TexasCHLforum.com

Thank you, and deletion noted.

psijac wrote:I don't think you can legislate basic human emotion. Hate, Love, Fear. The government can't make you embrace or abandon your heart or lack there of.

"Hate" is not a crime, psijac. A hateful heart may in some cases be a moral deficiency, but nobody to my knowledge calls it a crime.

But when one's heart hates a particular category of people, and that hateful heart prompts him or her to commit violence against that hated person or his or her property - that is the crime.

b322da wrote:

psijac wrote:
But when one's heart _____ a particular category of people, and that ______ful heart prompts him or her to commit violence against that _______ed person or his or her property - that is the crime.

jim

Law are suppose to make us safer, by deterrence but hate crime laws do not do that. If the people committing these crimes were not deterred by existing laws against rape, murder and assault why would they be worried about the added penalies? Why not just roll those punishments into the existing laws against such crime and be done with it.


Replace the blank with any other human emotion

Love
Fear
Greed
Lust
envy

If we could Make illegal every human emotion then there would be no crime

psijac wrote:

b322da wrote:

psijac wrote:
But when one's heart _____ a particular category of people, and that ______ful heart prompts him or her to commit violence against that _______ed person or his or her property - that is the crime.

jim

Law are suppose to make us safer, by deterrence but hate crime laws do not do that. If the people committing these crimes were not deterred by existing laws against rape, murder and assault why would they be worried about the added penalies? Why not just roll those punishments into the existing laws against such crime and be done with it.


Replace the blank with any other human emotion

Love
Fear
Greed
Lust
envy

If we could Make illegal every human emotion then there would be no crime

I was just going to offer that explanation. Well done.

b322da wrote:

psijac wrote:I don't think you can legislate basic human emotion. Hate, Love, Fear. The government can't make you embrace or abandon your heart or lack there of.

"Hate" is not a crime, psijac. A hateful heart may in some cases be a moral deficiency, but nobody to my knowledge calls it a crime.

But when one's heart hates a particular category of people, and that hateful heart prompts him or her to commit violence against that hated person or his or her property - that is the crime.

jim

Nah. When one steals, beats, rapes, lights on fire, destroys, etc THAT is the crime. When one plans how to do so, engineers and orchestrates others doing so, pays money for someone to do so, or blackmails or otherwise forces someone else to do so, THAT is also a crime. These are all issues that the government is able to prove to a legal standard and attain a conviction.

The government cannot prove hatred. Hatred is an emotion and it overlaps with anger, sociopathy, mental retardation, and numerous other neurological, emotional, behavioral, etc conditions that are inextricable from the interior life. If someone is motivated by hatred of blondes but doesn't say that, he is currently held to a lower legal standard than someone who does say it aloud. Also, there is a belief within American intellectual institutions that hate crimes, by definition, can only be perpetrated against minorities and we have a social consensus (AKA politically correct) hierarchy of what is currently acceptable to hate and what is not. What's the likelihood that a black man would be charged with a hate crime for an act of aggression against a known Ku Klux Klan member? Or that a father of a 13 year old girl would be charged with a hate crime for harassing his sex offender neighbor in an attempt to get the sex offender to move? Now what's the likelihood for the obverse being true? That a Klan member would be charged with a hate crime for an act of aggression against an African-American? That a neighbor would be charged with a hate crime for harassing his homosexual neighbors and trying to get them to move? While this isn't the legal criteria, we do see hate crimes applied socially and subjectively.

Another issue not previously mentioned is that hate crimes are a duplication of law, which I believe we have a law saying we ought not do. We already have laws for acts of aggression, destruction of property, arson, harassment, premeditation and planning of a crime, genocide, incitement, and so on. These are illegal acts. The only action that the hate crime laws legislate that wasn't already legislated was the area of emotion, which is not an issue within the domain of the government. Yes, it is wrong; it is a moral evil and as such is the domain of the Church and society, not the government. Enforce the laws already on the books equally and fairly and it covers all of the crimes perpetrated against people, no matter what social, emotional, mental, or moral disorders are at play within the perpetrating criminal. Instead, hate crimes create new laws that duplicate the legislation of old ones, create a greater bureaucracy, and limit the resources and assistance available to victims due to the increased top-heavy administration and duplication of efforts, which diminishes the redress available to those who are victims under the original law (e.g. arson) but not under the double-dipper law (arson as a hate crime).

So hate crimes 1) duplicate laws, 2) limit resources available to all victims due to increased administration, 3) create a separate class of criminals who have one type of moral disorder motivating their criminal actions over other disorders, 4) diminish the worth of victims who undergo the exact same crime without the knowledge of what led to the attack, 5) require subjective application which opens the legal system up to abuse by those in authority, 6) diminish the redress available to certain victims based on their religion, skin color, etc 7) legislate emotions, which is not the proper domain of the government, 8) and create greater societal prejudice and bias against the protected groups.

psijac wrote:

b322da wrote:

psijac wrote:
But when one's heart _____ a particular category of people, and that ______ful heart prompts him or her to commit violence against that _______ed person or his or her property - that is the crime.

