Hate crime legislation

[MAD6Gun]

Hate crime laws create protected classes of people, and unprotected classes of people.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Which has given rise to hatred directed at white men so easily and uncontested nowadays.

It also has given rise to the new definition of racism which excludes blacks and other minorities from being racist.  Racism now means hatred towards a specific group "from a position of power".  You see, blacks and other minorities aren't in positions of power, therefore can't be racist.

 Good point Gary.

 So if a black man kills a white man over a argument it's murder. But if a white man kills a black man its a hate crime. I agree with Gavin here. You would have to hate someone to kill them would you not?

 OK so how about this for a instance. Say two white men get into a heated argument in a bar. The argument turns violent and one beats the other to death. It comes out during the investigation that the dead man was gay. Should the murderer be charged with a hate crime even though he didn't know the other guy was gay? Or should he be charged with just murder?

[¿spoom]

Do you agree with having hate crime laws or are you like me and believe all crime is a form of hate. Why should certain races of people be protected? Are we all not the same? Here in Indiana this is mostly coming from Muslims. I believe any violence toward another human should bear the same consequences no matter what race you are. Just because you are white and are violent toward a black guy does not make it any more unlawful than a black guy doing the same toward a white guy. I think these laws are bullshit.

I've never agreed with the concept of hate crimes. The punishment should be for the crime. If I'm beaten and robbed by a guy that doesn't like my bike, hates my shoes, or just needed the money, I was beaten and robbed and I want them arrested and tried for that only. Adding or subtracting from his sentence (if convicted) based on his personal feelings, only on how much I was (am) damaged.

[Moonshot_1]

I don't believe in the concept of "hate crimes". It provides incredible political leverage to the State from which there is no defense. A Hate Crime is what the State says it is. You got to bake cakes in Colorado even if you don't want to. Not baking a cake. HATE CRIME!!

If there needs to be an increase in the punishment for crime because of "hate" then increase the punishment across the board for the crime to meet that need.

[Bighead]

So called “HATE” crimes are Bullshit! A crime is a crime no better no worse no matter the victim. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

...
Hate crime legislation is adding more punishment if "we" don't like the way the criminal thinks.  

Were that the case, then we wouldn’t have different degrees of murder, assault, etc. All crimes probably have some degree of “thought”. As a society we deem different degrees of the thought more egregious. Personally I think this punishment should be left to a jury or a judge. (But nobody is willing to put me in charge)

A badly misdirected comparison.  Degrees of crime are determined by how much they were planned (intended).  That is, a distinction is made between accidental, sudden choice, or premeditated.  It does not address reason or motivation (that is both redundant and repititious).

Not necessarily. Evidently any assault against a police officer will be charged as an aggravated assault. Regardless of premeditation or degree of violence. Society has deemed law enforcement officers worthy of extra protection or at least extra punishments.

[Skinhead]

...
Hate crime legislation is adding more punishment if "we" don't like the way the criminal thinks.   

Were that the case, then we wouldn’t have different degrees of murder, assault, etc. All crimes probably have some degree of “thought”. As a society we deem different degrees of the thought more egregious. Personally I think this punishment should be left to a jury or a judge. (But nobody is willing to put me in charge)

A badly misdirected comparison.  Degrees of crime are determined by how much they were planned (intended).  That is, a distinction is made between accidental, sudden choice, or premeditated.  It does not address reason or motivation (that is both redundant and repititious).

Not necessarily. Evidently any assault against a police officer will be charged as an aggravated assault. Regardless of premeditation or degree of violence. Society has deemed law enforcement officers worthy of extra protection or at least extra punishments.

Is that true only while in pursuit of their duties, or off duty as well.  I believe (but could be wrong, for the second time) that it is the former.   I have no problem with that (if they are acting legally) as you are assaulting a duly sworn authority figure.  Not some LBGTXYZ protester. 

[Gavin_Sons]

...
Hate crime legislation is adding more punishment if "we" don't like the way the criminal thinks.  

Were that the case, then we wouldn’t have different degrees of murder, assault, etc. All crimes probably have some degree of “thought”. As a society we deem different degrees of the thought more egregious. Personally I think this punishment should be left to a jury or a judge. (But nobody is willing to put me in charge)

A badly misdirected comparison.  Degrees of crime are determined by how much they were planned (intended).  That is, a distinction is made between accidental, sudden choice, or premeditated.  It does not address reason or motivation (that is both redundant and repititious).

