Is there anything from your own political party or side that you disagree with?

[dancj]

I hear this a lot and I think a lot of people, in turn, seriously misunderstand hate crimes legislation and how they're used.

Sure, they're already illegal. However, there's a difference in intent and malice between vandalizing a building and vandalizing a synagogue with a swastika.

One is just a nuisance. The other is designed to intimidate and harm and frighten an entire community. That's why we have hate crimes legislation, because the malice behind both crimes are significantly different. It's not 'thought crime' because you have to display the actual hateful intent. When someone has taken their bigotry into /actual action/ against a minority community, the response must be to protect that community.

Get into a fight with a black guy? Sure, that's assault.

get into a fight with a black guy you targeted because he's black to send a message of 'not welcome' to the larger African American community while screaming racist invective? You're not just targeting *one person*, your actual target is the entire community.

the scope is different and it requires a more serious judicial response.

I'd like to see people be less concerned about the rights of the 'thoughts' of racists and bigots to paint swastikas on synagogues and more concerned about the effects of their actual action on broader, marginalized communities.

Your examples are good. Clearly the racist versions of those crimes in your example are worse than the non-racist version. Certainly, if hate crimes legislation didn't exist, then I'd hope any judge would take that into account when sentencing. I guess part of it comes down to whether it's better to build this into law or just count it as part of the various things judges consider every time they sentence someone.

I'm not necessarily anti hate-crimes legislation - I'm just not 100% comfortable with it either. I certainly don't have a better solution.

[dancj]

While I think those words are detestable and those opinions repugnant and stupid, they generally are not illegal. As someone else said, it has to go to the point of actions or at least the intent to imply a threat or intimidate.

That in itself is a crime - because (I believe) threatening to commit a crime or inciting a crime is illegal in itself.

Here in the UK though, it is a crime to incite religious or racial hatred. That gets into weird territory. It's legal (though clearly wrong) to hate someone because of their religion or race, but it's illegal to encourage someone else to do the same. It's clearly a well-intentioned law, and maybe it is necessary, but it doesn't sit quite right with me.

[Tendrin]

Your examples are good. Clearly the racist versions of those crimes in your example are worse than the non-racist version. Certainly, if hate crimes legislation didn't exist, then I'd hope any judge would take that into account when sentencing. I guess part of it comes down to whether it's better to build this into law or just count it as part of the various things judges consider every time they sentence someone.

I'm not necessarily anti hate-crimes legislation - I'm just not 100% comfortable with it either. I certainly don't have a better solution.

Thing is, judges are people and subject to the same prejudices as the population at large. Hate crimes legislation forces the judges hand in sentencing when it comes to taking those kinds of crimes more seriously.

Hate crimes legislation is used very effectively in many countries and places to good effect. A free society must remain intolerant of intolerance.

It is telling that many (not suggesting you here but rather more frequent commenters I deal with who are opposed to hate crimes legsilation) people who talk about hate crimes legislation being 'bad', do so from a position where they never imagine themselves as the victim, rather, instead, it seems they can only ever put themselves in the shoes of the criminal party and the punishment they receive -- perhaps because they worry that one day, they'll shout the n word at the wrong person. So many people incapable of even imagining themselves to be the actual victim in this situation, or even adjacent to it.
White supremacy is an empathy killing drug.

[Tuck]

Thing is, judges are people and subject to the same prejudices as the population at large. Hate crimes legislation forces the judges hand in sentencing when it comes to taking those kinds of crimes more seriously.

This is conservative reasoning. It's the same impulse behind three strike laws, zero tolerance, and mandatory minimums.

[anyajenkins]

Gonna disagree a little. A dude 'vandalizing' his ex-girlfriend's apartment is absolutely an attempt to terrorize and intimate, and is not merely on inconvenience even though it's not considered a 'hate' crime.

[Powerboy]

That in itself is a crime - because (I believe) threatening to commit a crime or inciting a crime is illegal in itself.

Here in the UK though, it is a crime to incite religious or racial hatred. That gets into weird territory. It's legal (though clearly wrong) to hate someone because of their religion or race, but it's illegal to encourage someone else to do the same. It's clearly a well-intentioned law, and maybe it is necessary, but it doesn't sit quite right with me.

That's what I said, actually. That actions or the threat or implied threat of actions is where it becomes a crime.

It is weird territory. In the States with the emphasis on Freedom of Speech, it gets tricky. Someone saying they don't like this or that versus inciting people to some sort of violence or implying the threat of violence.

[dancj]

A free society must remain intolerant of intolerance.

I absolutely agree with this. I only question what the best method of fighting intolerance is.

It is telling that many (not suggesting you here but rather more frequent commenters I deal with who are opposed to hate crimes legsilation) people who talk about hate crimes legislation being 'bad', do so from a position where they never imagine themselves as the victim, rather, instead, it seems they can only ever put themselves in the shoes of the criminal party and the punishment they receive -- perhaps because they worry that one day, they'll shout the n word at the wrong person. So many people incapable of even imagining themselves to be the actual victim in this situation, or even adjacent to it.

