I agree, walkabout!!! -- j
.

Great Reading of the situation, blackswan;;; Thank You!!! -- j
.

oh Yes, Carl ... but millions are confused by them!!! -- j
.

you are defending the sub-categorization of a
"hate crime?" . does the situation deserve this?
how about "heinous crime?" . if I were good at
wiring a stick of dynamite to a car's ignition so that
it would blow when the car was started, and did it
just for fun, to intimidate people into fear, it would
be heinous, bullying, but would it deserve a
separate category??? -- j
.

I adore your contrast, CBJ. . we are afflicted with
"love crimes" to a fault. . this belongs on the front
page of the new york times!!! -- j
.

I believe most libertarian writers get this answer wrong.

"Hate crime" laws are not really about prejudice or hatred, per se. They exist to punish terrorist crimes, by which I mean crimes which are intentionally so scary that they can intimidate a large class of people into doing what the criminals demand. (An example might be an IRA bombing of a store, or the KKK lynching a black person for visiting overnight in a "sundown town.") This bullying motivation not only makes the crime worse than it would be if treated only as a crime against the direct victim; it also provides additional motivation for the criminals, such that the usual punishments for bombing or murder (in my two examples) aren't likely to be enough to deter.

Of course, it would be better if the law could say this directly, and expressly punish the intent-to-bully rather than the mental state of hatred. But if written that way, the law wouldn't work in this country, because it's unconstitutional (I forget details) for a jury to infer that kind of intent without an actual admission by the accused, even when the facts make it obvious. I would allow this inference.

The liberal progressive connotation of Hate is a strong dislike at best, but if one looks at the original definitions of the word 'Hate' you'd find that it is much more than a dislike...it involves physical animosity. Liberal progressives do not look up word definitions, they disavow the authors authority and prefer to make it up on their own, some of it because they are stupid and some of it for nefarious means, to confuse us. I am no longer confused by them.

It takes two to tango. The democrats offer a pitiful amount to ignorant blacks (not the talented 5%), who take the money and vote for them. Republicans need to show blacks that they're being taken for a ride for a pittance. They also need to know enough history to know that things weren't as bad in the past, or as good now, as they're being led to believe.

Then it's ARSON.

The government isn't interested in enforcing the laws that are on the books, like assault, rape and murder. So, they invent a new class of crime - hate crime - that they will enforce, until they get what they want. Then they won't enforce them either. If I kill you while calling you names, or I kill you quietly, you're just as dead; at that point, I don't think you'll give a rip about how I feel about you. If the government won't enforce the law against me about a non-hate crime murder, how likely is it that they will enforce the law about a hate crime murder? Will it matter to you if you're the victim? The punch line is that the government isn't doing its job, and they're creating new, unnecessary categories of crime to obfuscate the situation. And we're going along with the gag.

:-)

no,no

"they" use the term 'Hate Crime" so they can confuse the issue(s) and add unnecessary levels of law to the books. I do not care if the person assaulting me 'hates' me or not. I do not care if he mistook me for someone else. I do not care if he is beating me because I owe him (either in reality -- the 20 bucks I borrowed from him 5 years ago -- or because he believes more of my ancestors emigrated to the New World from Europe than from somewhere else) or because in his mind the way I walk suggests I engage in behaviors he does not condone. I do care that he is assaulting me without due process. The entire concept of Hate Crimes is unnecessary. Any Aggravating or mitigating circumstance can be considered at the time of sentencing.

"Crimethink" in Newspeak - thoughts that are unorthodox or outside the official government platform.

"Hate crime" is a totalitarian expression, aimed at controlling people's mind. Whoever uses that expression should be charged with it.

does crime plus "hate thought" equal hate crime? -- j
.

Correct. In Marxism/Socialism it is an article of faith that there are no individuals or private property - only classes and society.

Would discern! discern! help?

The purpose of the concept 'Hate Crime' is to criminalize any form of judgment. Since it is natural to hate anything or anyone that is contrary to your values, you will naturally hate politicians who are striving to shove Environmentalism and Multiculturalism down your throat via Progressive Education. As Peter Schwartz has pointed out, popular usage of a concept can change over time. 'Hate Crime' is already used to defend Islam and modern Feminism. How long before it is used to defend the Planet or the Food and Drug Administration?

Good quote!

Hate is an emotion and may be a motive. A crime is a crime.

Hate Crime is right out of Orwell's 1984.

"Hate Crime" is mostly used as a defense to embolden criminals today. Today a hate crime is seldom the primary crime, or the only crime, it is usually connected to another crime. We just don’t have a hate crime by itself anymore. A hate crime used to be when someone burned a cross in your front yard or on your lawn for no other apparent reason except hate.

Today “hate crime” is mostly used by non-white persons as a defense against being arrested for committing some other non-hate crime such as a simple robbery or simple assault against some other person. Predominately used as a defense usually only when white enforcement is used against a non-white criminal. Some black cops are exempt from hate crime charges but that too seems to be changing more recently. As an example, you will never see a defense of hate crime used by a white criminal for robbery or assault. White criminals will simply be charged with robbery or assault.

Who is responsible for all this nonsense? Is it the criminals, the lawyers, or the cops? It used to be when some committed a crime such as robbery or assault, they were subdued, arrested, and tried for robbery or assault. It didn’t matter if the handcuffs made bruise marks on their wrists, or they got a busted nose in the arrest process. Society today will get exactly what it asks for and what it enforces by its actions.

We are surrounded by 'justifiable crimes' because many of the things we customarily do have been made illegal. We live in a society where any of us can be arrested at any moment, because - for certain - SOMETHING we own or do is illegal.

Jan

Democrats know that they cannot win without the Black votes. Blacks vote about 95% for the Democrat whoever he or she is. If even 10 % of Blacks switched to vote Republican, many close races would change the winner from Democrat to Republican. The Democrats support income entitlements and racial preferences. By constantly playing the race card, the Democrats get Blacks to believe that they are discriminated against by the White Republican establishment. Democrats keep fueling the Black distrust and hatred of Whites to ensure that they will stay on the plantation. Republicans can only offer liberty and freedom from government domination and that would be much more beneficial to Blacks in the long run than anything the Democrats advise.

“Hate crime,” a crime committed against a person because of his or her ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual preference or membership in a “disadvantaged” group. Not to be confused with “love crime,” a crime committed to achieve a more “equal” distribution of wealth, uphold traditional beliefs, punish “greed”, combat global warming, or promote other government-approved causes.