Welcome to Gaia! ::

Ban's avatar

Jeering Regular

agrab0ekim
hate crime laws are blatantly unconstitutional (my view) and absolutely illogical
You keep saying that stuff is unconstitutional, without referring to any particular section of the constitution or even saying why. Seriously, man, you're spending all this money and time getting a legal education, you ought to at least provide some sort of argument.
Omnileech
Hate crimes go both way if you'd check the FBI statistics they compile about hate crimes.

Some of em are unusual, like murdering someone because they're heterosexual.

for those who can't google - halfway down on right

(good post omni - also, your sigi makes me think you stalk me IRL)
Ban
agrab0ekim
hate crime laws are blatantly unconstitutional (my view) and absolutely illogical
You keep saying that stuff is unconstitutional, without referring to any particular section of the constitution or even saying why. Seriously, man, you're spending all this money and time getting a legal education, you ought to at least provide some sort of argument.


which is why I normally have my view vs. the cited true view
other than that, I could point to the 1st and contend that thought is included in there as protected. Basically, the concept is - if the government can't lock me up for saying "burn the jews" then how can they toss on extra years for that fact?
Ban's avatar

Jeering Regular

agrab0ekim
which is why I normally have my view vs. the cited true view
Even if it's your view, there has to be a reason for it, an interpretation of the constitution, a good faith argument, or something. Otherwise, you're just using the word "unconstitutional" to mean "I don't like it." Which is ******** stupid, mang.

agrab0ekim
other than that, I could point to the 1st and contend that thought is included in there as protected. Basically, the concept is - if the government can't lock me up for saying "burn the jews" then how can they toss on extra years for that fact?
The government also can't lock you up for saying you want to kill the president, (unless you say it with such specificity that it becomes a true threat) but nonetheless, if you happen to kill the president later, it will be admitted as evidence of intent. Statements and admissions can be used as evidence for elements of crimes.
Ban
agrab0ekim
which is why I normally have my view vs. the cited true view
Even if it's your view, there has to be a reason for it, an interpretation of the constitution, a good faith argument, or something. Otherwise, you're just using the word "unconstitutional" to mean "I don't like it." Which is ******** stupid, mang.

agrab0ekim
other than that, I could point to the 1st and contend that thought is included in there as protected. Basically, the concept is - if the government can't lock me up for saying "burn the jews" then how can they toss on extra years for that fact?
The government also can't lock you up for saying you want to kill the president, (unless you say it with such specificity that it becomes a true threat) but nonetheless, if you happen to kill the president later, it will be admitted as evidence of intent. Statements and admissions can be used as evidence for elements of crimes.


yes, congrats, you can use it to prove I was violating either an additional law or to use it to negate a defense.
However, you are making a different argument to what I'm suggesting. I'm not suggesting that the statements can't be used for the various requirements (premeditated being the clearest), rather that the idea of policing thoughts, which is what a HC LAW is, is almost the exact same as policing a person for hating blacks but not acting on it. I.e., murder is murder, i don't care why you did it

I didn't list it here because I thought it was obvious (normally I cite unless I am asking (like in the HOA I was asking)), this was clearly in error. My bad man (you a 1L or 2L, jw?)
Omorose Panya's avatar

Wheezing Prophet

7,350 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Forum Sophomore 300
Comm4nder Keen
Sure, but when 13 percent of the population makes up 82 percent of our crime, it is a race issue. even a crime thats normally not "racially motivated" is always somehow called or turned into a "hate crime" if its white on black. how come the black community doesnt protest and walk the streets when its black on black crime? they dont scream racism then. never hear about a black on black crime considered a hate crime do you? i didnt think so. further more, the black community leaders need to step up and motivate the black community to end the crime. its the blacks that make up the largest percent of crime in the country, then call it racial profiling when a description of the perpetrator is given on television. its rediculous. if you have a chicken coop, and a dog gets in and kills the chickens, you dont go looking for rabbits. you look for the damn dog. i think its safe to say that the blacks are the most hateful race. their the ones who scream hate crime and racial profiling all the time. its simple, just look at the facts.
1) You mean the majority of the prison population, not crime. They are there mostly for drug charges because their neighborhoods are policed more heavily for them thanks to the war on drugs, despite white people being more likely, or at the very least as likely, to do them.

To elaborate: If populations A and B are esitmated to do crime X at around the same rate, but population B is watched 70% to 90% more than population A is, then popultion B is likely going to comprise the vast majority of those who are caught and charged. That is a main issue with racial profiling, alongside the fact that the numbers simply do not justify it.

(Not to mention that it is typically only minority groups that are racially profiled; members of the various majorities are portrayed as representing themselves rather than the entirerty of their respective group, unlike members of minority groups. That's why white Christian males are free to fly as many planes into however many buildings they please without their group being racially profiled.)

2) That blacks are hugely disenfranchised and thus ignored does not indicate that they do not speak. There are plenty of black people who speak out against cops lazying up when it comes to black murder victims (and, yes, even when black people are the murderers) but suddently becoming as efficient as possible when it comes to white murder victims, especially young white women.

And they typically do not "scream racism then" because intraracial crime is far less likely to be a racial hate crime than interracial crime is.

3) List and cite those facts, sir. I will accept only a comparative analysis.
Ban's avatar

Jeering Regular

agrab0ekim
However, you are making a different argument to what I'm suggesting. I'm not suggesting that the statements can't be used for the various requirements (premeditated being the clearest), rather that the idea of policing thoughts, which is what a HC LAW is, is almost the exact same as policing a person for hating blacks but not acting on it. I.e., murder is murder, i don't care why you did it
Murder is murder because of the mens rea requirement. The statements are evidence of intent, planning, motive, all of which are mental elements of the crime. Your thoughts are what are at issue, and will change your level of culpability.

Hate crime law merely states that this particular intent is considered more heinous. It's no more "policing your thoughts" than we do already with intent standards for various degrees of homicide. Having the intent means nothing unless we act on it. Similarly, hate crime law means we can hate people as much as we like, so long as we don't act on it. Both still have a requisite illegal act.

agrab0ekim
I didn't list it here because I thought it was obvious (normally I cite unless I am asking (like in the HOA I was asking)), this was clearly in error.
People think things are unconstitutional for all sorts of dumb reasons. I hope at least law students can articulate a good reason why. Not a ********' brief or journal note, just a goddamn argument that makes sense. Am I expecting too much from Quinnipiac?

agrab0ekim
My bad man (you a 1L or 2L, jw?)
2L.
Omorose Panya's avatar

Wheezing Prophet

7,350 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Forum Sophomore 300
agrab0ekim
Ban
agrab0ekim
which is why I normally have my view vs. the cited true view
Even if it's your view, there has to be a reason for it, an interpretation of the constitution, a good faith argument, or something. Otherwise, you're just using the word "unconstitutional" to mean "I don't like it." Which is ******** stupid, mang.

agrab0ekim
other than that, I could point to the 1st and contend that thought is included in there as protected. Basically, the concept is - if the government can't lock me up for saying "burn the jews" then how can they toss on extra years for that fact?
The government also can't lock you up for saying you want to kill the president, (unless you say it with such specificity that it becomes a true threat) but nonetheless, if you happen to kill the president later, it will be admitted as evidence of intent. Statements and admissions can be used as evidence for elements of crimes.


yes, congrats, you can use it to prove I was violating either an additional law or to use it to negate a defense.
However, you are making a different argument to what I'm suggesting. I'm not suggesting that the statements can't be used for the various requirements (premeditated being the clearest), rather that the idea of policing thoughts, which is what a HC LAW is, is almost the exact same as policing a person for hating blacks but not acting on it. I.e., murder is murder, i don't care why you did it

I didn't list it here because I thought it was obvious (normally I cite unless I am asking (like in the HOA I was asking)), this was clearly in error. My bad man (you a 1L or 2L, jw?)
I have to disagree. At the end of the day, you are not being jailed because of your thoughts but because of your behavior. Hating someone is not a crime, but killing them because you hate them is.

I must ask: If the motive matters in every other case, then why can it not matter here? Would you argue that murdering your wife "in the heat of the moment" because you caught her cheating on you vs murdering your husband because he was an abusive a*****e whom you desperately desired to escape from vs. a white man murdering a black storekeeper because he was interrupting his robbing the place (not racially motivated) vs. a heterosexual murdering a homosexual because s/he was a dirty, godless intentional sinner who deserved to burn in hell are the same because "murder is murder is murder is murder"?

If so, then you have a horribly black-and-white perspective. neutral
Less Than Liz's avatar

Profitable Prophet

7,700 Points
  • Brandisher 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
Hate crimes only mess with sentencing, Agrab. The elements of murder are still identical. If the government couldn't tweak sentencing to its liking upon convictions, we'd all still be hung upon any kind of felony conviction, and juries would be hung on anything that warranted a lesser punishment than that.
agrab0ekim
Ban
agrab0ekim
hate crime laws are blatantly unconstitutional (my view) and absolutely illogical
You keep saying that stuff is unconstitutional, without referring to any particular section of the constitution or even saying why. Seriously, man, you're spending all this money and time getting a legal education, you ought to at least provide some sort of argument.


which is why I normally have my view vs. the cited true view
other than that, I could point to the 1st and contend that thought is included in there as protected. Basically, the concept is - if the government can't lock me up for saying "burn the jews" then how can they toss on extra years for that fact?

Soo .. do you also have a problem with the differences between, say, different degrees of crimes, such as murder? After all, if your contention is that your thought process should be of no concern.
Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
If you say "burn the Jews" and there's what they call a "clear and present danger" that you or somebody else will be attempting to carry out that act, then they will in fact punish you for saying it.
Ban
agrab0ekim
However, you are making a different argument to what I'm suggesting. I'm not suggesting that the statements can't be used for the various requirements (premeditated being the clearest), rather that the idea of policing thoughts, which is what a HC LAW is, is almost the exact same as policing a person for hating blacks but not acting on it. I.e., murder is murder, i don't care why you did it
Murder is murder because of the mens rea requirement. The statements are evidence of intent, planning, motive, all of which are mental elements of the crime. Your thoughts are what are at issue, and will change your level of culpability.

