Teresa

I read the article and no where does it mention "hate crime." I'm not sure why you used that to make your point, which is weak. It is, and always has been, against the law to beat, torture, murder, etc. It has also against the law to, as an organization, advocate beating, torture, murder, etc. Trying to read someones mind is difficult, at best, impossible, at worst.

Does being a member of such an organization come into play when courts discuss "malicious intent?" Absolutely! It always has - even before so called "hate crime" legislation. So the "extra penalty" you talk about is lost on me and others. Judges have always had the leeway to determine malicious intent when determining sentences.

Don't pretend to read my mind and tell me what I think. No one in their right mind would "argue that demanding an extra penalty for participating in a Klan activity intended to inflame the passions of other people who would like to beat "brown" children, with the intent of recruiting them to advance the cause of being able to beat "brown" children any time they feel they want to, to incite more people to abuse minorities somehow minimizes the horrible nature of beating any child." or that I "don't think that using the beating of a child to inflame passions against minorities, promote membership in a hate organization, make a political statement, and incite and embolden further violence adds any kind of demension to the crime that should change the nature of the punishment."

Those are rediculous assumptions. What you are advocating is removing the power from judges to determine, on a case-by-case basis - as determined by the evidence of each individual case, what punishment is handed down. What you are advocating is the practically the removal of judges all together! I can see this case being sentenced in your "perfect" court room now: "Let's just look up what the offense is on this chart here, hmmmm, brutal beating of a minor. That's 4 years. Member of a "hate" organization? hmmmm KKK - yes here it is, that's in the list of "hate" organizations. Ok - uh - yeah - the KKK is listed as a level 1 hate organization, that's gonna add 5 years. Ok, let's add it up, 4 years + 2 for being part of a "hate" organization and + 5 for being level 1. See you in 11 years! Oh wait, you aren't a member, you were just associating with them on that day. hmmm - aha! Here it is, association with level 1 hate group members at the time of the crime - 4 years. Hey, you get a year off just for that. You know, you have only received 4 years if only you weren't associating with the KKK. Heck, if you were a member of "Latino Haters R We" - it would have been 7 years. They're only a level 4 hate group. It's all right here on these sentencing charts. It's out of my hands."

How silly is that? Every case has situations and circumstances that are - and should be - considered. It is the Judges job - or the jurrys' - to determine how to weigh the circumstances relevant to the case being considered.

Mark,

When you say "no one" argues that hate crime legislation minimises the crimes against other victims, you are joking right? You read Neil's site, for instance, where he has actually said that going out to murder some who is say, homosexual, BECAUSE they are homosexual should carry the same penalty as a murder in the course of say, a robbery...and that doing otherwise suggestes that murdering a straight man is less important than murdering a gay man. I'm sure you must be aware of the arguments over at Townhall, for another instance. Good greif! Such arguments are ubiquitous. You can find them any day of the week.

"Don't pretend to read my mind and tell me what I think" Did I say "Mark thinks this"? No. I believe I left it pretty specific that SOME people think this.

"malicious intent?" that in no way addresses the nature of the crime. "Malicious intent" still indicateds that it is a crime between individuals. That doesn't address that the crime is a political action meant to cause fear and social unrest, and incite further violence.

Where do I say that judges should be stripped of their judgement? How does giving a judge another tool,and MORE flexibility and opportunity to exersise thier judgement take away their judgement and turn justice into a formula? Weird that you would argue it that way as most of the anti-hate crime arguments are the opposite: claiming that it leaves TOO MUCH to the judge's discretion and therefore makes "activist judges" more of a problem.

It's the right that wants to take the judgement out of the judge's job...accusing people of being "activist judges" when the subtlies of the law and the individual circumsances of the cases to go a different way than they would like.

I might also add that "minimum sentancing guidlines" were originally a conservative "tough on crime" baby. But was that a popular tool against Democrats at campaign time...don't you remember? Before we had "Liberals are soft on terrorism" we had "Liberals are soft on crime" for opposing minimum sentancing guidelines.

After all, if the numbers of prisoners dropped, we wouldn't be able to see all those Halliburton subsidiaries raking in the bucks for private prison contracts.

Of course, the idea was so well-marketed that the Dems have jumped on the band-wagon as well, so the continuation of it is everyone's fault.

OT: How did Halliburton enter this topic? Who is making Halliburton rich? I'll tell you - your precious big government, that's who.

I'd be interested to know what the statistics are that prove that hate crime legislation actually minimzes crime.

You want to prevent crimes like the one you cited? Don't prosecute the guy who pulls his legally concealed weapon and blows one or two of the people doing the beating away! They (the beaters) get what they obviously deserve. To really drive the point home to other would-be beaters, pay for the kids medical bills and punitive damages from the estates of the now deceased beaters. I guess there's just too much common sense in that tyipe of legislation, though.

Mark,

If you really don't know How Halliburton (as an example of a number of corporations with subsidieries who profit from private prisons)got into this conversation, then you've got the blinders on so tight, there's no sense in spending any more time on the subject. There is TONS of information out there. Just go find it.

As for vigilante justice, I'm pretty sure that "Judge Dredd" isn't mentioned in the constitution.

As for the probelms with the current administration, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that a small government is the answer, whereas I would much prefer an accountable government.