Hate Crime Legislation

[cholland]

Now that President Obama has included sexual orientation within the definition of a hate crime, I wonder what the next revision will include. I don't see 'age' on the list yet.

Is it healthy that the courts have to act like a psychiatrist in order to determine the level of punishment?

At what point do we stop the list? Pres Obama: "Time and again we’ve been reminded of the difficulty of building a nation in which we’re all free to live and love as we see fit."
Is there any end to "love as we see fit?" Why should one be prosecuted for "loving" a 12 year old girl if she is consenting? Why should one be prosecuted for polygamy if all wives involved are consenting?

[realthinker]

Now that President Obama has included sexual orientation within the definition of a hate crime, I wonder what the next revision will include. I don't see 'age' on the list yet.

Is it healthy that the courts have to act like a psychiatrist in order to determine the level of punishment?

At what point do we stop the list? Pres Obama: "Time and again we’ve been reminded of the difficulty of building a nation in which we’re all free to live and love as we see fit."
Is there any end to "love as we see fit?" Why should one be prosecuted for "loving" a 12 year old girl if she is consenting? Why should one be prosecuted for polygamy if all wives involved are consenting?

First of all, establishing penalties for hate crimes against a population does not give that population any special treatment. Nothing about the legal standing of homosexuals has changed. They are not entitled to anything more nor permitted to do anything new.

Secondly, are you suggesting that hateful behavior should not be treated and punished as such based on the population toward which it is directed? You don't feel it's wrong to commit hate crimes against certain people? Gays and whom else? Atheists, I'd imagine. Illegal aliens. Non-English speakers probably. Who else would you leave off "the list"?

[McCulloch]

Now that President Obama has included sexual orientation within the definition of a hate crime, I wonder what the next revision will include.

Nice tactic! If you cannot reasonably object to his policy, object to what it might lead up to.

Is it healthy that the courts have to act like a psychiatrist in order to determine the level of punishment?

Don't they now?

At what point do we stop the list? Pres Obama: "Time and again we’ve been reminded of the difficulty of building a nation in which we’re all free to live and love as we see fit."
Is there any end to "love as we see fit?" Why should one be prosecuted for "loving" a 12 year old girl if she is consenting?

Children are deemed to be legally not able to consent. We have protected the rights of gays in Canada for some time now and I have not seen an increase in calls to legalize pedophilia. Linking the two is simply a smear campaign tactic.

Why should one be prosecuted for polygamy if all wives involved are consenting?

Well, at least polygamy is biblically supported, in that there is no prohibition of it and a number of examples. It always amazes me that Christians who rail against homosexuality use polygamy as an example of something worse that it might lead to.

[cholland]

First of all, establishing penalties for hate crimes against a population does not give that population any special treatment. Nothing about the legal standing of homosexuals has changed. They are not entitled to anything more nor permitted to do anything new.

Secondly, are you suggesting that hateful behavior should not be treated and punished as such based on the population toward which it is directed? You don't feel it's wrong to commit hate crimes against certain people? Gays and whom else? Atheists, I'd imagine. Illegal aliens. Non-English speakers probably. Who else would you leave off "the list"?

Yes, but the worth of homosexuals has increased compared to his/her peers. Murder a random person - 20 years in prison. Murder a homosexual person - life in prison.

Aren't all crimes hateful? How can you say murdering a random person is not hateful? Any crimes committed against homosexuals, atheists, aliens, and people who don't speak the superior language should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but so should crimes against anybody else.

[cnorman18]

I admit I have mixed feelings about hate crime legislation myself. It doesn't seem to me to be the proper role of the law to analyze and judge the motivation for a crime, but only the fact of the crime itself. I would think that bigotry or prejudice as the motivator for a crime would properly be an aggravating factor, not a separate crime in itself, which seems to be the case with these laws.

That said, I think anything which serves to discourage and punish mindless hatred and prejudice is probably a good thing. I understand the motivation, so to speak, for these laws, but I sometimes wonder about that other law - the one of unintended consequences.

