[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Bryan

It is still wrong and they still committed the crime and should still be punished, but the person who kills because they are gay or black should have stiffer penalties.

a) I hate homosexuals. I kill person X because they are a homosexual.

b) I'm a gun for hire. I kill person X for $25,000.

Why is one murder more heinous than the other?

[Than]

Because you could have made $25,000, but instead made $0. This is capitalism, idiot, not a charity!

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by bravesfan007

I think what we're all getting at is despite motive being used for sentencing, the result of a murder is the same in the sense that someone is dead regardless of how or why they ended up in that state.

so what's your point?

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Why is one murder more heinous than the other?

Both are heinous, obviously, and depending on jurisdiction, being apart of a murder for hire scheme will carry more penalities than simply offing a stranger in the parking lot of the local Kroger.

Adding hate crimes to statutory law, I think, makes it clear what society is able to tolerate and what it isn't. There's certain motivations that are unacceptable and certain positions that are simply so taboo (and largely for good reason) that we maintain statutes against it. Its a strike against relativism, I think. Its a dangerous thing to do at the same time, but there's an almost organic understanding of what the community is willing to tolerate.

[ICTHUS]

Originally Posted by redbaron

The thing that bothers me about hate crime legislation, is that you generally don't assault or murder someone because you really like them as a person.

Does it really matter that you kill someone because they look at you and the voices in your head tell you they need to die, versus seeing them at a pride rally and deciding that they need to pay for their wickedness?

Realistically, they're just as dead, and you're just as wrong. Why should we make the latter a worse crime? Is that life worth more? Aren't all crimes like that bad enough?

Hate crimes legislation is also aimed at stopping people like Fred Phelps from picketing funerals of dead homosexuals, and the like.

Just so everyone knows: Canada has similar hate crime legislation to what is being proposed here, and no churches have been persecuted for calling homosexuality a sin.

The House of Representatives has my applause.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

Just so everyone knows: Canada has similar hate crime legislation to what is being proposed here, and no churches have been persecuted for calling homosexuality a sin.

That's because the US version of hate crimes law simply 'bump up' the penalty. You ahve to actually commit a crime first, then the hate crime penalty is added to it.

[tlj009]

Just so everyone knows: Canada has similar hate crime legislation to what is being proposed here, and no churches have been persecuted for calling homosexuality a sin.

The House of Representatives has my applause.

You are right. But here is what has been prosecuted.

Canadian Court Rules Bible Verses

"[20] At pp. 11 and 12 the Board states:

Having reviewed all of the evidence, the Board accepts that the universal symbol for forbidden, not allowed or not wanted, consisting of a circle with a slash through it, may itself not communicate hatred. However, when combined with the passages from the Bible, the Board finds that the advertisement would expose or tend to expose homosexuals to hatred or ridicule, or may otherwise affront their dignity on the basis of their sexual orientation. It is a combination of both the symbol and the biblical references which have lead to this conclusion.

[21] In my view the Board was correct in concluding that the advertisement can objectively be seen as exposing homosexuals to hatred or ridicule. When the use of the circle and slash is combined with the passages of the Bible, it exposes homosexuals to detestation, vilification and disgrace. In other words, the Biblical passage which suggest that if a man lies with a man they must be put to death exposes homosexuals to hatred."

The judge declared plainly that a Biblical passage "exposes homosexuals to hatred".

[tlj009]

That's because the US version of hate crimes law simply 'bump up' the penalty. You ahve to actually commit a crime first, then the hate crime penalty is added to it.

And it allows for double jeopardy. If the Feds don't like the verdict from a State court, they can re-try the person.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by tlj009

The judge declared plainly that a Biblical passage "exposes homosexuals to hatred".

You can use bible verses in such a way. I've witnessed Christians taking otherwise good and holy things and using them wickedly. For instance has anyone ever told you that they'd pray for you in a backhanded sort of way? But don't take this as a commentary on that ruling. I have no idea if he's declaring those verses hateful per se or hateful in this specific context. Besides, "hate speech" is mostly protected in the United States as the general attitude here is that it's worth tolerating what harm may be caused by such speech to preserve liberty.

