Hate Crime Laws are Stupid

In the time of slavery perhaps the founding fathers didn't feel it was necessary to protect slaves as they were not regarded by many as 'equally human'. The founding fathers were probably not very aware of the irony in their words, either.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again that evades, and does not answer the question.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not specifically, but I'm sure that they knew about "racists" and "bigots" even in that time in history. So the answer would have to be "Yes".

Phlog, do you think bigotry and racism didn't exist in the time of the writing of the US Constitution? The ideal of freedom of expression most certainly included those freedoms for bigots and racists.

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well then I have grossly misunderstood the question. Please clue me.

 

I don't want supposition based upon owning slaves, esp as the received wisdom on the matter is that in fact (contrary to Max's assertion that they 'all' had slaves) the majority were for the abolition of slavery, and worked actively to end it!

So, now we've cleared that up, how about you take a stab at the question again.

 

Max, I think you need to read some of your own history.

 

So that history would tell me that the founding fathers of the USA wrote the Constitution specifically restricting the free speech of bigots and racists???? Where does it say that? And if it does, why then is there a need for the "hate crimes" laws that we're supposed to be discussing here on this thread?

Personally, I think some of the founding fathers were, themselves, racists and bigots! But don't tell them I said so, okay?

Baron Max

 

They were far from perfect and made some bad decisions. That much is true.

Calling a crime a 'hate crime' is stupid. I can see calling crimes 'bias crimes' though, but most of these crimes that would be called 'hate crimes' are hate crimes regardless of the motivation. If someone is assaulted it is not because the person assaulting them likes them.

 

Why? Aren't we all supposed to be equal under the law?

What I think "we" should do is have a designation something like "Ah, Jesus, Fuck, that's a really bad fuckin' crime!" See? I mean, some crimes are simply worse than others ...everyone understands that. So, call it that ..."Bad Fuckin' Crime". Then use that in court to try to sway the jury to convict the vicious bastard and have him exe-fuckin'-cuted!

But wait, ......isn't it strange, odd, that most of the people arguing for the "hate crime" laws are probably the same people who'd argue not the execuate that same vicious criminal for that horrendous crime?

Baron Max

 

Well they didn't 'all' have slaves. Though John Adams, Sam Adams, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Paine didn't own slaves Madison, Jefferson and Franklin were among the 12 who owned and operated plantations or farms where they used slaves. The constitution does not make an allowance for bigots but it certainly made no such allowance to protect anyone from racism. So when you ask if the constitution is framed to protect racists the answer is initially yes though that would later change.

 

Where does it say that Max?

Where do you get that idea from Max?

 

If a serial killer is going after prositutes do we call that a hate crime or even a bias crime? not that i ever heard. I mean, if it isnt a hate crime then i dont know what it is. The point is there isnt any real need to add the word 'hate' into it even though specific people were targeted.

That said there should be additional penalties added if there is a bias component to the crime. For example, crimes commited just because a person is a certain sexuial orientation is another level of deviant behavior from someone simply getting angry in a bar and hitting another person. By the same token these laws need to apply to ALL circumstances. Seems like that is the point you were amking previously.

That is the bad part about this. Same for people wanting to legalize drugs AND take away peoples guns. To me it would make more sense to legalize drugs AND arm the citizens so at least they could defend themselves.

I should add: that should be 'hard' drugs.

 

Well, to be perfectly clear, there's no laws against "racism" or "racists" ...those being thoughts and feelings, and we haven't yet stooped to the level of outlawing different thoughts!

Amendments have been added, I think, which outlaw racist ACTIONS. But I think we're still, so far at least, permitted to hate anyone that we want to hate ...although apparently Phlog would like to have a law against people hating other people, too!?

Baron Max

 

No, that was not what I meant earlier. I mean just plainly more vicious, meaner, nastier, more hateful, ......like instead of just beating someone and "winning", they continue to beat the person into a bloody, broken pulp. Just plain viciousness for no reason. And it doesn't matter where gay or prostitute or racist or non-racist or fat or ugly or........, anything else. Just being vicious for the sake of being vicious.

Yep, people are odd, ain't they? And they think so strangely about some things ....strange. They want so badly to designate some crimes as "hate crimes" because they're so bad, yet they don't want people to have guns so as to protect themselves from just such attacks! ...LOL!

Baron Max

 

So here's the question:

Is terrorism a hate crime?

 

Blowing stuff up and killing people is already a crime, so 'hate' aspects of terrorism are surely recruiting and inciting people to commit such acts, rather than the acts themselves.

 

If killing people is already a crime, why do people like Baron insist on treating it as a separate and distinct problem?

 

Depends on the motive

Sometimes, sure. But not always.

 

More to the point, all hate crimes are acts of terrorism.

 

A possible solution, then?

Well stated, sir.

Indeed, you might have reached a compromise solution.

Let's strike hate crime legislation, and simply charge what we would otherwise call hate crimes as terrorism.