hate crimes ???

[Divergedwoods]

Should the motivations that lead to a crime be directly influential to the punishment given to the criminal?
Is a crime more serious when done under a certain discriminatory criteria?
I'm torn in this topic (as in many others)
One may argue that the motive of a crime should be independent from the crime itself, since condemning someone to prison for an abnormally long time having been proven that the crime was committed due to (blank)ism would be technically condemning a thought crime
On this point of view only criminal actions should be punished but"¦ what is the purpose of punishing a crime?. Theoretically speaking, the punishment of a crime is used as a way of protecting society from antisocial behavior and thus, the punishment should be inherent to how this crime affects society and since a hate induced crime is more afflictive to society than the exact same crime done for other reasons, the punishment should be grate
Thoughts?

 

[Eidolon]

There is no such thing as a "hate" crime. All crime is the same whether it was done because somebody was black, or because they were cheating with your wife. The legislation against hate crimes is just a political tool used by politicians and prosecutors to win the black vote by tricking minorities into thinking they actually give a shit about them by handing down a harsher sentence to a white man who decks a black man.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

There is no such thing as a "hate" crime. All crime is the same whether it was done because somebody was black, or because they were cheating with your wife. The legislation against hate crimes is just a political tool used by politicians and prosecutors to win the black vote by tricking minorities into thinking they actually give a shit about them by handing down a harsher sentence to a white man who decks a black man.

Wow, are you going to be any more racist today? Going for the trifecta? :facepalm:

 

[ArthurWilborn]

I don't think they're valid. For one thing, it goes against the idea of free speech and thought. You're punishing people for their thoughts and beliefs, not only for their actions.

 

[borrofburi]

Should the motivations that lead to a crime be directly influential to the punishment given to the criminal?
Is a crime more serious when done under a certain discriminatory criteria?
I'm torn in this topic (as in many others)
One may argue that the motive of a crime should be independent from the crime itself, since condemning someone to prison for an abnormally long time having been proven that the crime was committed due to (blank)ism would be technically condemning a thought crime
On this point of view only criminal actions should be punished but"¦ what is the purpose of punishing a crime?. Theoretically speaking, the punishment of a crime is used as a way of protecting society from antisocial behavior and thus, the punishment should be inherent to how this crime affects society and since a hate induced crime is more afflictive to society than the exact same crime done for other reasons, the punishment should be grate
Thoughts?

I have an interesting and somewhat non-standard idea of what a hate crime is: crimes intended to intimidate or silence a community. If I kill Bob because I don't like blacks and he's black, it's standard murder (it doesn't matter if I killed him because I was jealous of his big screen tv, because I was robbing his house and got caught, or because I don't like the color of his skin); but if I kill Bob in order to scare his neighbors and his family away from the neighborhood then it's a hate crime.

At least, in the ideal world that's how they'd work (in my current understanding, I'm sure someone will come up with a way to convince me otherwise).

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I have an interesting and somewhat non-standard idea of what a hate crime is: crimes intended to intimidate or silence a community. If I kill Bob because I don't like blacks and he's black, it's standard murder (it doesn't matter if I killed him because I was jealous of his big screen tv, because I was robbing his house and got caught, or because I don't like the color of his skin); but if I kill Bob in order to scare his neighbors and his family away from the neighborhood then it's a hate crime.

At least, in the ideal world that's how they'd work (in my current understanding, I'm sure someone will come up with a way to convince me otherwise).

That's what I understood the STANDARD definition of it was, at least in part, and not the nonsense that the pro-racist crowd usually claims. It certainly doesn't criminalize thoughts or beliefs, since you actually have to commit the crime before motive is considered.

The other part of it is that the Federal Hate Crimes laws in the U.S. are FEDERAL, and can be used to prosecute bias-related cases outside of jurisdictions that might consider hate crimes to be a positive thing... for instance, when local police and prosecutors choose to ignore cases where whites commit crimes against blacks or Hispanics, or where straight people attack homosexuals.

The thing that makes the anti hate crimes folks so deeply wrong, and makes them seem so biased themselves, is that we ALREADY consider motive when prosecuting and sentencing criminals. Why should we make a special case of not considering motive when the crimes are specifically committed to terrorize people based on bias? If I kill you because I walk in on you breaking into my house, it is treated differently from if I kill you if I walk in on you screwing my wife, which is treated differently from if I kill you while I'm breaking into your house, or if I plan to collect insurance money... but somehow bias as a motive cannot be considered?

That seems to me to be a pro-bias exception.

 

[borrofburi]

That's what I understood the STANDARD definition of it was, at least in part, and not the nonsense that the pro-racist crowd usually claims. It certainly doesn't criminalize thoughts or beliefs, since you actually have to commit the crime before motive is considered.

The other part of it is that the Federal Hate Crimes laws in the U.S. are FEDERAL, and can be used to prosecute bias-related cases outside of jurisdictions that might consider hate crimes to be a positive thing... for instance, when local police and prosecutors choose to ignore cases where whites commit crimes against blacks or Hispanics, or where straight people attack homosexuals.

I haven't talked on the subject of existing hate crime (or proposed hate crime) legislation in a while (like years), but the last I recall someone at least somewhat intelligent complaining, was that he thought that while that ideal form of hate crime legislation was a good idea, he thought that in practice what it amounted to was punishing people for having a history of first-amendment protected speech against a particular demographic. I.e. it was his opinion that under hate crime legislation: if I killed bob because he was breaking into my house, and bob happened to be black, and I happen to have a blog where I say some mean things about black people, then I might be prosecuted harsher than if Bob happened to be white instead for doing nothing other than exercising my first amendment right to bad speech.