Only under statute, not under most CL jurisdictions (from my memory). I'm not saying that we don't allow thought to influence (see premed murder, self-defense claims, etc.), but that to let POLITICAL thought, which racism is, to influence shouldn't be availing under the 1st. I.e. there is a different between general speech and thoughts and political speech and thoughts. Of course, without relevant case law here, neither of us can get much further

Quote:
agrab0ekim
I didn't list it here because I thought it was obvious (normally I cite unless I am asking (like in the HOA I was asking)), this was clearly in error.
People think things are unconstitutional for all sorts of dumb reasons. I hope at least law students can articulate a good reason why. Not a ********' brief or journal note, just a goddamn argument that makes sense. Am I expecting too much from Quinnipiac?

agrab0ekim
My bad man (you a 1L or 2L, jw?)
2L.


2L myself - trust me, I can make a much better argument then I normally do on here, but I tend not to because it really isn't needed. Notice when I respond to Lizz I am far more in depth then with others. I'll add you to my 'give a real legal argument' list
apologies for not meeting your standards otherwise (and, yes, with my classmates, you are expecting far too much from QU)
Wendigo
If you say "burn the Jews" and there's what they call a "clear and present danger" that you or somebody else will be attempting to carry out that act, then they will in fact punish you for saying it.


I assume you are referring to riot concepts? If so, I don't know if they are prevailing, as hate speech is almost perfectly akin to political speech (I don't think 'burn the Jews' is all said, probably some economic, political, or other bullshit reason to kill my people).
If you aren't, please expand
Omorose Panya
agrab0ekim
Ban
agrab0ekim
which is why I normally have my view vs. the cited true view
Even if it's your view, there has to be a reason for it, an interpretation of the constitution, a good faith argument, or something. Otherwise, you're just using the word "unconstitutional" to mean "I don't like it." Which is ******** stupid, mang.

agrab0ekim
other than that, I could point to the 1st and contend that thought is included in there as protected. Basically, the concept is - if the government can't lock me up for saying "burn the jews" then how can they toss on extra years for that fact?
The government also can't lock you up for saying you want to kill the president, (unless you say it with such specificity that it becomes a true threat) but nonetheless, if you happen to kill the president later, it will be admitted as evidence of intent. Statements and admissions can be used as evidence for elements of crimes.


yes, congrats, you can use it to prove I was violating either an additional law or to use it to negate a defense.
However, you are making a different argument to what I'm suggesting. I'm not suggesting that the statements can't be used for the various requirements (premeditated being the clearest), rather that the idea of policing thoughts, which is what a HC LAW is, is almost the exact same as policing a person for hating blacks but not acting on it. I.e., murder is murder, i don't care why you did it

I didn't list it here because I thought it was obvious (normally I cite unless I am asking (like in the HOA I was asking)), this was clearly in error. My bad man (you a 1L or 2L, jw?)
I have to disagree. At the end of the day, you are not being jailed because of your thoughts but because of your behavior. Hating someone is not a crime, but killing them because you hate them is.

I must ask: If the motive matters in every other case, then why can it not matter here? Would you argue that murdering your wife "in the heat of the moment" because you caught her cheating on you vs murdering your husband because he was an abusive a*****e whom you desperately desired to escape from vs. a white man murdering a black storekeeper because he was interrupting his robbing the place (not racially motivated) vs. a heterosexual murdering a homosexual because s/he was a dirty, godless intentional sinner who deserved to burn in hell are the same because "murder is murder is murder is murder"?

If so, then you have a horribly black-and-white perspective. neutral


I do think murder is murder, and I think that the person dead doesn't give a s**t about WHY you did it, just that you did.
Basically, I want the person who kills you cause you are wearing red (not a protected class) to get the same penalty as the one who kills you because you are white and the one who kills you simply because you are in the wrong place (assuming the same crime and everything else BUT the thought behind it)
Further, it is impossible to prove a hate crime. Say I was killed by a Nazi, who had professed a desire to kill all jews, but claims (and truly did) that he only killed me during a robbery and didn't know my religion. How do we regulate that without running afoul of due process and proper notification
Less Than Liz
Hate crimes only mess with sentencing, Agrab. The elements of murder are still identical. If the government couldn't tweak sentencing to its liking upon convictions, we'd all still be hung upon any kind of felony conviction, and juries would be hung on anything that warranted a lesser punishment than that.


acknowledged, but that doesn't change my argument. First, one could argue that creating protected classes for this purpose violates the 14th, as it is both arbitrary and discriminatory by the usage (for example, killing a non-recognized ethnie for being said ethnie is not as punishable as killing a white person cause they were white). I could create a test for it (based off caselaw), but I think the 14th would govern the class system used by it. If you want it, let me know

As for the 1st, I still think it would be akin to punishing a tax evader extra because he was anti-government as opposed to one who simply thought the 16th wasn't real and filed (but sent in nothing) with a clear objection. To me, they should be treated the same (assuming one doesn't move to fraud or the like where mentality is part of the CL definition for, well, western civilization)

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games