bias?

[CoderGuy]

A valid point, except laws tend to not serve the purpose they were created for.

Best example:

Im at a bar, I get drunk and beat up a guy; assault
Im at a bar, I get drunk and beat up a guy, who's gay; hate crime.

Because he will get a good lawyer and will try to spin it to the jury that I only hit him because he was gay, or that the fact he was gay was one of several reasons I hit him.

It creates a defacto protected class whith special privaledges while leaving everyon else out to dry.

Scenario 2:

If it's mardi gras and an old guy is walking around naked rubbing on people, someone comes and knocks him out; assault.

If it's a gay pride parade and an old guy is walking around naked rubbing on people, and someone comes and knocks him out = hate crime.


I know it's only intended for crimes that are committed based soely on race/sexual orientation, but the reality is that in court it just adds protection for those who belong to this elite class of protected individuals. If a french guy beats me up at a bar, I can't say it's a hate crime because he REALLY just beat me up because he didn't like Americans. That's because i'm not in the special group with more rights and protections than the rest of us.

Also valid point, but in both scenarios you didn't beat up the guy "because" he was gay, he just happened to be gay. That is where the common sense has to come in where the law is concerned; intent. It's like the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter. You drive your car over someone in the crosswalk because you were texting that's involuntary manslaughter, you see someone in the crosswalk and point your car at them, gun it, and run over them, it's murder.

[deadohsky]

Crime is what it is...a crime. No matter the color.

My thoughts exactly.

Every time this topic comes up i think of 'Cartman's Silly Hate Crime 2000'.

[EricHill78]

Usually when you beat up someone don't ya hate them?

[snusgetter]

Usually when you beat up someone don't ya hate them?

It depends...

[tom502]

I wonder why these Muslim terrorists are not being charged with hate crimes? Or does it not count for Muslims? I mean, if you attacked a Muslim, because he was a Muslim, that could be charged as a hate crime, but if a Muslim in the mind of Jihad, attacks an infidel, then why isn't that a hate crime? I mean, the attacker is doing it in their view of their religious duty. Like the Muslim that shot up that recruitment center, or even the Ft. Hood killer, these people should be charged with hate crime too.

[truthwolf1]

It is politically incorrect to charge dark skinned people with hate crimes.
This can arouse discontent in the disadvantaged neighborhoods.

[tom502]

America really has failed.

[sgreger1]

I would agree with this if the people that committed the hate crimes also believed that way. Unfortunately they don't. To them it isn't equal rights for all. And therein lies the problem. Someone needs to protect those who cannot protect themselves. People should not be afraid to go out of the house just because of the color of their skin or how they live their lives.

Right, I understand intent but i'm just saying how our legal system works. They will use ANY defense at their disposal, even if it does not or should not apply. And it doesn't matter if someone doesn't believe in equal rights for all. If they are going to go about and commit a crime against someone, they are going to commit a crime. If they kill them, than that's murder. They targeted the person and premeditated their kill, that's muder. Adding in hate crime seems silly since it's redundant. I'm saying that it's a completely redundant law that adds no benefit, while at the same time bring unequality to the masses by making special classes of protected individuals.



If a guy kicks someone because he hates them, it's assault. But if someone kicks a gay guy because he hates them, somehow that consitutes a larger crime because "gay" is a class of people with more rights? Doesn't sound like my America.

[tom502]

The whole "hate crime" thing is a scam, that was intended to be another anti-honky agenda, based on the extreme left liberal brainwash that blacks are being beaten in streets every day by evil honkies. But it has blown up in their face, as it's been shown most inter-racial attacks have a honky victim, not the attacker. So, to circumvent this, our anti-honky government, just doesn't apply that charge to non-honky attackers, even when it's an obvious fact, except in very very rare cases.