Hate-crime legislation

[livendive 8]

OK, can anyone here provide a rational basis for hate-crime legislation?

Shouldn't assault be treated like assault whether the reason was because you didn't like someone's attitude or didn't like the color of their skin?

Why should a homophobe be punished more severely for killing a gay man than the victim's lover would be?

It's one of those things I just don't get and I'm wondering if there's any rationale behind it that I'm just not considering.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[DrunkMonkey 0]

IMHO:

"Hate-Crime" Legislation is a roundabout way of criminalizing thoughts. Highly reminiscent of "1984." The actions are what ought to be illegal, not the thought behind them...

[quade 4]

I have a difficult time with it as well, but I think there is a certain justification for it in terms of the crime being able to incite violence in others.

It's much easier, mentally, for an individual to commit a crime if it's perceived as acceptable to a larger group of people. I doubt that many law abiding folks in Germany would have broken windows of and beaten their neighbors before the evening of November 9, 1938, but upon seeing what "everyone else" was doing, it became much, much easier.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

OK, can anyone here provide a rational basis for hate-crime legislation?

Hate crime legislation makes it easier for the government to establish motive, that's about all I can think of. Personally, I'm with you - doesn't matter if it's black on white, white on black, gay on straight, straight on gay, etc. . . crime is crime and ought to be treated as such. The idea that 'hate' crimes are somehow more heinous than others sickens me.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Keith 0]

Quote

It's much easier, mentally, for an individual to commit a crime if it's perceived as acceptable to a larger group of people. I doubt that many law abiding folks in Germany would have broken windows of and beaten their neighbors before the evening of November 9, 1938, but upon seeing what "everyone else" was doing, it became much, much easier.

Bingo!

Also, law enforcement has tended to look the other way if a white man beat a black man to death, or if a gay man was attacked. They probably deserved it so why prosecute?

When was the last time a white man was beaten, tied to a fence and left to die just because he was white? The guys who did this to Matthew Shepard said Matthew looked at one of them and were surprised when the judge and jury didn't accept it as a reasonable defense. When was the last time a white man was tied to the bumper of a truck and dragged to dismemberment because he was white? James Byrd Jr. was no saint but he didn't deserve to die like that. One of the murders involved didn't think what they were doing was right but was afraid of what would happen to him if he didn't follow along. People presume there is equality in the good ol' U S of A. There isn't. Society believes it's OK to victimize certain groups of people. That's why we need hate crimes legislation.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Quote

Quote

It's much easier, mentally, for an individual to commit a crime if it's perceived as acceptable to a larger group of people. I doubt that many law abiding folks in Germany would have broken windows of and beaten their neighbors before the evening of November 9, 1938, but upon seeing what "everyone else" was doing, it became much, much easier.

Bingo!....

So what if person X kills person Y because he thought he was an asshole, but person Y turns out to be gay? How presumptous of the courts to think they can read a person's mind. So it's extra illegal to kill a gay/black/whaever person just because of that attribute?? "Thought police-TENCH-HUT!!"

[Keith 0]

Quote

So what if person X kills person Y because he thought he was an asshole, but person Y turns out to be gay? How presumptous of the courts to think they can read a person's mind. So it's extra illegal to kill a gay/black/whaever person just because of that attribute?? "Thought police-TENCH-HUT!!"

Bzzzzt. Wrong answer but thanks for playing. Person X has to kill person Y BECAUSE HE'S Gay. It isn't a hate crime if person Y just happens to be gay.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[Casurf1978 0]

That's kindof like saying murder is murder. Well how about self defense or reckeless manslaughter. Huge deference between those two than premeditated murder. To me there is a difference when you specifically target and choose someone because of skin color, sexual orientation, religion, etc. Also look at racial crimes, usually they are more violent and gruesome than regular spur of the moment crimes. I saw pictures of the black man that was dragged over 1/4 mile in Texas and one of them specifically said: "lets find ourselves a n$%#r to kill." They dragged the poor man till his arms were stumps. It's a hard subject to define, I mean what constitutes a hate crime. A simple bar brawl between a white guy and gay guy wouldn't be one. But specifically going into a bar, picking up a gay guy, beating him with a gun, tying him to a fence and leaving him there to die should.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

That's kindof like saying murder is murder. Well how about self defense or reckeless manslaughter. Huge deference between those two than premeditated murder.

That's the difference between no charges, Man(slaughter) 1, and Murder 1. (the names change between states, but you get the idea)

The problem is you are picking a subset that might span all three, and making any crime in the subset (based on motivation) more severe than all three.


I agree that a more gruesome or more depraved homicide could warrant a more severe sentence. But that should rest on the individual case. Intending to shoot and kill someone, planning it, and then shooting and killing them is a terrible murder, but most would say it is less so than torturing the victim to a slow death.

That is why crimes have variable sentences. Different murders (tried under the same law) can have different sentences; 10-25 years with parole versus life without the chance of parole.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[livendive 8]

Quote

People presume there is equality in the good ol' U S of A. There isn't. Society believes it's OK to victimize certain groups of people. That's why we need hate crimes legislation.

But the thing is hate-crime laws work AGAINST a concept of equality.

