It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The creeping expansion of "Hate Crimes" laws.

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 08:53 PM
A New York DA is using the state's vaguely worded "Hate Crimes" law to increase the sentences of criminals whose crimes were in no way motivated by hate.

The Long Arm of Hate Crime Law Grows Longer

Think you know what a hate crime is? Think again.

According to a June 22 report in the New York Times, if someone defrauds elderly people in Queens, N.Y., he may very well be brought up on hate crime charges in addition to fraud charges simply because he committed his crimes under the belief that old folks are easy marks. Furthermore, this novel use of hate crime law has proved so successful in obtaining stiffer sentences for convicted criminals that it is likely to be adopted across the state of New York, and from there, no doubt, to other states with similarly flexible hate crime statutes.

New York’s hate crime law, while obviously intended to create tougher penalties for crimes motivated by animus toward a particular group of people, is (intentionally?) vague enough to permit just this sort of chicanery. The law, writes the Times, “says prosecutors must prove only a crime was committed ‘because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person’” in order to convict the accused of a hate crime and sentence him to prison time. Thus, people who have targeted the elderly “because they believed older people would be easy to deceive and might have substantial savings or home equity,” as the Times puts it, can be charged with hate crimes.

Read more: The New American

The story says that criminals who bilked the elderly were getting off with light sentences so the DA started using the "hate crime" statute to make them pay.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It's hard to argue against to sticking it to people who bilk the elderly but, wouldn't it be better to change the larceny laws instead?

These "Hate Crime" laws creep me out. Who cares WHY someone did the crime? The law is supposed to look at the facts of the case and punish the offender based upon what they DID, not what they were thinking.

These laws are TPTB's way of slowly squeezing away our freedom of speech.

[edit on 6/24/10 by FortAnthem]

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 09:12 PM

We here in SC beat you to hate crime laws by a few years. They got implemented here primarily because of a family, who lost a son whom happened to be gay, from a one on one bar fight. It was a freak accident at best. The family was NOT happy with the sentence handed down to the man.

The thing that worries me about these laws is that they can be stapled to any crime. Someone picks a fight with you, you defend yourself, and boom all of a sudden you both get charged but you do 10x the amount of time because the guy was a minority.

Welcome to affirmative action for the legal system.

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 09:42 PM
I for one think the concept of "hate" crimes is silly. We do not need these special laws. Vandalism, assault, battery, murder, and other illegal acts that fall under the hate crimes umbrella are already crimes. Law enforcement should just go after thuggish behavior regardless of whether it is motivated by "hate" or something else.

As an aside, can someone give me an example of a "love" crime? Nobody beats someone with a bat or desecrates their house of worship out of love.

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 09:48 PM
Hate crime laws are unconstitutional and need to be eradicated immediately.

Unfortunately, a large number of people think with emotion and not intelligence, so I dont think they will be going away anytime soon regardless of what the Constitution says.

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 09:53 PM
They need to make the penalties stiffer to deter the crime in the first place...we don't need hate crime "multipliers".

Now I'm wondering....If you hate the federal reserve and then go around robbing banks...would that constitute a hate crime?

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 10:08 PM

Originally posted by brainwrek
Hate crime laws are unconstitutional and need to be eradicated immediately.

Unfortunately, a large number of people think with emotion ...

EXACTLY! The whole idea of a hate crime is redundant. The concept is just another creation of TPTB to further divide people.

For people of color* to allow such laws only helps to subjugate them further and keep them in the victim mentality.

*edit to clarify: and include whichever class or category is used in defense of 'hate crime.'

[edit on 24-6-2010 by Wolf321]

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 10:35 PM
crimes against the elderly and/or disabled.

In my book throw away the key and let them rot in jail.

I don't care what they use to enhance the sentence just let them rot.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by ANNED]

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 10:47 PM
reply to post by ANNED

It's that kind of thinking there that undermines the judiciary system and allows laws like this to exist. Crimes are crimes. The minute we start deeming them more heinous against a certain group of people is the moment we create inequality. If there is a crime that is any less heinous against one certain group of people, those people need to rise up and demand equality.

I've thought it for years, and been afraid to say it, but it's becoming more true by the day.

If you're a white male between the age of 18 and 60 then you are the new minority and will not get treated fairly.

One law for all, or you will never get rid of discrimination.

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 10:54 PM
How can a human emotion be a crime?

Hate isn't a positive thing, but neither are laws run amok.

It seems like society goes through these moronic spasms of self-righteous puritanical fury and paranoid legislation every now and then...the witch burnings, McCarthyism, etc. The good news is they usually end. The bad news is they usually end badly.

posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 04:45 AM
One thing I've never understood is that motive doesn't have to be proven to prosecute someone, and yet with "hate crime" laws, motive can be taken into account when handing down a sentence.

How the hell does that make sense?

On the one hand, they're saying motive is irrelevant and doesn't even need to be proven to convict, and on the other they're saying it does matter and can have a bearing on the punishment doled out.

It either is relevant and should have to be proven to convict, or it isn't relevant and should have no bearing on the sentencing phase.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 05:46 AM
as a heterosexual white male, hate crime laws scare me. If I have any kind of altercation it had better be with someone just like me or watch out.

But these laws are such BS. If I rob a bank to feed my family or to feed a drug habit the punishment is the same. Who cares WHY someone beats someone up or murders someone. Murder is murder is murder.

posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 06:05 AM
So called 'Hate crimes' are being used to gag people and it won't stop untill you not allowed to say anything against any politician or group.

Zionists introduce the first one where it is ilegal to question the number of people killed by hittler and a lot more laws like this will follow.

You have freedom of speach or you don't have freedom of speach no matter what people thing and to this end i think Elvis lives on the moon but he hates green cheese.

new topics

top topics


log in