Law are suppose to make us safer, by deterrence but hate crime laws do not do that. If the people committing these crimes were not deterred by existing laws against rape, murder and assault why would they be worried about the added penalies? Why not just roll those punishments into the existing laws against such crime and be done with it.

Replace the blank with any other human emotion

Love
Fear
Greed
Lust
envy

If we could Make illegal every human emotion then there would be no crime

With respect, I must suggest that many simply do not understand the essence of a hate crime.

A murder is no greater a crime when prompted by hate than is a casual random driveby shooting, with the victim being unknown to the killer, who does not know or consider the victim to be a member of a hated group. Those committing a hate crime are committing an offense against society, if not humanity, and if the state does not recognize the difference then this sickness can be realistically expected to grow and grow.

The Nazi government's approval of, if not the instigation of, Jewish repression by the general population beginning in the 30's, for example kristallnacht, led to the Holocaust, not the reverse, as implied by another's earlier post here.

b322da wrote: With respect, I must suggest that many simply do not understand the essence of a hate crime.

A murder is no greater a crime when prompted by hate than is a casual random driveby shooting, with the victim being unknown to the killer, who does not know or consider the victim to be a member of a hated group. Those committing a hate crime are committing an offense against society, if not humanity, and if the state does not recognize the difference then this sickness can be realistically expected to grow and grow.

The Nazi government's approval of, if not the instigation of, Jewish repression by the general population beginning in the 30's, for example kristallnacht, led to the Holocaust, not the reverse, as implied by another's earlier post here.

I might be reading you wrong but if you are suggesting that hate crime laws could have stopped the Holocaust and/or will stop the next Government back Group A from committing Genocide on Government scapegoat Group B I think you are mistaken. Laws cannot protect anyone if those in charge refuse to enforce them or enforce them selectively. Once this occurs the only thing that can protect you is the Second Amendment

psijac wrote: I might be reading you wrong but if you are suggesting that hate crime laws could have stopped the Holocaust and/or will stop the next Government back Group A from committing Genocide on Government scapegoat Group B I think you are mistaken.

I hope and pray you are wrong. I must say you clearly understand the issue, and I respect that, even if we disagree on the bottom line. As an edit I must say that I entirely agree with your comment (added?) which recognizes that such laws must be enforced, and not selectively, by the government. A simple but quite adequate statement of what I have been saying.

On this I guess I will withdraw from a disappointingly one-sided debate. Clearly we, including yours truly, I must admit, are generating more heat than light. I am often a minority, spelled with a capital "L," and I am accustomed to it.

In closing, however, I must note a bit of irony.

On the one hand an intelligent and well-spoken commentator says that a hate crime cannot be proved: "The government cannot prove hatred." Of course every time a verdict of guilty is handed down it has been proved to the satisfaction of the finder of fact, be that a jury of the defendant's peers or a judge. One need not agree with the finding, but as a matter of law it has been proved.

On the other hand, another oft-demonstrated intelligent and well-spoken commentator says a hate crime is too easy to prove: "...about all it would take to transform the attack against Jennifer into a hate crime would be to have evidence of a racial slur...." Absent the modifier "about" I would have to take issue with this rather broad statement as well, at the same time recognizing that, depending upon the circumstance and nature of the slur, he may be quite correct. A possible example? As the defendant pulls the trigger he rants, "Here's one lousy illegal alien greaser I will not have to support with my taxes any more!" That might do it.

Elmo, I don't see any reason for you to withdraw from the conversation because you are in a vocal minority, though I respect your wishes. And I definitely didn't see any uncharitable "heat" coming from your posts or the conversation. Please forgive me if I caused offense.

Hoi Polloi wrote:Elmo, I don't see any reason for you to withdraw from the conversation because you are in a vocal minority, though I respect your wishes. And I definitely didn't see any uncharitable "heat" coming from your posts or the conversation. Please forgive me if I caused offense.

None taken, Hoi Polloi, I assure you. I am not retreating even when terribly outnumbered. I just felt we had begun repeating ourselves and had met an impasse, adding no real meat to the discussion. I have been beaten about the head and shoulders before, but you will always find me there. I do not take my marbles home. I go down fighting, and I love an intelligent conversation displaying differences in opinion. This is the way I have paid for my children's shoes and socks for many years.

You have added so much to several threads of late, and it has been my pleasure to talk with you and the others who have a rational discussion as contrasted with what I often see.