Take two heterosexual men. If one brutally rapes a teenage girl because he's obsessed with her and the other brutally rapes a teenage girl because she's a lesbian, doesn't the notion of "equality" demand that they should both get the same sentence?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Keith 0]

Quote

But the thing is hate-crime laws work AGAINST a concept of equality.

So does victimizing someone simply because society says it's OK.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

So does victimizing someone simply because society says it's OK.

The laws of society today, minus the stupid hate crime legislation, don't say it's ok for anyone to victimize anyone. If the people of society need to change their views to conform to laws already in existence, then so be it.

But as somebody else pointed out, making "special" laws for minorities is counterproductive to the march towards equality. Affirnative Action is the same.

. . =(_8^(1)

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

So what if person X kills person Y because he thought he was an asshole, but person Y turns out to be gay? How presumptous of the courts to think they can read a person's mind. So it's extra illegal to kill a gay/black/whaever person just because of that attribute?? "Thought police-TENCH-HUT!!"

Well, the whole government thing from the get-go is pretty up front about being not perfect. It's the first line of the Constitution that says it's about creating a "more perfect union" instead of a "totally perfect union". Just that there's downsides to certain legislation isn't grounds enough for disqualification.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[quade 4]

Don't think of it as a "'special' law for minorities", but rather an additional law, similar but different than the laws against inciting a riot.

When you look at it in that perspective, it makes quite a bit more sense.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Don't think of it as a "'special' law for minorities", but rather an additional law, similar but different than the laws against inciting a riot.

When you look at it in that perspective, it makes quite a bit more sense.

Please explain. Because honestly, I see this as just another liberal contradiction. We want equality, we want our own special rules. Doesn't make sense to me.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[nathaniel 0]

Of the two crimes you mention, which is more likely to intimidate people that weren't directly involved?

I don't necessarily agree with hate crime laws (I'm noncommittal, actually) but I think I have a good idea of why they came about:

You're aware that there's been a history of particular types of crimes, such as against homosexuals or against religious and ethnic groups etc. Crimes were and are committed in furtherance of a (sometimes surreptitious or just "coincidental") conspiracy of intimidation. Granted it's a lot less so now than it was, say, around and before Brown vs. Board, but the intimidation factor warrants additional censure.

Hate crime laws are about effecting changes in patterns of crime. Kinda like how penalties for speeding in different areas are different. There's a bit of injustice involved, but on the whole it works out for the better (or so a proponent will tell you).

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[quade 4]

Well, I think I already gave it a bit of a shot at the beginning of the thread, but I'll try it again.

Hate crimes aren't simply killing an individual. Hate crimes, real ones, serve at least two other main purposes: to terrorize a minority and to incite others to commit similar crimes.

Maybe if you have a look at this you'll begin to understand.

Also see:
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1874649
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/index.php?ModuleId=10005201&Type=normal+article

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PhillyKev 0]

Many crimes and their penalties are graded based on motive.

Did you mean to kill them or was it an accident? Did you plan it ahead of time or was it in the heat of passion. Did you kill them because they raped your daughter or to steal their watch?

As far as "hate crime" is concerned, I'm not saying it's right or wrong to grade it that way. But there is definitely plenty of basis and precedent for it.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Hate crimes aren't simply killing an individual. Hate crimes, real ones, serve at least two other main purposes: to terrorize a minority and to incite others to commit similar crimes.

I can agree with that a bit more, but then why not just call it what it is, terrorism? Call it terrorism, apply a strict set of circumstances that absolutely must be met, and punish those found guilty to the full extent of the law. In many of the 'hate crime' cases I've read about it seems that the prosecutors have used the statute when they can't otherwise make their case.

As far as inciting others to commit similar crimes, I don't buy that - but I will agree with your terrorism motive.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[quade 4]

I've got no problem with that -- it's the direction it's going anyway.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,120]

>I can agree with that a bit more, but then why not just call it what it
> is, terrorism? Call it terrorism, apply a strict set of circumstances
> that absolutely must be met, and punish those found guilty to the
> full extent of the law.

That's fine; the same issues of defining the crime come into play though (i.e. was it because he wanted to "send a message to whites" or did he just shoot the guy because he was stupid and angry?) But that whole issue is itself just an extension of the current laws concerning homicide, where motivation does indeed play a large part in determining punishment for a crime. We see a man who plots to kill another man as more evil as one who just shoots a man in a bar fight. Exactly the same result, but different in the eyes of the law.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Don't think of it as a "'special' law for minorities", but rather an additional law, similar but different than the laws against inciting a riot.

I'll bet some people hate the shit out of white folks, and I'll also bet there are occasional documented crimes commited based on that. If I was right, what should we do?

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 3,120]

>I'll bet some people hate the shit out of white folks, and I'll also bet
> there are occasional documented crimes commited based on that. If
> I was right, what should we do?

If the motivation can be shown to be that of a hate crime, then they are treated under the same statutes. No special treatment for anyone based on race.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

If the motivation can be shown to be that of a hate crime, then they are treated under the same statutes. No special treatment for anyone based on race.

The why add the extra layer?

. . =(_8^(1)

[Keith 0]

Quote

The why add the extra layer?

Just to make you ask questions

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville