hate crime laws...good or bad?

[bobbobbins]

hey all, i'd like to hear some arguments for and against the hate crime laws. I'd have to say I'm against them right now. Seems to me that its border line thought crime. Feel free to make me change my mind.

[immoderate]

1. Not me!

Thought crime is the phrase I always think of when I hear about hate crime.

We should punish acts. Going elsewhere is dangerous. The key is to follow the law and not ignore crimes against minorities.

--IMM

[bobbobbins]

3. then whats your opinion on the varying degrees of murder...

should there be a diferentiation between murder one and two?

[immoderate]

A different question.

Should a homophobe or racist get different treatment for committing a crime than a "liberal"?

--IMM

[MemphisTiger]

2. I think they are good.

When someone hurts, terrorizes or kills another person based on something like race, religion or sexual orientation that is wrong. It's not like the people that killed Matthew Shepard feared for their life. They killed him because he was different.

[bobbobbins]

5. so if you have a reason to kill that isn't quite as hateful...

you should get less time?

[MemphisTiger]

127. What I meant was the killers were not acting

out of self defense. That's all. Also, these people that killed Matthew Shepard did have a reason, they hated homosexuals.

[K-W]

6. Right it was premeditaded murder, but we already have a law against that.

We already have laws that destinguish between self-defence, manslaughter, and murder.

The issue is, should there be a destinction between murder and murder due to hate of a group.

[DrWeird]

There's other hate crimes than murder.

Murder already has that nice distinction between first and second degree, and manslaughter.


There's also a major difference between leaving a flaming bag of dog poop on somebody's lawn, and leaving a flaming cross on somebody's lawn.

[bobbobbins]

16. unless you left that bag of dog poop out of hate

[DrWeird]

18. Now you're just being phony.

Doesn't seem like you want a real discussion on the topic.

[bobbobbins]

20. im not being phony...

a small crime can still be a crime committed out of hate

[DrWeird]

21. Yes, you're being phony.

You're essentially comparing a halloween prank with a cross-burning.

[bobbobbins]

29. you made the initial comparison...

[DrWeird]

32. No, read again.

I'm saying that one is vandalism, the other's a hate crime.

But to you there's no such thing as a hate crime and their both just vandalism.

[bobbobbins]

43. and im saying that...

the act of vandalism through dog poop could still be a hate crime

[Madrone]

39. The difference.

The best way I've found to describe the difference between "regular crime" and "hate crime" is simple. It's terrorism. A hate crime does not only affect the direct victim, it affects (and terrorizes) an entire GROUP of people.

If some "random guy" picks up a black person on the side of the road and kills him after taking his money, that's a CRIME. If a nazi-skinhead is driving around hunting "negroes" for a good old fashioned lynching, that's a HATE CRIME. An entire group of people would be left living in fear that they or a loved one could be next. That's terrorism. THAT is a hate crime.

[MemphisTiger]

128. Thank you for summing up what I was thinking

[One_Life_To_Give]

131. Your Definition also fits

The "Son of Sam" killings in New York. But I don't think we would call that a hate crime today?

[KatieCouric2008]

8. Hate crimes are the worst ones!

When the motive for committing a crime is to steal something, the object of the crime is to get something. When the motive for a crime is to remove something that they hate, simply because they hate it - it is a totally different situation.

As a woman, I feel discrimination on a daily basis. I am treated like a second class citizen just because of the gender I was born. Now if someone assaulted me simply because I am female, doesn't that seem worse than someone assaulting me because I had a purse with valuable (hypothetically here) things in it - and they wanted it?

No question in my mind which is worse.

[bobbobbins]

14. i tend to disagree

if you get attacked just for being a woman, he hates that you're a woman...if you get attacked for a purse...maybe he hates the fact that you have something he wants...either way they both seem fueled by hate

[K-W]

17. Muggers dont hate, they just want money.

You are stretching alot here.

And hate crimes arent about the emotion. You need to look past the term we use to describe it a bit.

[bobbobbins]

23. im stretching...

but whos to say what thought process they used...perhaps this person really has a thing against people in better economic shape than him...hence its class based hate crime.

[K-W]

28. You need to read the legislation, clearly you are misinformed.

You seem to be under the impression that hate crimes are about the emotion of hate. They arent.

Hate Crime is just a term we use to describe this particular issue.

[bobbobbins]

36. i understand that...what im saying is...

and im not misinformed...hate crime legislation is used to punish people who act out because of hate for a particular group...the upper class are a group...so if you hate their standing, that should be a hate crime

[K-W]

44. No, you dont understand.

Hate crime legislation is not in any way directly related to the emotion of hate.

