A judge in New York has ruled evidence of "hatred" is unnecessary for a prosecutor to pursue a "hate crimes" case against three men arrested for the death of a homosexual man.
The written ruling came from Judge Jill Konviser of the State Supreme Court in Brooklyn, and concluded prosecutors only need to show that the man, who was beaten and then hit by a vehicle in a robbery attempt, was picked because of his sexual orientation, according to a report in the New York Times.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57057
So does this mean if a jilted homosexual lover kills the other it would still be a hate crime?
So what the judge says is if a homosexual is killed it is automatically a hate crime?
This sounds more like thought control than anything else
2007-08-11 16:27:33 · 11 answers · asked by rmagedon 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes, I agree, it's thought control. Next it will be against the law to think at all.
2007-08-11 16:36:54 · answer #1 · answered by Miss Kitty 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
This judge's ruling said that the prosecutor had the authority to pursue a hate crime case against the men. It is up to a jury to decide if it was a hate crime. Hate crime laws are not thought control. They simply enhance punishment for crimes that are committed under specific circumstances. You are free to think anything you like as long as you don't commit a crime based on that thought. Your example of the gay lovers is a simple domestic issue. The killing was the result of something in their relationship, not on the issue of homosexual hatred.
2007-08-11 23:41:57 · answer #2 · answered by redphish 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No, that is the correct legal interpretation.
If the prosecution had to prove "hatred" (the emotional state), that would be punishment for thoughts.
The hate crime enhancement is based on the motivation -- the desire to attack ALL of a particular group -- and that these victims were chosen solely because they belonged to that target group.
In the jilted lover example, the target is chosen for individual characteristics -- the attack is against that specific person.
The judge ruled that the prosecutor has to show the victim's was targeted primarily because of the victim being in the target group -- which is the entire point -- to punish the targeting of individuals solely because of a non-personal characteristic (something shared by many others).
In other words, if the victim is targeted for some personal reason, it's not a hate crime. If the victim is targeted for no other reason that because he's a member of the group, that's a hate crime.
2007-08-11 23:42:47 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
The hate crime law is the most ridiculous issue ever brought about by the liberal left. It doesn't matter why someone committed a crime the fact that the crime was committed is reason enough to prosecute. It's the guy/gal who commits a crime for no apparent reason who should be feared the most. A person who commits a crime for a specific reason is at least predictable. One who commits crimes for no specific reason should be more feared because of the fact that the next victim is totally random.
2007-08-12 01:01:39 · answer #4 · answered by Iceman 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
For some strange reason, this sounds logical to me.
The defense attorney would have a hay day if the prosecution had to prove that the suspect hated the victim because of some bigotry or preconceived hatred for all similar victims, let alone prove that it was indeed the suspect who committed the crime.
Let the jury decide based on the circumstances.
Sounds fair to me.
2007-08-12 00:13:06 · answer #5 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, i agree...because if you had killed someone for their religious beliefs or because he was homosexual or whatever...he was just DIFFERENT...that proves you do not accept him...and from experience i feel it is a hate crime also...because if you intentionally kill you really, really, hate the person...WHY NOT JUST BE REASONABLE AND STAY AWAY???...if i absolutely couldn't stand someone...i would WALK AWAY...and not look at them...
2007-08-11 23:48:18 · answer #6 · answered by sweet 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That is ironic. It's also New York.
Although kind of surprised a New York judge beat a California judge to this.
2007-08-11 23:49:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
This hate crime is going to be more of a nightmare than do any good! Does it matter if my life ends because I'm white or if I just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? I'm just as dead and I'm not comming back! I agree with you!
2007-08-11 23:45:45 · answer #8 · answered by Brianne 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Well Judges can do whatever they want and police and DA's are always looking for more "ammo" to add to any existing charges to make sure SOMETHING sticks.
2007-08-12 17:14:23 · answer #9 · answered by brokenheartsyndrome 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Obviously people do not commit crimes because they are in LOVE with humanity. They do it because of greed and hate.
If someone has such an evil heart as to want to kill or rape someone...just because they do it to people of the same race or color doesn't make it any LESS of a crime.
I am not in favor of hate crime laws.
2007-08-11 23:49:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