I'm not anti-hate crimes legislation so much as uncomfortable with it. I do fit the rest though. I'm white, male, cis-gender, heterosexual. I'm not even ginger.

[dancj]

Gonna disagree a little. A dude 'vandalizing' his ex-girlfriend's apartment is absolutely an attempt to terrorize and intimate, and is not merely on inconvenience even though it's not considered a 'hate' crime.

Yeah, that's a good example. This is another situation where you'd hope the judge exercises their good judgement to impose a tougher sentence.

[Tendrin]

Gonna disagree a little. A dude 'vandalizing' his ex-girlfriend's apartment is absolutely an attempt to terrorize and intimate, and is not merely on inconvenience even though it's not considered a 'hate' crime.

Sure, I wasn't implying that other acts of vandalism can't be serious. Just that there's a difference between a guy spray painting a butt on a building and a guy spray painting a swastika on a synagogue.

[Ragged Maw]

I'm on the left and I mostly disagree with "they go low, we go high." I don't think it works in the age of FoxNews.

Then where does the avalanche of bullshit stop, Paul?

[Jackalope89]

Formerly GOP until I coudn't take it anymore. I was a foolish and ideological kid. I thought there were still people that were like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ike Eisenhower. Boy was I wrong. There's some not completely fringe, but more and more, that's the way its going. And even a good number of the policies I didn't agree with back then.

Like, gay marriage. Two, consenting adults, loving each other and such. Why not give them the same rights as hetero couples? They're not hurting anyone. Or, as the joke goes, give them the right to be miserable like everyone else!

I never understood the escalating hate for Mexicans and Muslims as whole groups. Individuals, sure. But that goes for all horrible people in every demographic. For a party that's supposed to be about individual values, they sure like to discriminate entire groups for the actions of a few.

Gun control. I'm kind of in the middle. I don't think a full on gun ban is possible, or even necessary. But responsible gun control and laws, with proper background checks, would be advantageous. And I see no reason for civilians to own guns like the AR-15 and others that are similar, or straight up assault rifles and military grade weapons. But I sure as hell wouldn't deny farmers, ranchers, and others of being able to defend themselves with something like a hand gun and what not.

Those, among other things, made it harder and harder to stay GOP. The final straw was the Orange Menace winning the primary. I switched to Independent immediately.

[4saken1]

Gonna disagree a little. A dude 'vandalizing' his ex-girlfriend's apartment is absolutely an attempt to terrorize and intimate, and is not merely on inconvenience even though it's not considered a 'hate' crime.

The difference in a hate crime is that it is an attack against a whole community, even though it is aimed at a specific individual or individuals. Spray painting a building is a misdemeanor and has a very small maximum sentence. Painting a swastika on a synagogue is a more serious crime and allows a judge to go above the paltry amount they would otherwise be allowed to punish the perpetrator.

[superduperman]

Abolishing ICE. I think it's a bridge too far that can't be sold to the public and is a bit of an overreaction to an obvious abuse of power. They recently sent a former Nazi back to Germany to be tried for his crimes. How do you go to people and tell them an agency that does that is bad? Yes, they need to be reined in but abolishing them is an impossible sell and is probably a bad idea in the long run. People see the kids in cages (yes, that's wrong but they don't make policy) and blame the enforcers. I have no doubt there are plenty of racists who joined just to kick out minorities but that's more of an institutional problem, not some sort of official requirement.

[Tendrin]

Abolishing ICE. I think it's a bridge too far that can't be sold to the public and is a bit of an overreaction to an obvious abuse of power. They recently sent a former Nazi back to Germany to be tried for his crimes. How do you go to people and tell them an agency that does that is bad? Yes, they need to be reined in but abolishing them is an impossible sell and is probably a bad idea in the long run. People see the kids in cages (yes, that's wrong but they don't make policy) and blame the enforcers. I have no doubt there are plenty of racists who joined just to kick out minorities but that's more of an institutional problem, not some sort of official requirement.

Okay, but they also have this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/u...r-stories.html

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/wh...d-sexual-abuse

ICE needs to torn out, root and branch, because it's been infiltrated top to bottom with white supremacists and people who want to prey on the most vulnerable.

But that's true of our entire law enforcement apparatus at this point.

[Gray Lensman]

There's also more stuff I will try to post links to when I get home and sleep a bit. I'm on break and have worked nearly a full week of 12 hour days currently.

The US citizen who was held for over a year.

The person ICE tried to deport before a hearing, resulting in the judge threatening to hold Jeff Sessions personally in contempt.

The person who they forged a document for claiming that he agreed to be deported. Except the date was before the document was in official use. This one happened under Obama so I think it is ICE more than Trump, although he is a problem too.

Inventing gangs to claim people belong to so they can be deported.

Grabbing lawful permanent residents for decades old misdemeanors.

ICE is full.of bad actors and looks to be beyond saving the more you hear about it.