It creates a destinction between certain acts criminally, the exact destinctions depend on the law, so go read the laws. But it is not based on emotion, it is, like all law, based upon a certain set of actions that legislators have deamed worthy of criminal destinction, that is all. It is not weird or abnormal in the slightest.

[bobbobbins]

53. no, you don't understand

the definition of a hate crime...The US Congress (HR 4797 - 1992) defined a hate crime as: " the defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals."

[K-W]

55. You just proved me right.

You can committ a hate crime without hating anybody. And you can hate someone with a passion when killing them and have not committed a hate crime.

The emotion of hate in the crime has nothing to do with it.

[bobbobbins]

59. no...i just proved you wrong....

im saying bias prejudice and hate can all be applied to class as well as race, color, religion...which was the initial point to begin with.

[K-W]

Did you read the law you posted?

Prejudice and hate can be applied to class as well as race, color, and religion.

That really has nothing to do with this discussion, it certainly wasnt the topic of this thread.

Hate crimes have nothing to do with whether the person who committed them hates the victim. If you dont see that, you arent reading the law right.

[DrWeird]

64. You're wasting your time.

I think he's being purposely facetious.

[bobbobbins]

68. you're making no sense now

re-read the thread...gather your thoughts and come back with something coherent...and you're getting hung up on the way the laws are written and not seeing the ideas behind the laws themselves. We were arguing the difference between attacking someone over color, and over money, and im saying that one can be prejudiced(hateful biased, whatever symantic term you get hung up on), over class, which would in essence be another form of hate crime.

[K-W]

70. If you cant figure out what I am saying, ask for clarfication.

I can assure you I am being perfectly coharent and I have carefully read everything in this discussion.

Where are you getting confused?

[bobbobbins]

71. I understand the sentences you're slinging together...

but you're missing the initial point of our argument and going way off base. Focus Daniel San Focus!

[K-W]

74. Please realize that you are the one confused.

I will be happy to try and explain this to you for as long as it takes. But im certainly not going to sit here and have you mock me because you cant follow a discussion.

The issue is Hate Crimes, good or bad. Thus the definition of a hate crime is VERY relevent. Wether or not someone can be predjudiced against class is not at all relevent.

[bobbobbins]

76. the argument was presented at the very beginning of the thread...

and i've repeated it twice afterwards...stay on the ball, eye on the prize...we're talking about class as a hate crime...

[K-W]

80. Here is the exact text of your post.

bobbobbins (160 posts) Tue Nov-23-04 01:21 PM
Original message
hate crime laws...good or bad?


hey all, i'd like to hear some arguments for and against the hate crime laws. I'd have to say I'm against them right now. Seems to me that its border line thought crime. Feel free to make me change my mind.

------------------------

I will give you 100$ if you can find the part of this post that brings up the possibility of a hate crime based upon class conflict.

[bobbobbins]

84. you sir need to read ahead...

that was the beginning, but not the beginning of our argument...our argument began with my assertation that stealing someones purse out of hate for rich people is a hate crime

[K-W]

86. Yes, you did go off topic.

This thread was about hate crimes. You went off on a tangent about class as a source of prejudice and bias. I wanted to stick to the topic of the thread, you insisted that class was the topic of this thread, I proved you wrong.

Where are you getting confused?

[bobbobbins]

89. i insisted that class was the topic of our argument, which it was

try to keep up

[K-W]

93. No, class was not the topic, HATE CRIMES WERE THE TOPIC

You tried to discuss class. Which was NOT the topic. I didnt want to discuss class.

Yes, class was the topic YOU wanted to discuss, it was NOT the topic of our discussion.

[bobbobbins]

101. im sorry...i didn't realize arguments could evolve

(or devolve in your case)...when you joined in, i was talking about hate crime as related to class, you decided to argue, i apologize that you couldn't understand that the topic moved to one of the many arguable points about hate crime. Maybe in the future you should see where a conversation has headed instead of looking at where it was.

[K-W]

105. Once again you lie about our discussion.

bobbobbins (166 posts) Tue Nov-23-04 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #8

14. i tend to disagree


if you get attacked just for being a woman, he hates that you're a woman...if you get attacked for a purse...maybe he hates the fact that you have something he wants...either way they both seem fueled by hate


----------

That was the post I responded to in this string. It doesnt bring up class at all.

[bobbobbins]

108. Once again you argue symantics...

if you get attacked for a purse...maybe he hates the fact that you have something he wants...this statement outlines the basis for a class argument...if you can't see that, then i think its time to just let it go...

[K-W]

112. So you dont understand class issues either?

The absurd idea that robbery is motivated by hatred of thos who have things you want does not infer class conflict.

You are stretching again.

This discussion is over, it is painfully obvious your intention here is to argue no matter what is being said.

