Lawmaker hopeful stance from the Church of Jesus Christ 'ends the blockade' on bill getting a hearing
@BradJames - Manti, UTTalk about hate crimes! If you are not part of
the predominant religion then you are not correct and your opinion is
discredited & dismissed. Isn't this in and of itself a hate crime? What makes your Divine Being right and my Divine Being wrong? Churches
should stay out of politics.
@Third try screen name wrote: "The problem with hate crimes/hate speech is
that they are so subjective. Evidence in court needs to be objective."Anyone who's spent much time in a courtroom will tell you that
subjective evidence is offered and ruled on all the time. That's why the
credibility of a witness is so important in determining whose version of the
events is the most reliable and closest to the truth.
@Sophie 62How so? Do you really believe in elevating the status of certain
groups so that people so that those who commit crimes against them have greater
punishment, or to word it differently, have people be sentenced to lesser
punishments because the victim does not belong to one of such groups? That is a
clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
'Kind of buried in the artilce is this -' sought to allow prosecutors
to seek a one-step increase for offenders convicted of a misdemeanor crime
against a person or their property based on a belief or perception of the
victim's ancestry, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, national
origin, race, religion or sexual orientation. A class A misdemeanor, for
example, could become a third-degree felony'' Bottom line? Makes
a misdemeanor a Felony. 3 felonies get a life sentence. This is a solution
looking for a problem. The whole issue was rejected decades ago when the Equal
Rights Amendment was debated. Misdemeanors include speeding tickets, possession
of drug paraphenalia, bar room brawls. Possible prison term jumps from one year
to five years to life.Utcourts.gov says enhance a penalty if
''the person is determined to have committed a hate crime;''
This is already on the books, and was discussed in 2005. See Utah 76-3-203.3.
Penalty for hate crimes -- Civil rights violation.
Most of the comments in this thread illustrate exactly why hate crime
legislation is needed.
we do not need a law specifically targeting a certain group of people.
Assault is already a crime. just use existing law to prosecute all
crimes regardless of religion, gender, etc.
Hate crime legislation is very discriminatory in practice.Look at
Eric Clanton, the Antifa professor who hit multiple people in the head with a
U-lock. He was not charged with a hate crime, though it clearly was a hate
crime. He got off with basically nothing, despite a long history of hate
crimes.Look at Yvette Felarca. Once again, a long string of hate
crimes, but never facing hate crime penalties.Equal protection, not
special protection for violent ANTIFA communists.🇺🇸🇺🇸
It is not fair for a man to be punished for his beliefs: it brings people onto
unequal footing. I should not be punished for believing something others do not
believe. But it is right to be punished for breaking rules. Who is to
determine what a man is thinking or the feelings of his heart? Since matters of
the heart cannot be forced, neither should we assume to force all people to
believe in certain feelings. But it is fair to punish people hurting or
destroying others' life or property.It is not right to bring
people onto unequal ground indefending themselves. A hate crime would punish a
man for his beliefs.
Agree with everyone else who commented that "hate crime" laws are
nothing more than bad legislation that violates the Equal Protection clause. Purely political and patently unequal.
"We want to make it clear that we do not oppose the hate crimes
legislation." Wow. If that's not letting your light so shine before
men, I don't know what is.
I’m trying to show some sympathy here but I don’t understand why
elected government officials need the permission of the church to do their job.
That seems very unfair to the rest of the voting public.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do
nothing"The church needs to stand up for the Bible. Nothing else
I certainly don’t oppose those anti-discrimination measures. As long as
it’s implemented in a manner that’s fair for everyone, I say
“Go for it!”.
"What's the difference between punching a person because you don't
like them and punching them because you don't like their
race/religion/national origin/gender/sexual orientation? Intent." Prove intent.Courts will plea these issues to lower
levels. It is what they do. Creating laws enhancing the penalty is about
making people feel good that they are doing something even though the courts
will plea it down to get a guilty confession. Think you can mandate the
courts? That is what the recent prison reform was about. People being charged
based on mandatory sentencing.
Hate crime laws are not about protecting people or about justice. They are
about politics. They are there to allow elected law enforcement officials a
chance to grand stand. They exist so that social just warriors can feel like
they have achieved some sort of victory for the oppressed over the oppressors.
They result in no material changes in minority communities, but lots race
baiting from the usual suspects.
@search diligently"A white attacks a black = hate crime. A black
attacks a white = no hate crime."Either of those scenarios might
be a hate crime or might not be. Depends on the circumstances around them.
@a_voice_of_reason"Crimes should be punished for what was done, not
necessarily why it was done."The law disagrees with you.I
run over your mail-box? Intent is the difference between it being a criminal
vandalism charge and a civil damages suit.Killing a person? Intent
is the difference between it being a death-penalty/life-in-prison offense
(premeditated), to a few years in jail (manslaughter), to getting a slap on the
back and a hand-shake (self-defense).Fraud for that matter. It can
cover an activity that, if done sincerely, is just stupid, but not a crime. But
if done maliciously, is a crime.Which brings us to slander/libel,
often requires malicious intent. It's not a problem if you're just
ignorant.Heck, *conspiracy to commit a crime* is purely a crime of
intent, that doesn't require any actual illegal activity to have taken
place.So yeah. That's a quaint notion that hasn't been
part of our legal system since before our legal system split from the British
legal system over two hundred years ago.