Not necessarily. Evidently any assault against a police officer will be charged as an aggravated assault. Regardless of premeditation or degree of violence. Society has deemed law enforcement officers worthy of extra protection or at least extra punishments.

As it should be. If you're dumb enough to assault an officer you're dumb enough to do extra time (or shot).

[The emperor has no clothes]

...
Hate crime legislation is adding more punishment if "we" don't like the way the criminal thinks.   

Were that the case, then we wouldn’t have different degrees of murder, assault, etc. All crimes probably have some degree of “thought”. As a society we deem different degrees of the thought more egregious. Personally I think this punishment should be left to a jury or a judge. (But nobody is willing to put me in charge)

A badly misdirected comparison.  Degrees of crime are determined by how much they were planned (intended).  That is, a distinction is made between accidental, sudden choice, or premeditated.  It does not address reason or motivation (that is both redundant and repititious).

Not necessarily. Evidently any assault against a police officer will be charged as an aggravated assault. Regardless of premeditation or degree of violence. Society has deemed law enforcement officers worthy of extra protection or at least extra punishments.

Is that true only while in pursuit of their duties, or off duty as well.  I believe (but could be wrong, for the second time) that it is the former.   I have no problem with that (if they are acting legally) as you are assaulting a duly sworn authority figure.  Not some LBGTXYZ protester. 

I believe on duty. I have no problem with it either. But the point is, we have laws that add extra punishment all the time. The hate crime addition is no different than these.

[Gavin_Sons]

...
Hate crime legislation is adding more punishment if "we" don't like the way the criminal thinks.   

Were that the case, then we wouldn’t have different degrees of murder, assault, etc. All crimes probably have some degree of “thought”. As a society we deem different degrees of the thought more egregious. Personally I think this punishment should be left to a jury or a judge. (But nobody is willing to put me in charge)

A badly misdirected comparison.  Degrees of crime are determined by how much they were planned (intended).  That is, a distinction is made between accidental, sudden choice, or premeditated.  It does not address reason or motivation (that is both redundant and repititious).

Not necessarily. Evidently any assault against a police officer will be charged as an aggravated assault. Regardless of premeditation or degree of violence. Society has deemed law enforcement officers worthy of extra protection or at least extra punishments.

Is that true only while in pursuit of their duties, or off duty as well.  I believe (but could be wrong, for the second time) that it is the former.   I have no problem with that (if they are acting legally) as you are assaulting a duly sworn authority figure.  Not some LBGTXYZ protester. 

I believe on duty. I have no problem with it either. But the point is, we have laws that add extra punishment all the time. The hate crime addition is no different than these.

It is different, very different. By having hate crime legislation you are saying there are different classes of people when in reality we are all equal. Law enforcement is and always has been a different class because they take an oath and are suppose to protect, therefore they get extra protection against attacks.

[Bighead]

It is a legitimate question. 

[Bighead]

Do you agree with having hate crime laws or are you like me and believe all crime is a form of hate. Why should certain races of people be protected? Are we all not the same? Here in Indiana this is mostly coming from Muslims. I believe any violence toward another human should bear the same consequences no matter what race you are. Just because you are white and are violent toward a black guy does not make it any more unlawful than a black guy doing the same toward a white guy. I think these laws are bullshit.

I've never agreed with the concept of hate crimes. The punishment should be for the crime. If I'm beaten and robbed by a guy that doesn't like my bike, hates my shoes, or just needed the money, I was beaten and robbed and I want them arrested and tried for that only. Adding or subtracting from his sentence (if convicted) based on his personal feelings, only on how much I was (am) damaged.

Rob read this post.

[old2soon]

              Keep it Simple-Hate EVERYONE equally.  Much easier thataway.  The Very FACT that some people are offended by who and what I am offends me Because of who and what I am. Also I try very hard to Not judge others-once in awhile I am sorta successful. BUT I am getting Very tired of having lgbt "rights" preached to me. Oh well back to me tryin to Not be P Od. RIDE SAFE.