[bobbobbins]

118. it could quite easily infer class conflict.

you don't know the motives of the robber

[bobbobbins]

81. so its ok to exclude some groups from hate crime laws?

only certain groups are deemed hate worthy enough to have their own set of laws?

[K-W]

83. No, the law applies equally to everyone.

What on earth are you talking about?

[bobbobbins]

92. the law doesn't apply equally to everyone...

there are alot of groups which could be hated on, that aren't included in the definition

[K-W]

98. So?

The law applies equally to everyone.

If anyone kills someone because of a bias against thier race, they are guilty of a hate crime.

The person on either end of that transaction could be any american citizen. Everyone is equal under this law. You are confused.

[leftyandproud]

138. The question is WHETHER SOME PEOPLE ARE WORTH MORE THAN OTHERS.

THAT is the issue my friends.

Who is to say that a black man doesn't kill a white man because he hates whites? How are you going to PROVE this, the way you prove it the other way?

And REGARDLESS of the motivation...does a dead black man killed by a white racist worth MORE than a dead black man killed by black punks?

Should the white murderer get a harsher sentence than the black murderer? Why is one life worth more than another when it comes to punishing the criminal?

It isn't...and that makes hate crime laws very very bad.

[immoderate]

111. It works both ways.

If you beat up a Nazi, because you hate everything they stand for, should you get a bigger penalty than a casual offender?

--IMM

[K-W]

116. It is up to the lawmakers to decide the specifics.

It would depend on exactly what groups were included in the legislation.

[immoderate]

125. Yeah, it's that subjectivity that bothers me.

There was a time when women, blacks, and gays were fair game.

I reiterate that it's actions that should be punished. If the crime (murder, robbery, rape) is accompanied by terrorist activities (threats, cross burnings) then those should be punished too.

Otherwise, what might be a prank, for one perp, would be a felony for someone else, perhaps because he checked some books out of the library.

--IMM

[K-W]

62. ignore, dupe

dupe

[UpsideDownFlag]

4. *ducks*

nt

[AllegroRondo]

7. The problem with "hate crimes"

is that we are asking a jury to look into the mind of the defendant and punish them for WHY they committed a crime. Can a jury ever really read the defendants mind?

If you murder someone, you should be punished for murder. It shouldn't matter that you murdered them because they were black, or because they were a cowboys fan, or because they shortchanged you in the checkout line. Murder is murder, punish it accordingly.

[livinginphotographs]

22. Why they committed the crime?

Isn't that what first- or second-degree murder is? We have to determine whether the murder was premeditated or committed as an impulsive act.

The reason for hate crime legislation is this: burning a cross in someone's yard does not just leave a nasty mess to clean up. It's intended to intimidate. Just like I can't call you every day and threaten to kill you, it should be a separate crime more severe than trespassing for not just intimidating one family, but every family in the neighborhood that might be of the targeted ethnicity.

[K-W]

33. You are arguing for a total change in our legal system.

You are operating under the false assumption that our justice system doesnt constantly ask jurors to make judgements about what is going on in peoples minds.

It is already a big part of the legal system. Just look at the difference between murder and manslaughter.

[Redleg]

115. Good point but sometimes it is pretty clear what the motivation was.

Burning a cross in a black family's lawn for example.

[UdoKier]

9. I disagree with them. I don't think intent is relevant.

The only time intent should be relevant is when you kill out of self-defense or something like that.

I don't think killing someone "because he/she is black/jewish/lesbian/whatever" is worse than killing someone because you just don't like them personally. A murder is a murder.

By the same token, I don't think finding your wife in bed with another man is any excuse for killing them, either.

[K-W]

12. so you dont believe there should be manslaughter and murder?

You think that we should change our laws to make them blind of intent?

[livinginphotographs]

25. The intent is very relevant.

Just like I said above, the intent of hate crimes is to intimidate, and the intimidation doesn't end when the burning cross is extinguished.

By one act (i.e. burning a cross), you are attempting to not just intimidate one family but to intimidate an entire ethnicity. To me, that's no different than sending a letter with fake anthrax, or calling someone and threatening to kill or hurt them.

Hate crime laws are a good thing...

[UdoKier]

40. When you kill someone, the intent is to kill them.

The intimidation is a separate crime, and I believe it is already a crime. Isn't it called "terrorism" when you burn a cross, or some such thing?

I don't object to making intimidation or terrorizing people a crime, but "minorities" shouldn't have special status. (IE burning an effigy that says "honky" in front of a white person's house would be the same as burning a cross in front of a black person's house)

Also, there needs to be an implied threat.

If someone drives by and yells "FAG!" out a car window, that is not a hate crime. It is mean, and rude, but it is protected under the constitution.

