PA and Hate Crime -
September 29th, 2008, 05:36 AM
Quote:
The Supreme Court in Pennsylvania has declared the "hate crimes" laws used to jail the Philadelphia 11 in 2004 violated the state constitution.
In a four-line statement this week, the court said the ruling from the lower Commonwealth Court "is affirmed for the reasons ably set forth in the opinion of the Honorable James Gardner Collins, which opinion is adopted as that of the Supreme Court."
"We are very happy that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled in our favor to stop the governor and a group of corrupt politicians from sneaking a 'hate crimes' bill through the Pennsylvania legislature," said Judge Roy Moore, of the Foundation for Moral Law.
"Preaching to homosexuals about the sin of sodomy should not be made a 'thought crime' in Pennsylvania or any other state," he said.
Michael Marcavage, director of Repent America and a petitioner in the case, said, "Having been arrested, jailed and charged with a 'hate crime' for preaching the Gospel, I am elated that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling in striking down Pennsylvania's expanded 'hate crimes' law." More...
It's pretty pathetic the freedom of speech and religion is a "hate crime" but folsom street fair is "loving and tolerant" while participants break indecency and contributing laws freely.
Slogan/motto:
Of course you realize this means war! ~ Bugs Bunny
Reputation:
September 29th, 2008, 10:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineveh
It's pretty pathetic the freedom of speech and religion is a "hate crime" but folsom street fair is "loving and tolerant" while participants break indecency and contributing laws freely.
I think that under freedom of speech, BOTH should be allowed and that hate crime laws should be null and void.
IMO, all that hate law crime legislation does is send the message that *some* members of society are more valuable than others.
Slogan/motto:
In a world with so many ready to hear, why waste words on the willfully deaf?
Reputation:
September 29th, 2008, 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusha
IMO, all that hate law crime legislation does is send the message that *some* members of society are more valuable than others.
Not exactly. At least not if drafted properly. Murdering or assaulting someone because of say their race doesn't make the murder or assault committed itself intrinsically worse than one committed for other reasons. However, if such an attack is carried out for the purpose or with the affect of intimidating or terrorizing the group to which the victim belongs that in sense represents an additional crime being committed and it's something that should come under consideration in terms of sentencing.
Now, this doesn't really apply to the PA statute though as it was being used to prosecute people who hadn't committed any crime whatsoever. However I do see merit in more narrowly focused ones which cover incidents such as the 1998 murder of James Byrd, Jr in Texas.
"When the lights go out all over the world, when history seems headed only into a dead end and total disaster, God brings forth light. He changes the direction of history and regenerates men and redirects events and institutions to fulfill His purposes."
Slogan/motto:
Of course you realize this means war! ~ Bugs Bunny
Reputation:
September 29th, 2008, 11:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WandererInFog
Not exactly. At least not if drafted properly. Murdering or assaulting someone because of say their race doesn't make the murder or assault committed itself intrinsically worse than one committed for other reasons. However, if such an attack is carried out for the purpose or with the affect of intimidating or terrorizing the group to which the victim belongs that in sense represents an additional crime being committed and it's something that should come under consideration in terms of sentencing.
I disagree that there should be an additional penalty that would effect the sentencing of the criminal.
IMO, most crimes are hate crimes to a certain extent because they normally do target specific individuals. To me, this seems more like *thought law legislation* and no one has the right to police the thoughts of other individuals.
Slogan/motto:
In a world with so many ready to hear, why waste words on the willfully deaf?
Reputation:
September 29th, 2008, 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusha
IMO, most crimes are hate crimes to a certain extent because they normally do target specific individuals.
Perhaps I'm not being clear. What I'm contending is that "hate crime" be narrowly defined as crime committed with the purpose or affect of terrorizing the group to which the individual belongs, and thereby being an attack on people beyond the direct victim of the crime. In essence it represents an additional crime which could then merit additional penalties.
Quote:
To me, this seems more like *thought law legislation* and no one has the right to police the thoughts of other individuals.
So then you believe we should remove all consideration of motive as an aggravating or mitigating factor in sentencing?
"When the lights go out all over the world, when history seems headed only into a dead end and total disaster, God brings forth light. He changes the direction of history and regenerates men and redirects events and institutions to fulfill His purposes."
Slogan/motto:
Of course you realize this means war! ~ Bugs Bunny
Reputation:
September 29th, 2008, 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WandererInFog
So then you believe we should remove all consideration of motive as an aggravating or mitigating factor in sentencing?
Nope that's not what I mean. We already have enough laws place to decide what sentence should fit the crime.
Someone who beats the living tar out of their next door neighbor or wife should get the same penalty as someone who beats up the gay down down the street. The motivation for any crime that is done with malicious intent shouldn't matter.
All of these crimes show a distinct disregard for the rights and lives of other individuals.