Way too many people opposing a hate crime law with a (doesn't exist
anywhere in the US) "hate speech" law.Educate yourselves.
Hate crime laws are *enhancements* to existing crimes. They do not criminalize
any behavior. They are not "hate speech" laws.Put simply,
if you think that any hate crime law is going to criminalize speech, you need to
Apple lover now,The LDS church is made up in part by US citizens and
residents of the State of Utah, so why do they not have a right to an opinion
and a stance just like you do. Take your opinions and stance on issues up with
your State that you live in. Here in Utah, we will voice our opinions as members
of all faiths and backgrounds. I may not like your opinion, but you certainly
have the right to voice it, as well as any organization that you may be a part
of. This is America.
I'm not a fan of "hate crimes" legislation. Crimes should be
punished for what was done, not necessarily why it was done. I do not think hate
crimes legislation protects anybody. Those who are so myopically filled with
hatred against a specific group will attack them whether it is a class A
misdemeanor or a 3rd degree felony. Most people don't even know which
crimes fit in which classification, nor the difference between them. So, this
doesn't deter any criminal activity. Once they've decided to commit
crime against somebody they are going to do it - regardless of the step up in
classification.That's my opinion on the proposal. That in no
way reflects on the fact that I think people that attack anybody - but
particularly attack somebody because of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender
identity, sexual preference, religion, sex, etc - have done something
reprehensible and should face the full force of the law.
JLindow,You stated "As if there is no difference between driving
into a crowd because the driver got the pedals mixed up vs. driving into a crowd
to commit an act of terrorism."The first act has no intent to
harm. None. It is an accident. There is not an issue. It would not be
prosecuted as murder or terrorism.The second is murder regardless of
whether terrorism is a goal or not. There intent can be an issue. The question
remains as to whether it should (though who is being cowed by the murder is a
valid point of consideration).
Hate crimes, hate speech, hate smirking, hate etc. Frankly, a crime
is a crime. The motivation regardless of the reason still makes it a crime.If we want motivation to be punished, then give judges some sentencing
leeway or up the punishment for the actual crime.Motivation ought to
be one of the aggravating factors. But not the whole reason.We
should punish for the actual crime. Not for what they are thinking when they
A crime is a crime. Hate crime laws violate the equal protection clause. They
should be against the constitution.Just shows that minorities want
special privileges, not equality.
@Twin LightsWhat's the difference between punching a person
because you don't like them and punching them because you don't like
their race/religion/national origin/gender/sexual orientation? Intent.My example stands. If you choose not to understand,
that's on you.
I would call a church with lobbyists, lawyers and a PR department well prepared.
Any individual or group of individuals has a right to voice their opposition to
or support for proposed legislation.
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will not stand in the way
of legislation to... " Stand in the way? They have no right to get in the
What do you call a church with lobbyists, lawyers and a PR department?
JLindow,That example does not work. One is murder. The other is
not (as there was no intent to kill).
The US government already has laws for addressing terrorist activities.
Creating hate crime laws for addressing terrorism is redundant.There
are already laws for addressing the varying nature and motives of crime:
Different degrees of homicide is a classic example.'Hate
Crime' is legislated classism. We should be working to overcome societal
divides, not cementing or creating societal divides through legislation.
I'm older than the majority of commenters here and can say I understand how
appealing legislation like this can sound, but there are great risks each time
our Congress passes a law they forward to a federal agency to implement.
Administrations change, individuals within these agencies change and in time,
the People are at the mercy of a government agency enforcing a rule in
regulation that has no association with the original intent of the legislation.
And it is truly an unusual law that doesn't pit one group against another.
If it isn't written in a matter providing limitations, it is certain to be
abused. History has proven to us, government officials abuse the power given
them; they simply can't help it.
Whenever hate crime legislation is the topic, the same types of arguments from
people who choose not to understand the issue are brought up: All crimes are
hate crimes, or the crime should be treated the same regardless of
motivation.As if there is no difference between driving into a crowd
because the driver got the pedals mixed up vs. driving into a crowd to commit an
act of terrorism.
While there are some good arguments for, there is also danger in hate crimes
legislation. It elevates taking stronger action against some. Justice should
be blind but here is what can happen:A white attacks a black = hate
crime. A black attacks a white = no hate crime.A LGBT is in a fight
with a non LGBT. Both get hurt but because one is LGBT the punishment gets
affixed to the non-LGBT.As someone mentioned here, caution sb used
in applying the hate crimes legislation to see what the offending party says and
does prior to the incident. Does the sum of the evidence clearly demonstrate
that the person seeks to commit a crime solely based on the target belonging to
an identifiable group?While the media jumped on the student with a
MAGA hat being in the face of the native american the other day, a case could be
made that the native american walked up in the face of the student and pounded
his drum next into his ear. Certainly if the student walked up to the native
american and pounded or yelled into the ear of the native american it would be
considered a hate action. There must be a two-way street in
application of any hate crime legislation... it should cut both ways.