But if someone says "You're a fag, and you know what we do to fags around here?", then a threat is implied and should be treated as a crime.


But the crime is not the slurs, it's the threat. The minute I take away some thug's right to say "fag"< I give up the right to say "fundie scumbag", and I'm not ready to give that up.

[K-W]

48. So we must change our entire legal system?

Now everytime you cause someone to die, it must be the exact same crime?

So if I hit someone accidentally with my car, I should do the same time as someone who murders a child for fun?

[UdoKier]

57. Of course not.

Obviously intent matters when you are talking about whether or not the criminal intended to kill at all in the first place!

Of course when you get pissed drunk and hop in the car and kill someone, that's a gray area. Certainly worse than just misjudging traffic while sober. You make a conscious choice to get drunk without a ride home, then to get in the car drunk.


But I thought we were talking about "hate crimes", not accidents.

[K-W]

60. You arent being consistant.

Either it is wrong to make those destinctions, in which case we should remove the destinction in the case of murder/manslaughter, or it isnt wrong, in which case your argument against hate crime legislation is a bit null.

[UdoKier]

72. I don't think so.

An accident is an accident.

A negligent accident is a negligent accident.

And a murder is a murder. They are three very different things.

Why is it okay to kill your wife when you're mad, but not okay to poison her with strycchnine for several months? I fail to see how one is worse than the other.

No matter how angry I get, I never have "forgotten" that it's wrong and illegal to kill someone.

Anyway, we're getting way off topic.

I disagree with punishing crimes against minorities differently than crimes against anyone else.

Matthew Shepard's killer deserves life in prison. I would feel the same way about it if he was straight and killed for his wallet

My friend Allen Schindler was killed by gay bashers in a public bathroom. I thought his killers deserved life in prison, too. The fact that Allen was gay was a motivating factor in why they killed him, but it doesn't change the end result.

I just don't see why threatening, or hurting, or killing a member of a minority group is any different than threatening, or hurting, or killing a non-minority person (whatever the hell that is).

[K-W]

79. You are asking for a complete revision of our murder laws.

The destinction between manslaughter and murder is not whether or not it was an accident.

The issue is whether or not it was pre-meditated. Which, just like a hate crime is a judgement on intent as well as action.

"I disagree with punishing crimes against minorities differently than crimes against anyone else."

Clearly you dont understand the issue then. I can committ a hate crime against white people. It has nothing to do with minority status. It has to do with whether or not the crime was motivated by the victim being a member of an ethnic/gender/etc group that the perpetrator is biased against.

[UdoKier]

97. Butt committing a crime against a white person isn't wrong because...

...the person is white. It's wrong because it's a person. "Screaming "Whitey!" while doing it doesn't make it any better or worse.

"The destinction between manslaughter and murder is not whether or not it was an accident."

Wrong. the dictionary says:

"Manslaughter - The unlawful killing of one human by another without express or implied intent to do injury."

Murder is when there IS intent to kill or do injury.

And yes, if things were as I'd prefer, the laws would be different, but I don't expect them to change anytime soon. I'm simply talking about what I think is right.

I've made my point pretty clearly, we're starting to go around in circles.

You want to judge murders on subjective basis based on your won set of morals and prejudices.

I prefer to be as objective as possible.

[K-W]

103. Do you have any intention of approaching this with an open mind?

You can committ a hate crime against anyone. I dont know why you dont understand this. You are buying a big bucked of racist talking points. If a black person killed a white person because he thought white people should die. It would be a hate crime.

"Murder is when there IS intent to kill or do injury."
You are right, I had a mental lapse and confused the destinction between murder and manslaughter with the destinctions between different kinds of murders.

Regardless, my point stands, our legal system already makes destinctions based on premeditation.

"You want to judge murders on subjective basis based on your won set of morals and prejudices."

You obviously have no idea what hate crime legislation is, because you have chosen to believe lies about it. It isnt anymore subjective than any other criminal destinction. Nobody wants to judge anyone subjectively based on their own values. Just like any crime, we want people judged objectively based upon laws.

"I prefer to be as objective as possible."
This has nothing to do with objectivity.

[immoderate]

120. Pre meditation is an ACT!

That can be proven to a jury. Planning a murder is a crime in itself. The murder does not have to take place.

Hate, with no action, is not a crime.

--IMM

[gtp1976]

136. Can you please elaborate on this?

How is planning a murder a crime if you never go through with the act? At what point would you have to stop before it wasn't yet a crime. Unless you can clarify this, it certainly does sound a lot like thought policing to me.

It reminds me of a story I heard from another country about a guy that was going to rob a bank, but passed out (alcohol related) while still sitting in his car with the mask, the bag, and the gun. He was charged with attempted robbery. How is this possible when he never actually attempted to rob anyone?

