Reader comments
Kill hate-crimes bill

"The law must deal only with action – not what motivated the person to commit an act."

Is the writer suggesting that there should be no difference in how we treat premeditated murder and manslaughter? After all, the difference has to do with whether the person "intended" to kill someone. And that means determining the person's motivations.

Hate crime legislation does only deal with action, just as all crime legislation does.

No one is subject to any prosecution simply for thinking.

My apologies in advance for the violent example I use to make my point below.

Two scenarios:

1. A man is driving down the street. Two LDS missionaries are crossing. The driver doesn't see them, and hits them.

2. A man is driving down the street. Two LDS missionaries are crossing. The driver sees them, and begins shouting anti-Mormon obscenities, and hits them.

Should the driver's intentions be taken into consideration at his trial?

As a liberal I am against the nasty conservative philosophy of a "God-given right to hate people."

Linguist,

The crime determines the punishment. Under the law, all people are equal. Under the law, justice is blind. If a crime has been committed, the punishment affixed to that crime is not altered because that person had green hair or brown hair. That punishment is not altered because of the color of skin, or the gender, or political party, or any other factor. Justice is blind. It does not care about "special factors". It only cares whether a crime has been committed, and if so, that all parties are dealt with justly.

To argue that any person or group of people should be given 'special justice' because of their color, their political party, their personal preferences, or any other politically correct agenda item, is to deny justice to everyone outside that group. In other words, justice is no longer blind and justice is not equal under the law.

My life, under the law, is no more special than your life, under the law. I deserve the same protection as you and you deserve the same protection as I, not more and not less.

How about this a gang of black youths attack a white family beating the father while shouting "this is a black world". Hate crime? No way because the victim is white and the perpetrators are black. Switch the colors and hate crime? ABSOLUTELY!!! Hate crime legislation is racist, sexist, anti-conservative, anti-religion (except Islam) and heterophobic. We are the new Jews in Obama's fourth Reich. Only in the minds of the enlightened moonbat left could this be justice.

@Linguist | 6:14 a.m. July 10, 2009

The point should be that the anti-Mormon obscenities reveal that the murderers were targeting a sub-group of the population. That's not just murder, it's terrorism. When a crime becomes a crime plus terrorism, that is a hate crime in my mind.

I assume the letter writer is upset about homosexuals' mention in the legislation. He doesn't say if he's upset about religious practitioners already covered under federal hate crime legislation.

Because right now a gay person can beat up a Mormon because he's a Mormon, and it's a hate crime. A Mormon can beat up a gay because he's gay, and it's not.

Either scenario works for me.
Joe

Let's be honest the only reason this person objects is because it would recognize/includes gays & lesbians.

The current bill they are referring to expands coverage to include gays & lesbians and those with disabilities. The existing hate crimes bill protects many groups including the owner of this news paper. No one ever calls for the repeal of our current hate crimes law. They themselves just want to be protected and as long as they don't have to treat gays & lesbians equally.

By the way, hundreds of local, state and federal governments laws and statutes provide increased penalties for various groups. In Utah, vandalizing a mink farm by an animal rights activist will land you in jail for an increased period of time.

Police, school teachers, legislators and basketball coaches have greater protections than "Joe Public", so don't use that lame argument, there are too many examples proving it wrong.

re:nasty conservative philosophy | 7:04 a.m. July 10, 2009
"As a liberal I am against the nasty conservative philosophy of a "God-given right to hate people."

The irony of that statement is too blatant not to comment on. Left-wing hatred in the name of tolerance is legenday. While anti-discrimination laws are legitimate, it is also legitimate to be conerned about thought police. My experience has been that the left is far more intolerant of divergent opinions than the right - they merely dont realize it and are therfore more dangerous.

I can see where reasonable people can argue that hate crimes laws are unnecessary or duplicative. What I don't get is the extreme opposition to them.

So Hitler was merely a murderer. The fact that he targeted specific ethnic groups shouldn't affect the way his crimes are viewed.

The pro-hate-crime-bill advocates seem to be saying that a crime is only a crime if it involves someone in their favorite group. Murder is not murder unless one of their group is murdered. Throwing a rock at someone is not a crime unless that rock is aimed at one of their friends.

What is the definition of "crime"? If a law is properly written, does the definition of the "crime" not fit all who are involved regardless of their gender or their gender preference?

Why is throwing a rock more of a crime if it is thrown at a man than it would be if it were thrown at a woman? Why is it more of a crime if it were thrown at a man than if it were thrown at a child?

That is exactly what those who support hate-crime legislation want. They what the law to deal more severely if a rock is thrown at "their" man than if that rock is thrown at "some" or "some" child.

That is utter nonsense. The crime is the fact that a rock was thrown, not the target of that rock.