[Bighead]

Death in any form knows no race gender or sexual preference. Dead is Dead.
What Rob is essentially saying is that a white person killing a person of color (any color)
Is worse than a black panther or ms13 gang member or a muslim extremist killing a white person.
Because none of those can be called a racist because only whites can be racist. A crock of Shiiiiiiit!
A murder, assault or robbery is just that,Nothing more.

[98valk]

[/quote]I believe on duty. I have no problem with it either. But the point is, we have laws that add extra punishment all the time. The hate crime addition is no different than these.
[/quote]

WRONG!  it is an attack on Free Speech as provided by the 1st. In essence it is preventing free speech. Plenty of examples out there for you to research.  But you will refuse to see that and understand it.

[Serk]

I believe we're talking about two separate concepts here...

Hate crime, where if a real crime is committed against a protected class of person, extra penalties are added or the severity of the real crime is elevated, and hate speech, which for now at least is still protected speech in the USA,  and not criminal. (Although that's not the case in much of the rest of the world.)

(And while "hate speech" isn't a crime in the USA, that's not to say it can be done freely and openly without consequences, and WHAT justifies as "hate speech" is very wuzzy and changes by the whims of our betters on a near daily basis, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.)

[Bighead]

I think the idea is to add extra punishment to the crime.
^^^^^^ this and you agreeing with it is all I need to know.
Well I see
A post was removed. But you know what you ask here is the answer.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I think the idea is to add extra punishment to the crime.
^^^^^^ this and you agreeing with it is all I need to know.

Is it possible for you to understand that sentence is explaining the reason why legislators make "hate crimes" ? How you can possibly derive that I agree with it is beyond me. Especially when I stated that it's not how I would do it.

[Bighead]

All your posts make it seem you agree with it.

[98valk]

Hate Crimes Bill Infringes First Amendment Rights

https://gohmert.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=219564


Hate Crimes Legislature Infringes Upon Freedom

https://www.thehoya.com/hate-crimes-legislature-infringes-upon-freedom/

[Jess from VA]

Just to chime in here, new laws on assaults on police officers in the performance of their duties (in or out of uniform, and on or off duty, though you probably have to know they are policemen.... these details may vary a bit by state), have been passed (either new laws or enhancements to existing laws on simple and aggravated assaults).  Probably in a large majority of states, if not every one of them.

It gives increased punishments at every level of assault if policemen are the victims (so an entry level simple assault on a PO is probably bumped up to a small felony from a misdemeanor).  So if a simple (bottom rung, unarmed, first offense) assault on anyone else in your state carried 90 days and $100 (that is what all old simple misdemeanors used to carry everywhere long ago, and probably worse everywhere today), the same simple bottom rung assault might carry up to 1-2 years if it's a cop (and you've seen it on TV we're only talking a small push or shove.... AND pulling your arms away from the cuffs is resisting arrest another crime that gets entangled with about any charged assault, unless you just run away without any unlawful touching)

But, an assault on a police officer is not an automatic aggravated assault.... which by definition (again there's going to be some different language per state) means an assault with a weapon or a means likely or able to cause grievous bodily harm.  The key to any aggravated assault is use of a weapon of some kind (though guys like Bruce Lee with provable training have been charged and convicted of aggravated just for using hands and feet, based on severity of injuries inflicted).  Guns, knives and ball bats, but even a piece of glass or a big nail could do it.  And generally any aggravated assault is a felony.

So a simple assault on PO may be a felony, and an aggravated assault is always a felony, and the max authorized punishments may be the same or close.  But a simple assault on a cop is not an aggravated assault (unless the guy uses a weapon, and then it's an aggravated assault on a PO, and that may also be worse (max sentence-wise) than an aggravated on a private citizen).

Yes, police officers as a class have been granted extra protection under the law because they do dangerous and vital public service/duty.  And that extra protection is by way of increased penalties for the same bad conduct that would only authorize lesser punishments for everyone else.

I would argue there is a very clear and rational public interest in singling them out as a class for special protection (and all of them, regardless of their race/gender/orientation).  I do not think that classes defined by race, gender or sexual orientation deserve the same special protection.   These large classes of people do not perform any dangerous or vital public service, and are not public employees. (However, they do probably vote D way more often than not, and that is why the hate crimes legislation was passed.) (All the D's do is denigrate the right for their every thought and deed, and pass legislation geared to securing more votes, and that is all they do.)

