quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Here was the deal. In response to it you said GW (how I personally don't consider conservative. But I won't argue that point.) signed a law that allowed hate crimes to be tracked. Maybe he signed that law because he wanted the statistics to prove there is no such thing. That's just as valid an arguement as yours. So, you show me where some conservative group actually pushed hate crime legislation or where part of defining a thought control law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Here was the deal. In response to it you said GW (how I personally don't consider conservative. But I won't argue that point.) signed a law that allowed hate crimes to be tracked. Maybe he signed that law because he wanted the statistics to prove there is no such thing. That's just as valid an arguement as yours. So, you show me where some conservative group actually pushed hate crime legislation or where part of defining a thought control law.

You and I have no deal....... You have no integrity.

Firstly I said G H B had signed the act into law, I did follow up underneath by getting his middle intial wrong.

Secondly, I dont give a flying fuck of your opinion of G W B either, he is a Conservative through and through.

Thirdly G H B set up the act to collect the data on hate crimes, other presidents then acted on that data.

Your stupidity and your banal posts wont make you correct, not now, not next year, not ever.

The point remains Governments world wide, of both political persuassions have introduced or updated hate law crimes.

Hopefully you wont be crass enough to mention gas chambers again, but somehow I doubt it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

I dont get your point. It seems obvious to me all prosecutions for hate crime need to establish intent. That is as true here in the UK as it is in the US.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


From your link:

"...the court may fine the offender up to 1½ times the maximum fine and imprison him or her for up to 1½ times the maximum term authorized for the underlying crime. D.C. Official Code § 22-3703. "

The term underlying crime suggests that the hate crime statute is an enhancement, like using a firearm in the commission of a felony

In other words, I dont think it means its all or nothing at all

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


From your link:

"...the court may fine the offender up to 1½ times the maximum fine and imprison him or her for up to 1½ times the maximum term authorized for the underlying crime. D.C. Official Code § 22-3703. "

The term underlying crime suggests that the hate crime statute is an enhancement, like using a firearm in the commission of a felony

In other words, I dont think it means its all or nothing at all

In the Wisconsin v Mitchell case, it was the judge that made the decision on it being a hate crime, when determining sentencing.

I'd have to look at cases in DC to know protocol. Does the jury decide if it's a hate crime, or the judge?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Here was the deal. In response to it you said GW (how I personally don't consider conservative. But I won't argue that point.) signed a law that allowed hate crimes to be tracked. Maybe he signed that law because he wanted the statistics to prove there is no such thing. That's just as valid an arguement as yours. So, you show me where some conservative group actually pushed hate crime legislation or where part of defining a thought control law.

You and I have no deal....... You have no integrity.

Firstly I said G H B had signed the act into law, I did follow up underneath by getting his middle intial wrong.

Secondly, I dont give a flying fuck of your opinion of G W B either, he is a Conservative through and through.

Thirdly G H B set up the act to collect the data on hate crimes, other presidents then acted on that data.

Your stupidity and your banal posts wont make you correct, not now, not next year, not ever.

The point remains Governments world wide, of both political persuassions have introduced or updated hate law crimes.

Hopefully you wont be crass enough to mention gas chambers again, but somehow I doubt it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Here was the deal. In response to it you said GW (how I personally don't consider conservative. But I won't argue that point.) signed a law that allowed hate crimes to be tracked. Maybe he signed that law because he wanted the statistics to prove there is no such thing. That's just as valid an arguement as yours. So, you show me where some conservative group actually pushed hate crime legislation or where part of defining a thought control law.

You and I have no deal....... You have no integrity.

Firstly I said G H B had signed the act into law, I did follow up underneath by getting his middle intial wrong.

Secondly, I dont give a flying fuck of your opinion of G W B either, he is a Conservative through and through.

Thirdly G H B set up the act to collect the data on hate crimes, other presidents then acted on that data.

Your stupidity and your banal posts wont make you correct, not now, not next year, not ever.

The point remains Governments world wide, of both political persuassions have introduced or updated hate law crimes.

Hopefully you wont be crass enough to mention gas chambers again, but somehow I doubt it.

One point, if I may.

GHB is a date-rape drug.

George Herbert Walker Bush would be GHWB, Bush Sr, Bush41, HDubbya, Papa Bush, etc.

Carry on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


I thought the motive here was extortion. ($40,000.00)

Thats because of your ideological blinders.

Its been pointed out in the thread already that after they got the money (and there was no motive for extortion) they poured gasoline on the boy and burned him alive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Or we could stick to facts & precedence.

Like http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blakely_v._Washington

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), held that, in the context of mandatory sentencing guidelines under state law, the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences based on facts other than those decided by the jury or admitted by the defendant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

From the caselaw you have cited, it would appear that in many circumstances in the USA, either the jury must find that the crime was motivated by hate, or the defendant must admit that they were motivated by hate, before hate crime sentencing provisions even come into consideration.

Is this a fair interpretation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/02/13/3643845/jury-finds-both-hate-crime-defendants.html

A fairly open & shut assault case, but even with racial slurs during the altercation and other proof of racial bias, the Feds couldn't get a guilty verdict on the hate crime charges.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Another useful link:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/466/

Held: The Constitution requires that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum, other than the fact of a prior conviction, must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Pp.474-497.

Apprendi v. New Jersey, decided in 2000.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/02/13/3643845/jury-finds-both-hate-crime-defendants.html

A fairly open & shut assault case, but even with racial slurs during the altercation and other proof of racial bias, the Feds couldn't get a guilty verdict on the hate crime charges.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/02/13/3643845/jury-finds-both-hate-crime-defendants.html

A fairly open & shut assault case, but even with racial slurs during the altercation and other proof of racial bias, the Feds couldn't get a guilty verdict on the hate crime charges.

Indeed. So there are quite a few hurdles, some legal, some that may be completely extraneous, like the local (anti-Fed) prejudices as is suggested in this case, that need to be cleared before any thought of a hate crime loading to the sentence becomes a possibility.

This seems to confirm all the claims about thought crimes from the far Right etc are a tad hysterical.