Say a gay man is assaulted by another man, not because he is gay, but simply because he is a convenient victim for a mugger; what's to prevent an overzealous prosecutor from alleging "hate crime" in order to get an extended sentence? Do you think "I didn't even know he was gay" is a credible or even a possible defense? Doesn't it prejudice a jury to even have that allegation on the record?

I have, as I say, mixed feelings. That doesn't mean I'd endorse or condone hate crimes. I just wonder if this is, in effect, the first "thought crime," since it's based on what the criminal is thinking when he commits the act. I'm thinking it might be a dangerous precedent.

[cholland]

Nice tactic! If you cannot reasonably object to his policy, object to what it might lead up to.

Thanks. I was trying to think how I could dance around the subject.

Is it healthy that the courts have to act like a psychiatrist in order to determine the level of punishment?

Don't they now?

Children are deemed to be legally not able to consent. We have protected the rights of gays in Canada for some time now and I have not seen an increase in calls to legalize pedophilia. Linking the two is simply a smear campaign tactic.

Yah, now. But only 50 years ago homosexuality was deemed a psychological disorder. Societies change and laws change with them. There is literally no end to the sexual revolution.

Well, at least polygamy is biblically supported, in that there is no prohibition of it and a number of examples. It always amazes me that Christians who rail against homosexuality use polygamy as an example of something worse that it might lead to.

So are you suggesting we authorize it? Polygamy is prohibited in the Bible and the examples of it occurring prove to end in family dysfunction.

[McCulloch]

Children are deemed to be legally not able to consent. We have protected the rights of gays in Canada for some time now and I have not seen an increase in calls to legalize pedophilia. Linking the two is simply a smear campaign tactic.

Yah, now. But only 50 years ago homosexuality was deemed a psychological disorder. Societies change and laws change with them. There is literally no end to the sexual revolution.

Should there be? I mean apart from where someone's sexual practice violates someone else's human rights.

Well, at least polygamy is biblically supported, in that there is no prohibition of it and a number of examples. It always amazes me that Christians who rail against homosexuality use polygamy as an example of something worse that it might lead to.

So are you suggesting we authorize it?

No. It would be a legal nightmare. Divorce and custody issues are difficult and complex enough now. I don't think it would be good for society.

Polygamy is prohibited in the Bible and the examples of it occurring prove to end in family dysfunction.

I disagree. You can provide support for your assertion here. Polygamy in the Bible

[cholland]

Should there be? I mean apart from where someone's sexual practice violates someone else's human rights.

And exactly what rights are being violated for a consenting 12 year old, or a consenting polygamous wife?

So are you suggesting we authorize it?

No. It would be a legal nightmare. Divorce and custody issues are difficult and complex enough now. I don't think it would be good for society.

So should we prohibit divorce?

1. I would then press you to demonstrate why the quality of a person is an indicator of which punishment a wrongdoer against him should receive. Would you suggest we set up a hierarchy of people with different punishments required for different moral constitutions?

forum Is this a legitimate question in regards to hate crime legislation?

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Is it healthy that the courts have to act like a psychiatrist in order to determine the level of punishment?

Given that other groups are included in hate crimes laws I think it only fair that all groups be included. I don't personally advocate for thought crimes, but it's the whole goose and gander deal for me.

I do note those most adamantly opposed to this legislation were the very ones condemning homosexuality in such harsh terms. To top that off with the unprobable claims of God hating homosexuals, and I think it's high time such hateful people were put on notice.

Hate crime laws should protect all but the hateful.

At what point do we stop the list?...

I'm not much for slippery slope arguments, so I'd say we leave the list open until we see another group of otherwise harmless humans being hated on. Pedophilia is wrong because a child can't give informed consent.

Why should one be prosecuted for polygamy if all wives involved are consenting?

I don't think they should be prosecuted. I would caution here that some to many young women have been coerced into marriages, monogamous or otherwise.

[Coyotero]

Are you seriously comparing homosexuality to pedophilia?