Discussion
  • Read More
    The Noble RenardHamilton Nolan
    8/04/16 11:43am

    But this has always been the unavoidable endpoint of such laws.

    Absolutely not, and a statement like this distorts the true purpose and intention of hate crime laws.

    Hate crime laws are about protecting people that are historically disenfranchised and vulnerable as a community. It’s about enhancing punishment for a crime against a member of that community that is done in the name of bigotry and hatred because it recognizes that crimes of that type strike disproportionate fear in communities that have been the historical target of similar actions.

    A white man who shoots a black person while shouting the n word is perpetuating centuries of oppression and causes damage and fear outside of the simple act of murder. A white man who just shoots a black guy over a gambling debt, on the other hand, does not. Thus, hate crime laws punish the former more harshly than the latter.

    To suggest that the natural outgrowth of hate crime laws is to suggest that the real purpose of hate crime laws is currying favor for minority groups. On the contrary!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Hamilton NolanThe Noble Renard
      8/04/16 11:50am

      I understand the purpose of hate crimes laws. This is not a “natural outgrowth” in a moral sense, it’s (what I see as) an unsurprising *political* evolution in the sense that it was always only a matter of time before such a mechanism was seized upon by political opponents of the people originally covered by such laws.

      Obviously crimes motivate by hate are bad and should be punished. I am skeptical that increasing penalties for specific sorts of crimes has any real deterrent effect, and I think it is extremely dangerous to encourage prosecutors to divine what is inside of people’s minds in this way.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      HarrisBurgerMeisterThe Noble Renard
      8/04/16 11:50am

      No, what he is saying is absolutely correct. Mr. Nolan’s point was that once these laws were enacted, they were bound to be distorted to serve purposes other than originally intended. These laws may feel good, but like everything else they have unintended consequences. Your analysis is on sound legal footing but unmoored from political reality.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Low Information BoaterHamilton Nolan
    8/04/16 11:41am

    I think it should be illegal to kill any person.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Rich Uncle SkeletonLow Information Boater
      8/04/16 11:55am

      Whoa, slow down!

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      OpenIntroLow Information Boater
      8/04/16 11:55am

      criminals don’t follow laws.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    The Alvin Greene DreamHamilton Nolan
    8/04/16 11:40am

    Maybe you should learn what “hate crimes” are in a legal context, because you don’t appear to understand. A hate crime is an enhancement of an existing crime, not a separate crime. And if you believe that laws should be modeled after the needs of a society, to provide deterrents against epidemics both general (e.g. homicide) and specific (e.g. identity-motivated homicides occurring within a demographically diverse population), then the notion of hate crimes shouldn’t be offensive to you.

    They basically constitute the government saying “We recognize that identity bias as a criminal motive is a real thing and, in furtherance of stemming this phenomenon, we will enhance the punishment for an existing crime if it can be proven that identity bias was a motivating factor.” You know, in the same way that it matters, in law, whether a homicide was premeditated, carried out in the heat of the moment, a product of negligence, or simply an accident. Intent matters. Motive matters. And in a multicultural society, it’s hard to argue that we don’t have a vested interest in protecting social harmony by recognizing that bias crimes present a particularly noxious threat.

    It also bears mentioning that the bar for proving a hate crime is ridiculously high.

    Note: This isn’t a defense of “blue lives matter” laws. Why? Punishments of people who assault or kill cops are already elevated above and beyond the standard within our current justice system.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      benjaminalloverThe Alvin Greene Dream
      8/04/16 11:53am

      Jesus Christ; never mind, you changed and quadrupled your comment. Go ahead and dismiss.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      The Alvin Greene Dreambenjaminallover
      8/04/16 11:54am

      I think you may have replied to the wrong thing.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    CatdogWhispererHamilton Nolan
    8/04/16 11:42am

    When I was 17 I was charged with assault on a police officer. It was ALREADY a different and more severe crime than regular assault. This is as unnecessary as it was for them to take the keg of beer from us in the first place...

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      hntergrenCatdogWhisperer
      8/04/16 11:55am

      It sure as hell is in New York, the attendent circumstance that the victim of an assault (on a peace officer) or murder is a police officer is an aggravating factor in New York.

      http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/p…

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      CatdogWhispererhntergren
      8/04/16 11:59am

      This was in WV and it was an entirely different crime. Like there is regular assault and then assault on a police officer. Different crime, different penalties (I’m assuming. I was 17 and admittedly haven’t really researched this).

      Also noteworthy: my parents also punished me more harshly than they would’ve had I assaulted a civilian. I guess even mom believes in this shit!

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    It's Like That AndHamilton Nolan
    8/04/16 11:37am

    This should be totally struck down as unconstitutional because Police are not a protected class.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      MajorBurnIt's Like That And
      8/04/16 11:39am

      If anything, they have more rights, privileges and protections than the rest of us.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      jhguthIt's Like That And
      8/04/16 11:41am

      There are other hate crime laws that apply to groups that are not protected classes. The LGBT community is not a protected class (race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, citizenship, family status, disability, veteran) but there are hate crime laws in many states that apply to LGBT.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    CharitybHamilton Nolan
    8/04/16 11:48am

    This is a common misconception, but federal hate crimes laws don’t protect specific subgroups of people the way this law does. Rather, what they do is increase penalties for crimes targeting specific classifications — a subtle but key difference.

    Take the Matthew Shepard act for example; it doesn’t target gay people by name or even mention homosexuality or bisexuality. What it does is create a federal cause of action when someone is targeted on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, or other things. It doesn’t just protect gay people from being targeted for being gay, it also targets straight people for being targeted for being straight, etc. the same holds true for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 — it doesn’t just protect black people or religious minorities (and others), it protects ANYONE of any race or other classification for being targeted for that reason. The protection isn't for just one or two subgroups, it applies to anyone of any race or gender or orientation or nationality or religion.

    This law is a little different because it protects law enforcement and no one else. To make it analogous to existing hate crime laws, you would have to reword it as applying to any attack targeting someone on the basis of their employment status.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      AlmightyPoopcatCharityb
      8/04/16 1:33pm

      >What [The Shepard Byrd Act] does is create a federal cause of action when someone is targeted on the basis of gender, sexual orientation...

      In theory.

      In fact, the DOJ has barely bothered to use Shepard Byrd to prosecute hate crimes against LGBT victims. The department won’t respond to my inquiries, but it’s my understanding the DOJ has only prosecuted three LGBT hate crimes since Shepard Byrd was enacted in 2009. Three prosecutions — and one was botched right out of the gate. DOJ uses Shepard Byrd a lot for race-based hate crimes, though.

      Why this is the case, we can only speculate. It’s certainly not because there is some shortage of anti-LGBT hate crimes to prosecute.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      CharitybAlmightyPoopcat
      8/04/16 2:43pm

      That’s a valid criticism. I wasn’t trying to make an argument that the DOJ has been effective in this area (I don’t really know); only to point out that the law isn’t written “just” to protect LGBT people but to protect everyone from being targeted based on their orientation among other factors. This article like many others implies that hate crime laws are just for minorities or subgroups even though the laws are designed to protect everyone.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    TheBurnersMyDestinationHamilton Nolan
    8/04/16 11:36am

    Assaulting or murdering a civilian or a police officer is, in fact, already illegal. Look it up.

    In many states (like my own home state) the murder of a police officer is not only illegal, but a capital crime that qualifies you for the death penalty.

    That this garbage bill is one of the few legislative actions that have come from the past couple of years of heightened awareness of police brutality is frankly disgusting.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ElephantShoeTheBurnersMyDestination
      8/04/16 11:41am

      Well said. The legal ramifications for assaulting a cop have always been as harsh as possible—not so for those who commit a hate crime. This is petty childishness in a very serious arena.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      FreeRonTheBurnersMyDestination
      8/04/16 11:42am

      Yep, especially to your last point - these assholes are not only refusing to address the actual, verifiable problem of police brutality thru legislative means, they are doing their damnedest to ensure things get worse. I don’t know how Alton Sterling’s son is supposed to look at this legislation and feel any semblance of justice or hope for the future. A cop blows his father away at point blank range with multiple rounds and he wakes up to this news..

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Joann PrinzivalliHamilton Nolan
    8/04/16 12:55pm

    New York *already* has laws like this in place.

    See Penal Law 120.05 for a misdemeanor version , and 120.08 for felony version. and 125,27 for Murder in the first degree. Murder an ordinary civilian, and the worst you get in New York is murder in the second degree - but murder a police officer, or other specified professional service provider (fire, transit, medical - as defioned in the statute) - and it’s first degree.

    Of all the places to attempt to enact a Blue Lives Matter law, that idiot assemblyman from Staten Island doesn’t know that this is already covered under existing law. Putz.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Silencio!Joann Prinzivalli
      8/04/16 2:43pm

      So you read the first three categories of victims that can lead to a charge of first degree murder and forgot to read the other ten? You can very easily be convicted of first degree murder in New York without killing a cop.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Joann PrinzivalliSilencio!
      8/04/16 2:59pm

      Yes, as you pointed out, it isn’t only police, and there are more categories than I mentioned. Perhaps I should have qualified it with “murder an ordinary citizen under ordinary circumstances.” There was a point in time 30 some-odd years ago, when NYPL 125.27 was applicable solely to the murder of a police officer - but the legislature has expanded this over the years by accretion.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    JustActSurprisedHamilton Nolan
    8/04/16 11:41am

    Hey Folks! Just remember - you sit out your state and local elections, and you get wonderful laws like this on the books from your current members of your state legislature! So all those red state houses and senates, that you don’t bother to vote for because what’s the point or “no one’s really that different?” Well gee, it looks like they might be finding new ways to make things worse. But shhh, it’s time to sleep, the presidential election is almost over.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Misteaks were madeHamilton Nolan
      8/04/16 11:39am

      Instead of passing laws that encourage our legal system to venture into Thought Crimes charges—while having little deterrent effect on crimes—we should fairly and intelligently enforce the laws we already have.

      That’s weird. That same line is used by fellow gun owners only to be shouted down by those that believe the thousands of gun laws we have on the books aren’t enough.

      Do as I say, not as I do I guess.

      Reply
      <