I do not think you will find many other examples of protected classes (in this manner).  Teachers?

I think blind and other serious handicapped might be deserving of such protection.  (again, regardless of race, gender or oritentation) (and even if the majority of them vote D, if they do)

[Skinhead]

...
Hate crime legislation is adding more punishment if "we" don't like the way the criminal thinks.   

Were that the case, then we wouldn’t have different degrees of murder, assault, etc. All crimes probably have some degree of “thought”. As a society we deem different degrees of the thought more egregious. Personally I think this punishment should be left to a jury or a judge. (But nobody is willing to put me in charge)

A badly misdirected comparison.  Degrees of crime are determined by how much they were planned (intended).  That is, a distinction is made between accidental, sudden choice, or premeditated.  It does not address reason or motivation (that is both redundant and repititious).

Not necessarily. Evidently any assault against a police officer will be charged as an aggravated assault. Regardless of premeditation or degree of violence. Society has deemed law enforcement officers worthy of extra protection or at least extra punishments.

Is that true only while in pursuit of their duties, or off duty as well.  I believe (but could be wrong, for the second time) that it is the former.   I have no problem with that (if they are acting legally) as you are assaulting a duly sworn authority figure.  Not some LBGTXYZ protester. 

I believe on duty. I have no problem with it either. But the point is, we have laws that add extra punishment all the time. The hate crime addition is no different than these.

I disagree.  Hate crime laws are intended to add extra punishment to a crime where a punishment already exists.  Assault on a police officer is a separate crime from assault on Joe Sixpack the local drunk, and carries it's own penalty.  There's a big difference.

[The emperor has no clothes]

...
Hate crime legislation is adding more punishment if "we" don't like the way the criminal thinks.  

Were that the case, then we wouldn’t have different degrees of murder, assault, etc. All crimes probably have some degree of “thought”. As a society we deem different degrees of the thought more egregious. Personally I think this punishment should be left to a jury or a judge. (But nobody is willing to put me in charge)

A badly misdirected comparison.  Degrees of crime are determined by how much they were planned (intended).  That is, a distinction is made between accidental, sudden choice, or premeditated.  It does not address reason or motivation (that is both redundant and repititious).

Not necessarily. Evidently any assault against a police officer will be charged as an aggravated assault. Regardless of premeditation or degree of violence. Society has deemed law enforcement officers worthy of extra protection or at least extra punishments.

Is that true only while in pursuit of their duties, or off duty as well.  I believe (but could be wrong, for the second time) that it is the former.   I have no problem with that (if they are acting legally) as you are assaulting a duly sworn authority figure.  Not some LBGTXYZ protester.  

I believe on duty. I have no problem with it either. But the point is, we have laws that add extra punishment all the time. The hate crime addition is no different than these.

I disagree.  Hate crime laws are intended to add extra punishment to a crime where a punishment already exists.  Assault on a police officer is a separate crime from assault on Joe Sixpack the local drunk, and carries it's own penalty.  There's a big difference.

I agree, a hate crime law is intended to add extra punishment. The assault on a police officer is not a separate crime though. As an example :
If I were to raise my hand to another person and grab them by the arm, I would be charged with simple assault. If I did exactly the same thing to a police officer, I would be charged with aggravated assault. The effect of the laws are that police officers recieve special treatment in this regard. What I'm saying is our laws and punishments are not equal across the board. As I said earlier, I don't agree with these laws and hate crime punishments. If I had my way there would be just a charge of murder or assault and the judge or jury decide the degree of punishment. I personally see no reason why a premeditated murder is worse than a spontaneous murder. Were I a judge, I would punish a premeditated murder of a spouse much less than a spontaneous murder of a child molestor.

[Gavin_Sons]

...
Hate crime legislation is adding more punishment if "we" don't like the way the criminal thinks.  

Were that the case, then we wouldn’t have different degrees of murder, assault, etc. All crimes probably have some degree of “thought”. As a society we deem different degrees of the thought more egregious. Personally I think this punishment should be left to a jury or a judge. (But nobody is willing to put me in charge)

A badly misdirected comparison.  Degrees of crime are determined by how much they were planned (intended).  That is, a distinction is made between accidental, sudden choice, or premeditated.  It does not address reason or motivation (that is both redundant and repititious).

Not necessarily. Evidently any assault against a police officer will be charged as an aggravated assault. Regardless of premeditation or degree of violence. Society has deemed law enforcement officers worthy of extra protection or at least extra punishments.

Is that true only while in pursuit of their duties, or off duty as well.  I believe (but could be wrong, for the second time) that it is the former.   I have no problem with that (if they are acting legally) as you are assaulting a duly sworn authority figure.  Not some LBGTXYZ protester.  

I believe on duty. I have no problem with it either. But the point is, we have laws that add extra punishment all the time. The hate crime addition is no different than these.

I disagree.  Hate crime laws are intended to add extra punishment to a crime where a punishment already exists.  Assault on a police officer is a separate crime from assault on Joe Sixpack the local drunk, and carries it's own penalty.  There's a big difference.

I agree, a hate crime law is intended to add extra punishment. The assault on a police officer is not a separate crime though. As an example :
If I were to raise my hand to another person and grab them by the arm, I would be charged with simple assault. If I did exactly the same thing to a police officer, I would be charged with aggravated assault. The effect of the laws are that police officers recieve special treatment in this regard. What I'm saying is our laws and punishments are not equal across the board. As I said earlier, I don't agree with these laws and hate crime punishments. If I had my way there would be just a charge of murder or assault and the judge or jury decide the degree of punishment. I personally see no reason why a premeditated murder is worse than a spontaneous murder. Were I a judge, I would punish a premeditated murder of a spouse much less than a spontaneous murder of a child molestor.

So if you steal a car should you be charged with shoplifting?

[Willow]

... The assault on a police officer is not a separate crime though. As an example :
... Were I a judge, I would punish a premeditated murder of a spouse much less than a spontaneous murder of a child molestor.

Assault on a police officer is a different crime than assault on another citizen.  It is, in fact, covered by a completely different law.   It's not just to give added protection to the officer, but because such an act is direct defiance of the system's authority.  I believe you'll also find (I hope you never have to) that charging the bench and assaulting a judge is  not the same crime as punching another citizen.

Meathead, that sentence makes no sense.  If that is what you meant I think it behooves the system to be sure you never become a judge.    

[RP#62]

Too bad unborn children aren't a protected class.  Wait, what if they're LGBT?

-RP

[Serk]

Too bad unborn children aren't a protected class.  Wait, what if they're LGBT?

-RP

Heh, check out this brilliantly written piece of prose covering that very topic, pointing out the extreme hypocrisy and logical circles our friends on the left put themselves through:

https://thefederalist.com/2019/02/28/wife-decided-abort-unborn-gay-son/

[The emperor has no clothes]

... The assault on a police officer is not a separate crime though. As an example :
... Were I a judge, I would punish a premeditated murder of a spouse much less than a spontaneous murder of a child molestor.

Assault on a police officer is a different crime than assault on another citizen.  It is, in fact, covered by a completely different law.   It's not just to give added protection to the officer, but because such an act is direct defiance of the system's authority.  I believe you'll also find (I hope you never have to) that charging the bench and assaulting a judge is  not the same crime as punching another citizen.

Meathead, that sentence makes no sense.  If that is what you meant I think it behooves the system to be sure you never become a judge.    

I guess my communication skills aren’t what I thought they were. Both scenarios are murder, under the current law the unpremeditated killing of a child molestor would get less punishment than a premeditated killing of a spouse (or anyone else). But on this we are probably in agreement. “I think it behooves the system to be sure I am not a judge” (paraphrasing)

[Gavin_Sons]

... The assault on a police officer is not a separate crime though. As an example :
... Were I a judge, I would punish a premeditated murder of a spouse much less than a spontaneous murder of a child molestor.

Assault on a police officer is a different crime than assault on another citizen.  It is, in fact, covered by a completely different law.   It's not just to give added protection to the officer, but because such an act is direct defiance of the system's authority.  I believe you'll also find (I hope you never have to) that charging the bench and assaulting a judge is  not the same crime as punching another citizen.

Meathead, that sentence makes no sense.  If that is what you meant I think it behooves the system to be sure you never become a judge.    