Maybe I don't understand the nature of the LDS Church's influence in
matters like this, but it sounds confusing. Thatcher describes it as a
blockade, but it sounds like the LDS Church didn't make a comment either
way for 2 years.
How is it that the church not weighing in prevented this bill from getting a
The problem with hate crimes/hate speech is that they are so subjective.
Evidence in court needs to be objective.The interpretation of
thoughts and motive are impossible to prove.Then there is the issue
of authority. Exactly who gets to decide what "hate" is? The media? The
SPLC? Exactly when does patriotism morph into jingoism...then nationalism...then
supremacy.What is the difference between a Shep Fairey image of
Obama in a t-shirt at school, and one with the words "America First" on
it?As we've seen recently, what is hateful about a MAGA hat? Or
a call for better corder security, "Built that wall"?Any
effort to delve into hate weakens the process of justice. The concept of hate
can be manipulated, and courts don't need that.A guy's
manifesto prior to a crime should be entered into evidence. People who threaten
other people should be investigated. But let's not construct hate out of
wearing a red baseball cap.
Utefan60, I'm sad for your neighbors. Any members of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that have lived outside of Utah have faced
prejudice and some have had crimes committed against them. I have. While
all crime is a formed of hate, jealousy, and fear. Most crime is aimed at
individuals, not meant to strike fear in a larger group. I believe that
encouraging, perpetuating or even just allowing any group of criminals or
individuals to commit crimes against any other group or individuals, with
expressed intent to strike fear in all or any of that group, is a hate crime.
It's pretty sad that no legislation gets done in Utah unless approved (or
at least not "opposed") by the LDS church.@KSM's
Dad;Read Utefan60's comment, he answered your question nicely.
Everyone follow the Church's example. It's just more evidence that the
Brethren take their marching orders from Jesus Christ Himself. This is His
Church after all.
I am also surpirsed that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would
even comment on this legislation. This is a job for law-makers, not the Church
leaders. I hope that in 2019, Utah legislature is listening to their voters,
not just members of the dominate church of the area.
Perhaps we need to add "political orientation" to the list. It
certainly appears that the Covington students were on the receiving end of
hateful speech and near universal condemnation simply because their hats
revealed their political orientation - leading some Media folks to suggest that
they should be put through a "woodchipper", etc.
What exactly is a hate crime? If a person is killed in a fit of rage by a
spouse, is that a hate crime? It wasn’t done out of love. If a youth is
assaulted because he or she is gay, and another youth is assaulted randomly, the
first is hate and the second is ambivalence? Both are assaulted. This is
creating a higher class of citizen with more protections than others.
Hate crimes are much different than other crimes, and in most parts of the
country they are prosecuted, and enhanced penalties are sought. Why?These despicable crimes not only target individuals, but they target groups of
people already discriminated against by society. It isn't just a crime
against an individual, it is usually a crime meant to elicit fear in a larger
group. To "put people in their place".A neighbor couple was
targeted by the High Schoolers in my neighborhood. They were the best neighbors
anyone could have. They were a same sex couple. Their home was vandalized, and
targeted. They lived in fear. One night their fears were realized as a group
targeted their home and property. That ended up in a hospital visit for one on
them, trying to legally defend their home. Felony charges were filed. And the
prosecutors wanted enhanced charges. What was so disgusting was the
attitude of many of the neighbors, and others who condoned these kid's
behaviors. "Kids will be kids" That was unbelievable. Yes these crimes
are far different. Utah needs to get up to date. Now! Before someone dies.
"We want to make it clear that we do not oppose the hate crimes
legislation." Not opposing things is a fine first step, but I'll
welcome the day when they actually support hate crimes legislation rather than
simply "not opposing" it.
“The proposed law would not have affected free speech and other
constitutional rights and didn't create a new protected class of people
except for the purpose of enhanced criminal penalties.”Interesting to note that about Thatcher’s former proposed law. If
that’s the key difference, it is no wonder the new proposal hasn’t
been made public.
I am grateful for and, support, and sustain our Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Leaders that guide and direct the lay members, and our politicians in the
most positive way forward. I feel it's important to heed the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints counsel on this complex hate crime
Hate is taking down capitalism by telling a baker what she must put on a cake.
And it is un-elected judges trying to control our lives. Yet we are growing up
as a nation and seeing foolishness for what it is.
We do not need hate crimes legislation that protects any particular group or
where does that end? We need hate crimes legislation and to treat all people the
same when it comes to holding people accountable for hate crimes.
"I'm interested in stopping people who are using criminal actions to
threaten and intimidate entire communities."Loaded statement of,
as yet, indiscernible meaning. All eyes on this one.