If someone makes me angry on the telephone, and after hanging up I get a baseball bat and start over to their house to bash their brains in, but decide halfway there that it might not be a good idea and go back home, am I guilty of premeditation under your definition? I planned the murder, I just never acted on it.

[immoderate]

140. You may have me there.

I was thinking of conspiracy to commit. Which is punishable even if the act is not carried out.

In a way though, you reinforce my overall argument. The act of carrying the baseball bat with you indicates premeditation if the crime is committed. As opposed to an impulsive act.

--IMM

[gtp1976]

141. one more clarification...

Punishable if the act is simply not carried out or is stopped before it can be carried out? What if a person or a group of persons just decides to abort the plan? Is it still considered conspiracy to commit?

[immoderate]

143. That I don't know

It makes sense that if the plan is aborted, no one will prosecute. But that doesn't mean they're immune from prosecution, IMO.

A lawyer would have to give you an answer. But if you ask two lawyers...

--IMM

[bigbear]

10. Hate Crimes

What would happen If I killed a redheaded person beacause I
hate the color red. Is that a hate crime ??

[K-W]

13. That isn't a realistic example, that would just make you crazy.

nt

[bigbear]

24. kw

Then who will decide what panel will nominate what committee,who will
appropriate what caucus, that will convene what agency, that will ultimately decide who is hate-worthy and who is not.

What a slippery slope

[K-W]

38. You arent terribly familar with the legal system are you?

The entire reason we have a legal system is to make such destinctions. It is what the judiciary does, it makes the judgement of applying laws to events, that is the only reason we have a judiciary.

Asking the legal system to make such destinctions is perfectly reasonable, you rely on a misinterpretation of our system to make your rhetorical point.

[bigbear]

52. brrrr.............. scary reasoning

[K-W]

58. I'll tell the founding fathers you dont approve.

Im sorry you dont like the US legal system.

[bigbear]

87. Wrong ..I like it exactly the way it is.

I just don't want to leave open ended ambiguities in the hands of revisionsist judges

[DrWeird]

90. LOL.

It's funny when people misspell freeper codewords.

[bigbear]

99. new to this board..what is a freeper ??

[K-W]

106. The kind of people who whine about activist judges

without even a basic understanding of our legal system.

IE, movement conservatives.

[bigbear]

109. I'm confused..are you accusing me of being a conservative ??

When I read the rules of the board it said that no flaming was allowed. Your posts seem very snippy.

[K-W]

113. I didnt post, i clarified the post.

I dont know whether you are a conservative or not. But your post was conservative talking points.

If it was unintentional, cheers, Im glad you found this site, we can debunk that kind of thinking.

[bigbear]

119. cool

I just think that judges should enforce and apply the law.
Not set policy.

[bigbear]

I'm confused..are you accusing me of being a conservative ??

When I read the rules of the board it said that no flaming was allowed. Your posts seem very snippy.

[bigbear]

110. I'm confused..are you accusing me of being a conservative ??

When I read the rules of the board it said that no flaming was allowed. Your posts seem very snippy.

[immoderate]

122. Bigbear, relax.

Sometimes heated discussions strain our own rules. People with low post counts are vulnerable. I didn't read your comments as conservative talking points, but then again, I'm on the same side as you in this thread.

Welcome to DU! Wear your galoshes.

--IMM

[bigbear]

130. Thanks IM..Iappreciate the kind words.

[K-W]

96. As I said, you clearly have no clue how our legal system works.

Probably because you get your information from some corrupt conservative source.

Luckily I payed attention in high school social studies class.

[Dorian Gray]

35. It would be a terrible excuse

because Red Hair isn't quite red.... it's more auburny or orangey/gold. I'm a red head!

[bigbear]

47. sorry...... I do like orangy.

[atreides1]

11. My Take on It

I have to disagree with your premise, you cannot be punished for what you think, whether you hate Catholics, Jews, Blacks, Gays, Whites, Asians or people who wear glasses.

The crime is not that you might hate these particular groups, the crime is when you bring your thoughts to fruition by lashing out.

It's not that you hate Catholics that's a crime, but if you fire bomb a Catholic church because of that hatred, then you have committed a crime.

So you see, you are free to hate anyone or anything that you choose, as long as you do not make that hatred physical.

I don't really think this will change your mind, but it gives you something to think about.

[KatieCouric2008]

19. I can't beleive what I am reading here

The general consensus so far in this thread is that if someone kills another person because they are of a different race or gender, that it is no worse than killing for the sake of killing?

I don't understand how you can comapre the two? Using that logic, for Hitler to committ mass executions of Jews is no worse than the US soldiers killing Germans during WWII.