I guess my communication skills aren’t what I thought they were. Both scenarios are murder, under the current law the unpremeditated killing of a child molestor would get less punishment than a premeditated killing of a spouse (or anyone else). But on this we are probably in agreement. “I think it behooves the system to be sure I am not a judge” (paraphrasing)

So if you steal a car should you be charged with shoplifting?

Answer the question. Because by your theory stealing a car and shoplifting is the same thing.

[Jess from VA]

Nothing personal you guys, but I'm not hiring any of you to be my lawyer.   


And, in all fairness, you don't want me for your mechanic either.

[Pete]

Special protected classes (of citizens/persons/faiths/employment/sex/etc) should not exist in a free society and are unjust.

Special (enhanced) punishments based on race/color/creed/employment/sex/etc are in defiance/disagreement with the equal protection ideals of the constitution.

The somewhat recent (50+ years) of government lawyers to layer multiple charges for the same crime (if you are not a protected class or special person) are also not in keeping with justice.

Justice is to be blind and equal not deaf/dumb/stupid/political/protective of special classes.

Hate crime punishments are all to frequently political in nature and never applied equally, therefore not in keeping with the constitution.

Hate crime (as defined) is a thought not a crime. Prosecute criminals who commit crimes not thoughts.
Including those sent to DC.

[Gryphon Rider]

Nothing personal you guys, but I'm not hiring any of you to be my lawyer.   


And, in all fairness, you don't want me for your mechanic either.

Almost everyone would be happy to be called to the bar, but I guess it's a matter of how effective one is after the fact. 

[Jess from VA]

Nothing personal you guys, but I'm not hiring any of you to be my lawyer.   


And, in all fairness, you don't want me for your mechanic either.

Almost everyone would be happy to be called to the bar, but I guess it's a matter of how effective one is after the fact. 

I'm not sure Gryph, but I don't think alcohol would necessarily make laymen worse lawyers than they are sober.  It would make them more entertaining. 

There's probably no scientific studies of this either.

These guys were apparently all licensed.

ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death..
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Take a guess.

ATTORNEY: She had three children , right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?

ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the 20-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: He’s 20, much like your IQ.


ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn’t it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn’t know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?

ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I’m going with male.

ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Are you shitting me?

LAWYER: When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not to go, gone also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with him to the station?
OTHER LAWYER: Objection. That question should be taken out and shot.

ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Getting laid

LAWYER: What happened then?
WITNESS: He told me, he says, 'I have to kill you because you can identify me.'
LAWYER: Did he kill you?
WITNESS: No.

ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.

ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, ‘Where am I, Cathy?’
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan!

LAWYER: Trooper, when you stopped the defendant, were your red and blue lights flashing?
WITNESS: Yes.
LAWYER: Did the defendant say anything when she got out of her car?
WITNESS: Yes, sir.
LAWYER: What did she say?
WITNESS: 'What disco am I at?'

LAWYER: How far apart were the vehicles at the time of the collision?

[Pete]

   Make one wish it was a joke, great post. Thanks

[MAD6Gun]

...
Hate crime legislation is adding more punishment if "we" don't like the way the criminal thinks.  

Were that the case, then we wouldn’t have different degrees of murder, assault, etc. All crimes probably have some degree of “thought”. As a society we deem different degrees of the thought more egregious. Personally I think this punishment should be left to a jury or a judge. (But nobody is willing to put me in charge)

A badly misdirected comparison.  Degrees of crime are determined by how much they were planned (intended).  That is, a distinction is made between accidental, sudden choice, or premeditated.  It does not address reason or motivation (that is both redundant and repititious).

Not necessarily. Evidently any assault against a police officer will be charged as an aggravated assault. Regardless of premeditation or degree of violence. Society has deemed law enforcement officers worthy of extra protection or at least extra punishments.

Is that true only while in pursuit of their duties, or off duty as well.  I believe (but could be wrong, for the second time) that it is the former.   I have no problem with that (if they are acting legally) as you are assaulting a duly sworn authority figure.  Not some LBGTXYZ protester.  

I believe on duty. I have no problem with it either. But the point is, we have laws that add extra punishment all the time. The hate crime addition is no different than these.