Slogan/motto:
In a world with so many ready to hear, why waste words on the willfully deaf?
Reputation:
September 29th, 2008, 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusha
Someone who beats the living tar out of their next door neighbor or wife should get the same penalty as someone who beats up the gay down down the street. The motivation for any crime that is done with malicious intent shouldn't matter.
Matter in what sense? I'm not arguing that one assault is intrinsically worse than another, however if an assault is carried out for the purpose of terrorizing a specific community that represents a separate, additional crime which may merit additional punishment.
"When the lights go out all over the world, when history seems headed only into a dead end and total disaster, God brings forth light. He changes the direction of history and regenerates men and redirects events and institutions to fulfill His purposes."
Someone who beats the living tar out of their next door neighbor or wife should get the same penalty as someone who beats up the gay down down the street. The motivation for any crime that is done with malicious intent shouldn't matter.
I think I share what WandererInFog is saying. Let me give another example, to see if the point can be made more clear. I assume that making threats against an individual or community (not just expressing your displeasure, but actually threatening them) is a crime, and would qualify as a hate crime. Now, if the method by which you send the message to that group is the murder of a member of that group, or a supporter of that group, there have been two crimes. One, the murder. The other, the threat. The evidence for the second crime is in the motive, so it's probably harder to make a case against, but still. It's a quick example of what I think he meant.
Slogan/motto:
If you want respect, be the first to give it.
Reputation:
September 29th, 2008, 02:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusha
I disagree that there should be an additional penalty that would effect the sentencing of the criminal.
IMO, most crimes are hate crimes to a certain extent because they normally do target specific individuals. To me, this seems more like *thought law legislation* and no one has the right to police the thoughts of other individuals.
Exactly. I believe most crimes are hate crimes, and it shouldn't matter what the hat-ee was, or did, to make the perp hate him/her, it doesn't justify having a crime committed against him/her. The existing laws should be sufficient.
~SP
As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith.
-- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
Slogan/motto:
If you want respect, be the first to give it.
Reputation:
September 29th, 2008, 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kian
I think I share what WandererInFog is saying. Let me give another example, to see if the point can be made more clear. I assume that making threats against an individual or community (not just expressing your displeasure, but actually threatening them) is a crime, and would qualify as a hate crime. Now, if the method by which you send the message to that group is the murder of a member of that group, or a supporter of that group, there have been two crimes. One, the murder. The other, the threat. The evidence for the second crime is in the motive, so it's probably harder to make a case against, but still. It's a quick example of what I think he meant.
I see it much as Rusha does. ALL violent crimes make others feel unsafe. People who are gay, or of a minority race, or feminist, or whatever, are not entitled to feel safeR than everyone else, but rather EVERYONE deserves to feel safe.
~SP
As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith.
-- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
Not exactly. At least not if drafted properly. Murdering or assaulting someone because of say their race doesn't make the murder or assault committed itself intrinsically worse than one committed for other reasons. However, if such an attack is carried out for the purpose or with the affect of intimidating or terrorizing the group to which the victim belongs that in sense represents an additional crime being committed and it's something that should come under consideration in terms of sentencing.
Now, this doesn't really apply to the PA statute though as it was being used to prosecute people who hadn't committed any crime whatsoever. However I do see merit in more narrowly focused ones which cover incidents such as the 1998 murder of James Byrd, Jr in Texas.
No matter the motivation or intent murder should carry the death penalty. And you can't add a penalty to that.
Crime is crime without bringing subjective politically correct vagueness into the picture. I have zero interest in any group becoming a special case because of their victimization, real or otherwise.
Theocrats are Social Darwinists.
Christianity has nothing applicable, appropriate, or worthwhile to offer the 21st century.
I can't think of a real crime that is done out of "love"...
Quote:
and it shouldn't matter what the hat-ee was, or did, to make the perp hate him/her, it doesn't justify having a crime committed against him/her. The existing laws should be sufficient
Amen!
We should all be seen as a "special class of protected people" by virtue. It weakens the law to make it appear some crime is worse when perpetrated against some people, but not quite as bad when perpetrated against others.
Slogan/motto:
Of course you realize this means war! ~ Bugs Bunny
Reputation:
September 30th, 2008, 09:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineveh
I don't think people should be allowed to commit criminal acts in the name of free speech, like at folsom. But we agree on "hate crimes".
Nor do I ... and what this means is that with freedom comes responsibility. IF you break the law, you pay the price.
Quote:
Wow! You are on a roll! I appreciate your comments on the child rapist thread, too
We agree here. Committing a crime is a crime. It's not a worse crime because the victim doesn't look/think/act exactly like the perp.
Exactly ... the only consideration that should be given to the victims of a crime is JUSTICE. It is unjust to charge someone with an extra crime based on who the victim is.
If there are special circumstances and the crime was especially henious, then that can be taken into consideration by the judge during sentencing.
Linear Mode