"The pro-hate-crime-bill advocates seem to be saying that a crime is only a crime if it involves someone in their favorite group. Murder is not murder unless one of their group is murdered. Throwing a rock at someone is not a crime unless that rock is aimed at one of their friends."

Yeah Richard... that's exactly what we're sayin' *rolls eyes*

My experience is the right-wing spreads hatred, division and intolerance every time it opens its ugly mouth. Ever listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter?
Hatred and polarization all day long and the stupid neocons eat it up.

@michaelh - you are wrong - whites being attacked by blacks has exactly the same potential of being a hate crime as blacks being attacked by whites.

@Mike Richards - I realize you are just trying to be inflammatory, but you have proven yourself smarter than your statement that "a crime is only a crime if it involves someone in their favorite group." We all know hate crimes legislation does not say there are no crimes other than hate crimes.

We already assign levels to crimes based on extenuating and aggravating factors. Hate crimes legislation does not reinvent the wheel - it merely seeks to add another level so justice can be more fully applied.

Are you all REALLY incapable of seeing the difference between a crime that targets a single individual and a crime that targets multiple individuals? Do you really see no difference between terrorizing one person and terrorizing 50 people?

Skip the rhetoric and tell me what you really object to...

My experience is the left-wing spreads hatred, division and intolerance every time it opens its ugly mouth. Ever listen to Maher, Coombs or Malloy?
Hatred and polarization all day long and the stupid libs eat it up.

See u can change the names and the tune is the same. Partisan politics is destroying america, mostly because of the vitriole of the left. No real arguments, just accusations and insults.

Hate crime legislation is not necessary. All of the examples given above trying to point out the "hate" just point to already standard aggravating circumstances in crimes. The difference between Murder 1 and Manslaughter is the PLAN to kill, it does matter if u planned to kill for money or love or fame or some sick perversion, it is still first degree murder with "malice aforethought".

It does not matter why you chose to run those missionaries over, the difference is u did it ON PURPOSE as opposed to an accident. It would not matter if they were black or asian or mormon or purple, or if u did it cuz u did not like their color or religion or their suits.

We don't need this legislation.

To 9:37,

What kind of convoluted thinking do you use when you want special protection for ANY group?

Were the Jews in Hitler's Germany really sub-human so that they needed "special" laws passed just to protect them, or were they every bit as human as every other living breathing being on this planet and therefore had the right to expect EQUAL treatment under the law?

Let's turn this question around. Why do YOU demand unequal treatment under the law for ANY group?

It is hard to imagine anyone throwing a rock at someone he "loves", so, throwing a rock with the intent to hurt can safely be called a "hate crime" no matter who the target is.

You want special laws for some special group and yet you want equal status for that group in all other respects. Make up your mind. What do YOU really want - equality or special rights and special protection?

DEAR JAMES CARLYLE GREEN ("Kill hate crimes bill"):

Where exactly have you been for the past 40 years? The hate crimes law has been on books since 1969! If your person or property is attacked because of your race or religion, you are protected by the law as it currently stands. But NEVER over the past 40 years has someone been prosecuted just for for EXPRESSING prejudice against members of a race or a religious group. Christian pastors have been invoking Scripture against non-Christians for as long as there have been Christians, and the hate crimes statute has never been used against them. This isn't going to change if the law is expanded to include sexual orientation.

Until conservatives mount a concerted effort to repeal the federal hate crimes statute that has been in effect for past 40 years, I’ll continue to see their arguments against the legislation now being considered as pretty disingenuous.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes do not conflict with free speech rights because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression; rather, they allow courts to consider motive when sentencing a criminal for conduct which is not protected by the First Amendment.

In 1992 and 1993, the United States Supreme Court decided two cases addressing the constitutionality of statutes directed at bias-motivated intimidation and violence: R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul4 and Wisconsin v. Mitchell.5 4 505 U.S. 377 (1992).
5 508 U.S. 476 (1993).
These well-known cases have now substantially defined which hate crimes statutes are, and which are not, acceptable under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Mike Richards et al, I understand why you think as you do on this, because everything is focused on the victims. The idea of one group of victims being privileged over another is completely wrong, and frankly, I support the defeat of this particular legislation because the way it highlights victimization.

However, hate crime bills could be appropriate if they were to focus on the perpetrators. Crimes committed in a manner designed to terrorize a particular group deserve an enhanced penalty.

For example, if one white neighbor doesn't like his black neighbor next door and lights the black neighbor's lawn on fire, that's arson at the very least. But if that same white neighbor burns a cross on the black neighbor's law, that's arson with a whole other kind of frightening message. And that type of crime, because of the intend of it's perpetration, is more detrimental to society as a whole, and therefore deserves a harsher penalty.