You need to stop and read what you're writing!!

[immoderate]

123. Ah! But what if you hate the enemy? Then it's a crime.

And what if Hitler could show that exterminating Jews was merely for political expediency, and that he really didn't hate them. Does he get leniency?

--IMM

[Lautremont]

15. I don't know how you guys define hate crimes down there,

but here it usually refers to something like spraying swastikas on a synagogue or publishing homophobic rants. Things like that. Canada has fairly stringent hate crime laws and I've never felt the fetid breath of the thought police on the back of my neck.

[DrWeird]

27. That's what it means down here too.

It's just some people think bigotry isn't a serious issue and to make light of the situation they use the literal interpretation of the words "hate crime."

[bigbear]

30. so what if someone sprayed a palestinian flag on a temple.

Is that a hate crime ??

[mongo]

34. That is a good distinction

I think that having increase penaties for violent crime is a good idea.

But the way "hate crime" has been implimented in Canada is to punish speech that is not politically correct.

[Lautremont]

45. "Political correctness" is a construction of the right.

It was in fact implemented to punish hate crimes.

[Behind the Aegis]

26. As I see it

We are not asking for thought to be monitored. However, the motive is being called into question. Sometimes gay people get robbed, it may not be a hate crime. BUT, sometimes, gay people are the TARGET. IF a person has targeted someone because they are gay, black, whatever, then it also carries a bigger message, as it is not just the individual that is terrorized.

The problem with hate crimes, is that it sometimes gets misused. This only creates confusion. Adding on additional years because you targeted your victim because of hate, IMO, deserves a few extra years!

[bigbear]

37. Then how would THEY who ever that might be, determine if it's a hate crime

Would they audit what movies you rented, what you viewed on-line ?
Maybe come into your house to see what king of books you read ?

SHUDDER

[Behind the Aegis]

46. It is usually easy

As I said, sometimes, the hate crime statues get misused. However, when a person burns a cross in a yard or beats someone while screaming "I hate faggots," I think it is pretty easy to assume that hate was a factor in the crime.

[bigbear]

50. agreed

But follow me here...What if he beat up a gay man not knowing he was gay while screaming I hate you you son-----ch,as---le.
Is that still a hate crime. It just seems to leave so many vague areas

[Behind the Aegis]

54. no, that would not be a hate crime

If the attacker chose a random person that happen to be gay, that would NOT be a hate crime. However, sometimes, people mistakenly label it one and therein lies a problem. The men who murdered Matthew Shepard murdered him BECAUSE he was gay. Well, actually, they robbed him because he was gay. They even admitted that they targeted him because he was a "fag." To me, that is a hate crime.

[K-W]

65. Hate crimes are not about the emotion of hate!!!!!

Why do so many people have opinions on this issue when they dont even know what the issue is?

You can committ a hate crime without actually hating the victim when the crime is committed. And you can hate the vitim intensly and never go near a hate crime.

[bigbear]

85. Huh ???

[K-W]

88. Educate yourself on what hate crimes are.

They are not based on whether crime is committed with the emotion of hate.

They are based on whether it was motivated by hate, bias, or prejudice for groups based on certain charecteristics.

[K-W]

51. The same way they determine anything in a court.

Evidence + Law = conclusion

This doesnt ask judges and juries to do anything they didn't already do.

[bigbear]

56. and how will they GET the evidence

about what you were thinking at the time ??

[DrWeird]

67. The usually ways evidence is collected.

There's a large swastika painted on the wall at the scene of the crime, or a witness hearing the perp shout "go home, nigger" as he beat the victim.

[K-W]

69. I find most of it is gathered by the police in most cases.

You do realize that in every single case ever in the history of court the jury has been asked to make judgements about things they have no way of knowing for certain.

Lets say someone killed a black person. You could prove it was a hate crime by presenting letters from the defendent to a friend where he discussed his belief that black people should be killed because they are an inferior race.

that would be evidence of a hate crime, no different than any other kind of evidence

[m berst]

135. "they"

"They" is a jury of your peers when you are charged with a crime. And yes, when people commit crimes, the prosecution may well obtain a warrant to search your house, and if things are found there that are germane to the case, they may be introduced. A judge will decide what is and what isn't admissible, and a jury will ultimately decide their relevance to your guilt or innocence of the charge.

Intent and motive are relevant in just about every criminal investigation and prosecution, are they not?

[UpsideDownFlag]

31. Wow, this didnt take long to flame. nt

[Forkboy]

42. It's a sensitive subject

For me there's merits to both sides of the argument.

