted (on a warehouse) "Suck my phat cock!" and "Jews back to the ovens!" spray-painted on a synagogue? Both are vandalism.

[Creideiki]

20. Think of it as terrorism

I know this board isn't for progressives any more--just Democrats. Still, you should understand the concept of terrorism and why people have issues with terrorists.

[customerserviceguy]

37. Yknow, if Islamists want to shake their heads over this infidel

or shake their fists at me, it really doesn't matter. They're entitled to their feelings, and the expression of them that is not violent to me.

But when they act to deal with me as an infidel, in ways that want to cause me physical harm, they're really no worse than street thugs who want to beat me up and leave me dead for mere money. Both groups need to be dealt with severely, although my next of kin will have an easier time gaining sympathy if I'm eliminated by someone that is readily labeled as a terrorist.

[friedgreentomatoes]

44. Consider this.

Someone finds out I am gay, and bashes my head with a baseball bat. he/she would not have done it had i not been gay.
Does that sound like a "hate crime" to you?

[classysassy]

8. Hate crime

hate is the cause,the murder or injury is the result.The bill is to keep bigots undercheck,I have no problem with that.

[ardvark]

15. Equal protection under the law

'All Animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others'

George Orwell, Animal Farm

[Behind the Aegis]

16. This is one of the most absurd responses I have seen.

It is as if logic took a vacation in this thread.

[LostinVA]

26. Look at their post upthread

Along with their buddies.

ALL THE MURDERS THEY LIST HAVE BEEN RALLYING CRIES AND TALKING POINTS FOR WHITE Supremist organizations. I'm not saying teh posters are that, just that they are using memes these groups use.

[ardvark]

27. this happened a mile from where i lived

am i supposed to check who else mentions it, and be silent or be judged 'guilt by association'?

wasnt that senator mccarthy's game?

what i'm hearing rom you is more 'not WHAT's wrong, but WHO's wrong'

[Behind the Aegis]

31. It is disgusting.

Seems some will try to invalidate anything that punishes and therefore, recognizes, hate is a motivator in many crimes against certain types of people.

[customerserviceguy]

43. Those who question the idea of the "hate" crime

are not trying to invalidate anything, we're just trying to stress the point that whether the movive for a crime is hate, greed, contempt, or simple callousness, the effects on the victims is exactly the same. I've never advocated letting people who commit crimes of hate getting a lighter sentence, I'v simply advocated that there be one uniform harsh sentence for those convicted of crimes against other humans, no matter what the perpetrator thought about the victims.

[Behind the Aegis]

48. "Intention" and actual "result" differ!

Greed, contempt, callousness, even in some cases, hate, are motivators and the effects on the victims may be the same; but when the motivation is or in conjunction with bigotry, the victim is not just the actual victim, but that victim's community. Here is where is becomes obvious you don't understand hate crime additional penalties: "...no matter what the perpetrator thought about the victims." It doesn't matter what the perp thinks of a victim unless it was the reason the victim was chosen.

[customerserviceguy]

53. And I disagree

To me, it doesn't matter what the perp's reason was, it was enough that the perp overcame the standard moral sanctions against doing damage to another that matters more than anything else. There are many people who hate or are prejudiced, it's when they act on those motivations that the damage is done.

The same applies to greed and envy. Someone may feel angry that I've got a better car than they do, but when they steal or vandalize my car, I'm just as violated as the person who was robbed or defaced for who they perceive me to be.

[Behind the Aegis]

54. And you are still missing the point.

"To me, it doesn't matter what the perp's reason was, it was enough that the perp overcame the standard moral sanctions against doing damage to another that matters more than anything else."

Then, I hope you NEVER become a juror because someone who can't see the difference between justifiable homicide and murder 1 is very scary.

When hate crime is added to the charge it is because a SPECIFIC group is being sent a message. They, as well as the victim, are also the target and the additional charge is to give them "equal protection" as the victim.

[customerserviceguy]

61. I have been on a jury

and I was the only thing standing between a Hispanic defendant and a jail sentence. His lawyer had just "phoned it in", and I made that point during deliberations.

I can indeed distinguish between justifiable homicide, and criminal forms of manslaughter or murder. To say that I cannot do so because I'd give both the hate criminal and the thievery criminal the same sentence is not helping you make your point.

The simple reason I've found for justifying additional penalties for so-called hate crime is to attempt to "even out" under-prosecution of crimes for years before the present. A white man killing a black man in Mississippi eighty years ago (or even a group of them conducting a lynching) was not prosecuted adequately, if at all, and so now, we need to compensate for that by adding hate crime penalties to present-day situations.

Reversing discrimination seldom produces a harmonious or just result.

[Behind the Aegis]

63. And you FINALLY nail your own coffin shut with the ultimate RW talking point.

"Reverse discrimination"

DISGUSTING!

And your "simple reason" is bullshit, you poor, put upon majority. :eyes:

[customerserviceguy]

64. Good luck

convincing people in the "mushy middle" (sorry if that is something you've pre-labeled as a right wing phrase) with your logic.

I'm still uncomfortable with the idea of hate crime legislation and your non-arguments have really done nothing to convince me otherwise. When it comes to people who bother to think about politics only in the weekend before an election, they'll simply love your attempts to bully them into 'correct' thinking.

[Behind the Aegis]

65. You posts are pathetic RW illogical rhetoric.

Your "logic" is anything but logical. I have presented, as have a number of others, legitimate reasons for the need, but for you, it is nothing more than pretend you are now being "victimized" by hate crime laws. So good luck with your fantasy of "reverse racism" and how the big, bad minorities are coming to get "whitey!"

[AlphaCentauri]

47. There is only one hate crime against the homeless

that is to have people homeless, that is a collective hate crime.
Many of them need mental health care or other services that are not provided by the government.

[inwiththenew]

49. The problem is

How do you prove a hate crime. Lets say a person attack someone because they are gay. That is the motivation in their mind. As long as they don't use any slurs or say anything about it, how could you prove that was a hate crime? That person could say that guy was eyeballing me or something stupid like that and it would look like he was an out of control asshole, but not guilty of a hate crime? I know sometimes it is cut and dry hate crime, but in situations like that how would it be handled? Would they just prosecute it as a regular assault/battery?

[Behind the Aegis]

50. Generally, a hate crime addition is added when it is obvious.

"Obvious" doesn't mean the victim was of a "protected" class, but that the attack was because the victim was of a certain group. Sometimes, hate crime statuettes are added later, when the investigation demonstrates "bigotry/bias" was part of the motivation.

Example: Five people are robbed by the same man. All the victims are Jews. The prosecutor may try to add a hate crime addendum, but the burden of proof will be difficult. It is plausible all the victims "just happened to be" Jews. However, during the investigation, a "secret room" is found in the robber's house and in that room is Nazi literature and a map of homes with Stars of David on them, then the prosecution will have a much easier time and be more likely to get an additional conviction.

[inwiththenew]

52. Thanks

That is what I thought, but wasn't sure.

[Behind the Aegis]

51. In all the craziness, I forgot to say...GOOD FOR MD!