Holy Hell, The State Now feels Free to Add Hate Penalties for IntraGroup Crimes

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Because we are criminalizing beliefs and emotions...if we were not doing that we would only charge people and punish people for the transgressions that the commit, not for what we decide their motivation for the act was.

Thus, we wouldn't have murderers anymore - a "good" idea!

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

If a man punches another man in a bar for being rude, that's assault, and should attract a certain level of punushment. If a man punches another man just because the other man is black and he hates black people, then I think the assault is more serious and should get a heavier punishment. In my country the law agrees with me. If you don't like that, pleae don't come here.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
Because we are criminalizing beliefs and emotions...if we were not doing that we would only charge people and punish people for the transgressions that the commit, not for what we decide their motivation for the act was.

Thus, we wouldn't have murderers anymore - a "good" idea!

Intent and the motivation behind that intent are too entirely different things, so you are wrong. The difference between manslaughter and murder has always been the level of demonstration of the intent to kill and the level of forethought..not reason that the perp pitched the hammer into another's skull. Killing a man because he cut me off in traffic is no better than killing him because he is a Jew...the penalty ought to be the same, there should be no discount for those who are motivated by state approved emotions and thoughts.

1 Reply

@contrex,

Quote:

If you don't like that, pleae don't come here.

I dont like it, and I will continue to lobby to the and of this abuse of the individual. I dont think that political views should be woven into the criminal code, and the idea that no negative action should be based associating an individual with the group that he/she is a part of is political. It is also not justified, because we are sure as **** willing to advantage people based upon the group that they are a part of.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Intent and the motivation behind that intent are too entirely different things, so you are wrong.

Complete Bull ****, hawkeye...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motive_%28law%29

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
Intent and the motivation behind that intent are too entirely different things, so you are wrong.

Complete Bull ****, hawkeye...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motive_%28law%29

From your own link

Quote:

The law technically distinguishes between motive and intent.. "Intent" in criminal law is synonymous with mens rea, which means no more than the specific mental purpose to perform a deed that is forbidden by a criminal statute, or the reckless disregard of whether the law will be violated.[citation needed] "Motive" describes instead the reasons in the accused's background and station in life that are supposed to have induced the crime

1 Reply

@contrex,

How is it more serious? An assault committed for the pure joy of it should attract a lesser sentence ??

1 Reply

@Eorl,

Eorl wrote:

How is it more serious?
An assault committed for the pure joy of it should attract a lesser sentence ??

It is more serious because the assailant is not thinking the thawts that the liberals require him to THINK!

He is in defiance of the liberal thawt police! How DARE he?!!

( If it was good enuf for the Red Chinese, its good enuf for the liberals.)

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

It is more serious because the assailant is not thinking the thawts that the liberals require him to THINK!

So is it your argument that the liberals have foisted this illegal law upon us over the objections and "no" votes of the right thinking conservatives?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

DAVID wrote:

It is more serious because the assailant is not thinking the thawts that the liberals require him to THINK!

hawkeye10 wrote:

So is it your argument that the liberals have foisted this illegal law upon us
over the objections and "no" votes of the right thinking conservatives?

It IS. Yes, indeed.

To be a conservative, a citizen must be a freedom-lover.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

It IS. Yes, indeed.

I have not checked, but I think it is safe to say that conservatives have allowed hate crime law to be written, by far too many of them voting "yes" when the time came to run the tally.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

DAVID wrote:

It IS. Yes, indeed.

hawkeye10 wrote:

I have not checked, but I think it is safe to say that conservatives have allowed hate crime law to be written,
by far too many of them voting "yes" when the time came to run the tally.

Apostasy!

IF thay were guilty of doing that,
then thay have betrayed their central, primary, root philosophy,
which is support of individual freedom, at the expense of government jurisdiction.

I 'd have FILIBUSTERED, if it came to that
and rendered loud, inflamatory objections.

An American conservative is someone like Barry Goldwater.
I worked for him.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

It does not appear that the DEMS needed any GOP votes for the last round of expansion of this illegal law in 2009 once they got the 60 votes in Senate to end debate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23hate.html

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

It does not appear that the DEMS needed any GOP votes for the last round of expansion of this illegal law in 2009 once they got the 60 votes in Senate to end debate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23hate.html

It has also been a fact that some successful candidates
for political office have been Republicans In Name Only. (Fakes.)
Their philosophical loyalty is not reliable.

David

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

And you forgot to post the part where "motive" plays a part in prosecution of crimes and sentencing when convicted.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

And you forgot to post the part where "motive" plays a part in prosecution of crimes and sentencing when convicted.

I feel like I am talking to a fourth grader......my argument is that the law as it is currently practiced is wrong, is illegal. Establishing motive should only count in deciding if a crime was likely committed, the wrong motives shoul not be either a crime nor should the wrong motive bring attitional penalties.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Gratuitous yes, illegal no....

Free Expression of ones religion IS a civil right. The AMish Beard is considered a measure of thatFree Expression. To remove it is a violation of the AMish civil rights (therefore) a hate crime.
What part of the 1st Amendment dont you understand

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Hate crimes are not mentionded in the 1st amendment nor anywhere else in the Constitution. Hate crime law does not criminalize anything that was not already criminalized, all it is is a method of tacking on extra penalties to people that the state wants to abuse further than reqular law allows for.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

"Free exercise" for the AMish is a requirement to grow a beard once they are baptised and married. To mess with that free expression, you mess with the US constitution. "Hate Crimes" have been extended in def by the USSC and fed district courts when several of the civil rights(outlined in several sections and amendments of the constitution) are violated. Also, I will check to see whether the OHIO constitution has a similar civil rights code

I can understand your libertarian views. I dont as hell share them, but I understand them.
Therefore lets see how this case goes for you in appeal. Is painting swastikas on a synagogue a crime? Is burning a black church a crime (besides mere arson?). IS beating a black man or jew by skinheads a hate crime?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Mame wrote:

Verbally abusing someone when you can keep your mouth shut is an action. Insulting someone, offending others, is an action that you don't need to engage in. You wouldn't put up with it at work, so why would you put up with it on the street?

hawkeye10 wrote:

If what they are doing is a crime then charge them with that crime, but dont throw in a kicker penalty because you decide that the transgression was motivated by an natural human emotion that you dont like....or beliefs about race that you dont like. To do so is as David points out nothing but bullying of the citizens by the government.

Bullying with NO authority to DO that;
the hate law is enacted with STOLEN, fraudulent, fake jurisdiction.

The concept that government has jurisdiction over what citizens THINK,
is very liberal (meaning deviant) ANATHEMA to fundamental Americanism.

It was rock-bottom ethos of the 17OOs in America that the territory
between the ears in any citizen is IMMUNE from jurisdiction of government.
(Even the King did not claim THAT jurisdiction.)
The liberals have expanded jurisdiction, at the expense of personal liberty.

Some criminals in poor states of mental health (e.g., Andrea Yates)
have committed murder while thinking thawts of love for their victims.
Correspondingly, the liberals shoud award them nicer, sweeter sentences; call it the "Love Crimes Law".
If rapists think loving thawts while doing their criminal deeds, shoud the penal law
be amended to grant them easier penalties?? I think not.

David

0 Replies

Holy Hell, The State Now feels Free to Add Hate Penalties for IntraGroup Crimes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know