[SmokingJacket]

41. I believe in the power of judges and juries to consider each

crime individually. Certainly hate should be a factor to consider, because a "hate crime" terrorizes a whole group of people in addition to the individual victim. But if a guy kills a woman because he hates women, it might not be any worse if he killed her, for example, because he just felt like killing someone that day. They're both horrible motives that show no respect for human life.

Killing someone because he's ugly is pretty bad, too.

And there's certainly a difference between a cross burning and a flaming bag of poo: it's the implied threat to the peace and harmony of a whole community.

I think the danger is in trying to make the laws simple and absolute.

[K-W]

49. Hate Crimes arent crimes of hate people. Seriously, figure this out.

Hate is just a word we use in the lable, that is all. Hate crimes have to do with a certain type of crime, not a crime committed with a certain emotion.

[bobbobbins]

61. you're arguing a symantic point

which has no value to the arguement as a whole

[K-W]

73. So you dont think the definition of a hate crime has value in this?

You have a queer sense of relevence.

Im sorry that you, and several others formed opinions about hate crime legislation under false impressions. Why dont you listen to those of us on this thread trying to help you figure it out rather than just repeatedly accosting those who point out your mistakes.

[bobbobbins]

75. you keep saying we're wrong...yet you don't give us the right answer

please oh wise one...enlighten me on what the correct impression of hate crime legislation is.

[K-W]

82. You pasted the text of a hate crime law earlier, its right there.

You seem to be misreading the legislation, but it is there just the same.

[bigbear]

94. anyone

with a different viewpoint is mistaken ???!!!??

[K-W]

100. No, those of you who made mistakes are mistaken.

I thought I made that relatively clear.

[bobbyboucher]

63. Sorry, but that's just a dumb question.

Why would anyone say it's bad? Is it a bad idea to take into consideration MOTIVE in a crime? If that MOTIVE turns out to be hate, plain and simple, what is the matter with having severe punishments set out for those crimes?

Tell me why it's bad?

What do you think about "Three Strikes" laws?

[Behind the Aegis]

66. Another thought

Some people don't like "hate crime" statutes because they think it is "thought control." Others, IMO, thinking it is one more way to cater to the "minorities." They think it is a "special rights" issue. They do not realize that hate crimes protect all kinds of people, not just gays, blacks, etc. It is just that all those groups tend to be targeted more often.

[klebean]

77. hate crime = bias crime

Prejudice is of great interest to me.

HC is not a thought crime, it is a "message" crime targeting a specific
group, denigrating and terrorizing the targeted group through violent acts,
or the threat of violent acts.
HC restricts an individual's civil rights (rights to freedom, happiness, etc.)
through acts meant to instill fear - some label HC as "domestic terrorism,"
which I believe is an appropriate enough description. "Bias Crime" is an
even better name - the label "Hate Crime" contributes most to the misunderstanding
of this topic (IMO), for many who advocate against HC laws, claim that
"all crime is a hate crime." Not true.

Perp's minds are not read - the evidence and witness accounts at the crime
scene are read. If a cross is burned on your lawn (and you're AA), or if your
car is keyed with graffiti saying, "god hates fags" (and you're a member of the
sexual minority), the message is clear and these acts can be categorized as
HCs, based on the actual crime committed = vandalism. The proven bias
intent/motivation of the crime allows for punishment enhancements, much
like gang enhancement punishments on certain crimes/misdemeanors in
gang infested neighborhoods.

Here in LA we report "hate incidents" = incidents shown as motivated by bias,
yet where no crime is committed, which is important data - sometimes these
incidents escalate to the commission of a crime. Sometimes police report what
seems to be a hate crime, but upon further investigation is not (often they are
historical neighbor disputes). While these "false positive" reports can be severe
in nature, our studies show they are low in bias motivation, whereas hate incidents
are low in severity (as they should be, for no crime is committed), but high in
bias motivation.

a few facts:
Members of the African American community are most often the victim of HCs.
The sexual minority suffer the most violent and severe HCs.
Acts of vandalism are most common against religious groups (primarily
the Jewish community).

[immoderate]

124. Terrorizing someone is a crime, hating them is not!

If you kill Jews while burning a cross on their lawn, that could be considered.

If you kill Jews and merely possess the wrong books, could you mitigate the charges by showing you had killed Christians as well?

--IMM

[noonwitch]

78. Useful in assualt, vandalism cases, useless in murder cases

It's good to differentiate between eggs getting thrown at someone's house and a cross being burned on the lawn. One is a stupid prank, one is meant to intimidate someone. Also, in situations where you have an assualt made against someone because that person is black, white, gay, female, whatever, there should be a stiffer penalty than drunks in a bar fight, because of the intent involved.

If someone is already facing 1st degree murder charges, the motive is part of the prosecutor's case. The defendant already faces the maximum sentence in most states and to add on a hate crime charge is really just prosecutorial overkill and a waste of paper.