[tlj009]

You can use bible verses in such a way. I've witnessed Christians taking otherwise good and holy things and using them wickedly. For instance has anyone ever told you that they'd pray for you in a backhanded sort of way? But don't take this as a commentary on that ruling. I have no idea if he's declaring those verses hateful per se or hateful in this specific context. Besides, "hate speech" is mostly protected in the United States as the general attitude here is that it's worth tolerating what harm may be caused by such speech to preserve liberty.

I have already said that I thought that the law took steps to protect freedom of speech. I was really just addressing the assertion that the Canadian law hasn't been misused. I think that it is important to not take the risks too lightly.

And part of the quote that I posted describes the offensive material. Four Bible verses were listed alongside a picture of male stick figures holding hands with a circle and slash through them. Even then, part of the ruling stated that the picture was not offensive in itself but because the four verses were listed beside it, it became hate speech. The truth is that no matter how you want to think about it, the Bible does portray homosexuals in a negative light. And although the judge stopped short of saying that outright, that was the impression from the ruling.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by tlj009

And part of the quote that I posted describes the offensive material. Four Bible verses were listed alongside a picture of male stick figures holding hands with a circle and slash through them. Even then, part of the ruling stated that the picture was not offensive in itself but because the four verses were listed beside it, it became hate speech.

I read that. As I said it isn't clear that he's ruling the verses hateful per se. But that's beside the point which was that you can use bible verses in a hateful manner. But it would be a shame if the state somehow could encroach on religious freedoms just because of that fact.

[Than]

Originally Posted by tlj009

And it allows for double jeopardy. If the Feds don't like the verdict from a State court, they can re-try the person.

That's not double jeopardy as it's two different courts. Remember how O.J was found not guilty in his criminal suit but lost a civil one?

[tlj009]

That's not double jeopardy as it's two different courts. Remember how O.J was found not guilty in his criminal suit but lost a civil one?

I know. I just feel that it is a good description because the two cases here are exceptions to double jeopardy rather than not having anything to do with double jeopardy at all. There are different requirements in criminal and civil trials, which is why a person can be tried in both. This case where you can be tried in both a State and Federal court is a sovereignty exception to double jeopardy. There is no doubt that it is double jeopardy, there is just an exception in this particular case. Anyway, I find double jeopardy to be an adequate description.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by tlj009

And it allows for double jeopardy. If the Feds don't like the verdict from a State court, they can re-try the person.

No, that's not what's going on, and I don't know where you're getting your information (though I can guess). A provision of the Civil Rights Act (iirc) allows the federal government to prosecute if the Justice Dept believes that the state is not enforcing the provisions of the equal protection clause. It's not about double jeopardy, because the Feds would be prosecuting under Federal law, which would be a separate crime from the state offense.

[tlj009]

No, that's not what's going on, and I don't know where you're getting your information (though I can guess).

I am getting it from the part of the bill that I quoted in post #7. Did you guess right?

A provision of the Civil Rights Act (iirc) allows the federal government to prosecute if the Justice Dept believes that the state is not enforcing the provisions of the equal protection clause.

And in the words of the actually bill in question:

"(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or

‘(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice."

It's not about double jeopardy, because the Feds would be prosecuting under Federal law, which would be a separate crime from the state offense.

I used double jeopardy as in a descriptive way. Look at this situation: the State has a law against murder and a guy is tried and found not guilty. The Fed has a law against murder and the guy is tried for the same crime, using the same evidence and convicted. Am I wrong in describing this a double jeopardy? It sure resembles double jeopardy very closely even though that technically, from a legal perspective, it is not double jeopardy.

Another way of looking at it is that our idea of double jeopardy comes from the 5th amendment, which states "......nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; .........". A simple reading says that is exactly what is happening when tried for the same crime in the State and Federal courts even if there is an exception that deals with sovereignty.

The point is that I don't think that it is right to be tried twice for a crime because of this particular loophole. For the Feds to say that they don't like the State courts ruling, so they are going to try this person again for the exact same thing is an abuse of power and an affront to State sovereignty.