I disagree.  Hate crime laws are intended to add extra punishment to a crime where a punishment already exists.  Assault on a police officer is a separate crime from assault on Joe Sixpack the local drunk, and carries it's own penalty.  There's a big difference.

Were I a judge, I would punish a premeditated murder of a spouse much less than a spontaneous murder of a child molestor.

 So let me understand this. If a husband hires a hit man to kill his wife you say he should get less punishment then say a man that kills the monster who raped his 12 year old daughter after the fact? Is that right?

[The emperor has no clothes]

I guess my wording of it is bad. I will try again. An unplanned murder of a child molestor would get less punishment than a thought out premeditated murder of a spouse (or any individual). I hope I was clear this time  


I seem to have a difficult time articulating it correctly.

[Skinhead]

I guess my wording of it is bad. I will try again. An unplanned murder of a child molestor would get less punishment than a thought out premeditated murder of a spouse (or any individual). I hope I was clear this time 


I seem to have a difficult time articulating it correctly.

It is clear, but I know some who would consider the murder of a spouse justifiable homicide.   

[Moonshot_1]

Gave this some more thought.

Why do we punish those who commit crimes?
What is the purpose of the punishment?

It is to deter the commission of the crime. It is to protect the innocent.

From the perspective of the innocent citizen, should society protect an innocent citizen more from being killed in a hate crime or killed in a run of the mill murder? Do we protect the innocent citizen more from hate fueled assault and less from run of the mill assaults?

How does one justify that?

I would say that both requires the same enforcement and the same degree of effort. It isn't the criminal that we are punishing but the innocent citizen that we are attempting to protect.

If the belief is that the punishments should be increased for hate crimes, fine, increase them across the board. Protect all citizens equally.

[Gavin_Sons]

I guess my wording of it is bad. I will try again. An unplanned murder of a child molestor would get less punishment than a thought out premeditated murder of a spouse (or any individual). I hope I was clear this time  


I seem to have a difficult time articulating it correctly.

So if you steal a car should you be charged with shoplifting?

Answer the question. Because by your theory stealing a car and shoplifting is the same thing.

Still waiting on an answer. Or is this like most other questions,  you ignore and change the subject?  Have you noticed you are the only one with the thought process that you have? I mean if I thought I had a good thought process going I'd had Dee at least 2 or 3 others with me, you have none.  So what is your answer to my question I have asked 3 times?

[The emperor has no clothes]

I guess my wording of it is bad. I will try again. An unplanned murder of a child molestor would get less punishment than a thought out premeditated murder of a spouse (or any individual). I hope I was clear this time  


I seem to have a difficult time articulating it correctly.

So if you steal a car should you be charged with shoplifting?

Answer the question. Because by your theory stealing a car and shoplifting is the same thing.

Still waiting on an answer. Or is this like most other questions,  you ignore and change the subject?  Have you noticed you are the only one with the thought process that you have? I mean if I thought I had a good thought process going I'd had Dee at least 2 or 3 others with me, you have none.  So what is your answer to my question I have asked 3 times?

I may not be too bright. I may be alone in my thinking. I may word my responses inartfully. But I'm learning not to wrestle with swine. In 7 years not one conversation we've had has ended civilly. I doubt the streak would be broken today. 

[Gavin_Sons]

I guess my wording of it is bad. I will try again. An unplanned murder of a child molestor would get less punishment than a thought out premeditated murder of a spouse (or any individual). I hope I was clear this time  


I seem to have a difficult time articulating it correctly.

So if you steal a car should you be charged with shoplifting?

Answer the question. Because by your theory stealing a car and shoplifting is the same thing.

Still waiting on an answer. Or is this like most other questions,  you ignore and change the subject?  Have you noticed you are the only one with the thought process that you have? I mean if I thought I had a good thought process going I'd had Dee at least 2 or 3 others with me, you have none.  So what is your answer to my question I have asked 3 times?

I may not be too bright. I may be alone in my thinking. I may word my responses inartfully. But I'm learning not to wrestle with swine. In 7 years not one conversation we've had has ended civilly. I doubt the streak would be broken today. 

So still no answer huh? Figures, one simple question and you refuse to answer. Should have ed expected that from you. But instead you give me answers to something I didn't ask. Why?