Most rapes and violent crimes are already hate crimes by definition.

[K-W]

91. Can you support that?

"Most rapes and violent crimes are already hate crimes by definition."

As far as I know that is not even remotely true.

[bobbobbins]

95. i could egg someones house because i hate them

the difference between burning crosses and eggs is a bit of a slippery slope

[bossfish]

102. Put me down for "against"...

...in the sense that it complicates things. I like it simple. Assault, murder, etc. are in themselves crimes. Trying to determine "why" would seem to justify these crimes in some circumstances.

[K-W]

107. You do realize that motive is already a part of our justice system,

right?

[rman]

104. the right-wing rules now, it seems that they think liberals are hatefull,

and that not supporting the president is a crime.

[Redleg]

114. Thought crime? I don't see it that way.

Hate crimes are when your crime is intended to terrorize a group of people by your actions. For example, burning a cross in a black family's lawn. That crime not only hurts the family but other black families in the neighborhood.

[ibegurpard]

117. Please.

It's quite apparent that you have no intention of having your mind changed. If you're going to start a thread railing about the unfairness of hate crime statutes then have the decency not to be disingenuous about it.

[Comicstripper]

121. I'm glad they're on the books, but they don't make sense to me logically

I mean, why should motive affect anything? And where do you draw the line between killing a black person and killing someone because they're black? And why SHOULD you draw a line? What's the difference? Is one murder more dispicable than another? If so, why? If not, why is it "immoral" to execute retarded people but not mentaly competent ones?
However, if I were a senator, I wouldn't vote against them; they just don't make sense to me on a logical level.

[livinginphotographs]

129. You ask "why should motive affect anything"

But as has been repeated over and over again in this thread, motive already does affect our prosecution of crimes, such as the difference between 1st-degree and 2nd-degree murder, or muder and manslaughter.

If you're going to post (that's you in the plural), at least read the rest of the thread before you do.

[Comicstripper]

144. But those aren't motives

those are circumstances. I mean, if you kill someone because they're black, why is that more immoral than killing someone because they boinked your wife?
And I have read the thread.

[livinginphotographs]

145. Murder is intentional...

Manslaughter is (usually) not. Those are motives.

Killing someone out of rage or to rob them is hurting one person (as far as the law is concerned). Killing someone because of their ethnicity is not just hurting one person, but also an attempt to intimidate an entire group of people. It's the physical form of a giant sign that says "N*****s go home."

Things like burning crosses don't just bother someone for a small amount of time, that fear is carried wherever one goes. I don't care of you hate black people or gays, do that all you want. Just don't burn a cross in anyone's yard or beat someone up. Hate crime laws say that not only is physical assault or vandalism unacceptable, it is also unacceptable to act on your own prejudices.

[immoderate]

126. Thought Experiment:

Suppose Hans, who owns a room full of Nazi paraphernalia, gets together with Pierre, his neighbor, and they leave a bag of flaming dog shit on the porch of Chaim, who lives down the block.

Is one committing a prank and the other committing a felony?

--IMM

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

132. They're not needed and not fair.

Please tell me...When was the mind-reading maching invented?

Prosecuting somone based on the facts is plenty.

[ibegurpard]

133. Man, this thread is attracting the usual suspects like flies

:eyes:

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

139. What's that suppose to mean?

The "Usual suspects" who utilize common sense?

GUILTY!!!!

[brentspeak]

134. Only if the person was first convicted of a violent crime

that involved the "hate crime". So, if someone physically attacks, say, a Mexican immigrant, and is convicted for the physical assault charge, then, and only then, should the convicted be tried for the "hate crime" (provided there's enough evidence to warrant that the immigrant was specifically targeted because of his ethnicity).

There should never be a charge of "hate crime" in absence of a charge involving an assault or murder. And no-one should be able to be convicted of a "hate-crime" if they fail to be convicted of the assault or murder charge in the first place. Otherwise, you're getting into "thought crime" territory.

[Liberal Veteran]

137. Being against hate crimes laws....

...and trying to say that all crimes are crimes of hate and therefore equal is the way the right wingers want you to think so they can control the message.

That spin is no different on the surface than the right wingers being against "special rights" for gays.

[patcox2]

142. Good - there is justification for increased penalty.

A crime motivated by racial or ethnic prejudice is not just a crime against the individual victim. It is an act of terrorism against the entire race or ethnic group of the victim and therefore merits added punishment.

For example, burning a cross on the lawn of a black person is unarguably much more than a simple act of vandalism, assualt, or harrassment committed against just one victim. It is an act of terrorism against all black people. It is legally and morally right to punish it as such.