I am doubtful about the significance of them being federal... I mean, isn't murder federally illegal? Why would a federal level hate crime law be any more effective? Or is that not what you're saying?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I am doubtful about the significance of them being federal... I mean, isn't murder federally illegal? Why would a federal level hate crime law be any more effective? Or is that not what you're saying?

What I'm saying is that most crimes are dealt with at a state or even local level, and the federal government rarely steps in. However, there are cases where for instance a couple of high school football heroes go out with baseball bats and attack members of a minority group, like say people of Mexican descent. After they kill someone, the police, prosecutor, judge, and the all-white jury let them get away with it. The police fail to question witnesses, the prosecutor charges the murderers with lesser crimes than murder, the judge ignores the lackluster prosecution, and the jury ignores what little facts they have in order to acquit the local heroes.

At that point, the U.S. Attorney can step in and take over the case, get impartial non-local investigators, prosecutor, judge, and jury to try to see that justice is served.

 

[borrofburi]

I am doubtful about the significance of them being federal... I mean, isn't murder federally illegal? Why would a federal level hate crime law be any more effective? Or is that not what you're saying?

What I'm saying is that most crimes are dealt with at a state or even local level, and the federal government rarely steps in. However, there are cases where for instance a couple of high school football heroes go out with baseball bats and attack members of a minority group, like say people of Mexican descent. After they kill someone, the police, prosecutor, judge, and the all-white jury let them get away with it. The police fail to question witnesses, the prosecutor charges the murderers with lesser crimes than murder, the judge ignores the lackluster prosecution, and the jury ignores what little facts they have in order to acquit the local heroes.

At that point, the U.S. Attorney can step in and take over the case, get impartial non-local investigators, prosecutor, judge, and jury to try to see that justice is served.

But isn't it already murder, can't the U.S. Attorney already do that? How does hate-crime legislation make this any more likely; how does hate crime legislation improve this situation?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

But isn't it already murder, can't the U.S. Attorney already do that? How does hate-crime legislation make this any more likely; how does hate crime legislation improve this situation?

I don't think it is that easy to shift jurisdiction without cause, and the hate crime laws create specific legal cause. Plus, what about crimes that don't end in death, like assault, arson, or vandalism?

 

[simonecuttlefish]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime has some interesting points in it. This bit is noteworthy:

When it enacted the Hate Crimes Act of 2000, the New York State Legislature found that:

Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes. In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore, our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravity of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their recurrence. Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity."

 

[Unwardil]

If motivation isn't important, then why make the distinction between first and second degree murder and manslaughter?

Of course the motivation is important because the punishment is not solely to do with punishing the offender, after all, that doesn't do a damn thing to undo the crime and only costs society money to keep the criminal incarcerated anyway. You have to weigh what is an acceptable punishment with the chances of rehabilitation and re-offense. That's really what the big stink with Pedophiles has been and why so many people want longer sentences, is because the re-offense rate is huge. Same thing with hate motivated crimes. What's really needed is something other than jail time as a punishment, something that would actually, you know, work, but without being unethical and that's always the crux. Cut off a pedophile's balls and he'd probably have no problem staying away from the kiddies, but you can't do that, like wise it's probably immoral to permanently blind a hate mongering bigot so that he'll be unable to beat anyone up again.

Also the trouble is proving that it's hate related and establishing a comprehensive definition and if you want to talk about that, well that's a whole other ball game, but the question of whether motivation of a crime should impact on the punishment is frankly, absurd. Of course it should, otherwise why don't we just nuke everything and start all over with robots.

 

[Eban]

I don't think motivation should be important. When you start that you're outlawing thoughts. I mean, if you're dead, you're fucking dead. It doesn't really matter if they plotted it for months or just shot you. The outcome is the same, so why the distinction? I really don't get it.

As for hate crimes, well you have to hate someone to beat them to death, so that's just silly. Again, punish the actions, not the motivation.

 

[Unwardil]

No, thoughts are not being outlawed, acting in a destructive manner TO those thoughts is being outlawed and for good reason. There are any number of people who harbor violent thoughts all the time. For instance, reading your ignorant post filled me with a murderous rage such that I had the idea that if everyone with so utilitarian a view on humanistic issues were to be wiped from the planet that it would probably, on balance, be a significant improvement, the difference is however, I don't actually go out and start killing people. That's what's different between me and a serial killer. The serial killer actually kills people and he does it because of a twisted ideology which informs his actions. His actions upon his ideology is incompatible with society and so he must be removed from it. This is not the same as someone who becomes enraged by an unfortunate circumstance and in that fit of rage, beats someone's head in with a readily available crowbar.

That's the difference. It's night and day.

Also, if you think you need to hate someone to beat them to death, you understand the human condition about as well as Mister Data.

 

[Divergedwoods]

Speaking very technically, 10 years in prison for murder (hypothetical) and 15 years for racism directed murder would mean, 10 years for the murder, plus 5 for the thought

 

[borrofburi]

I don't think motivation should be important. When you start that you're outlawing thoughts. I mean, if you're dead, you're fucking dead. It doesn't really matter if they plotted it for months or just shot you. The outcome is the same, so why the distinction? I really don't get it.

But if I'm an unrepentent white supremacist who self-avowedly hates all blacks and thinks not only that they all deserve the same treatment "someone" should actively seek to see that they all get what's coming to them, am I not a higher danger society than a middle aged person who shot a thug who was mugging her/him? Are not those crimes then very different?

 

[Unwardil]

Speaking very technically, 10 years in prison for murder (hypothetical) and 15 years for racism directed murder would mean, 10 years for the murder, plus 5 for the thought

And what you have just described is an argument against prison as a correctional means, not an argument against penalizing race or hate motivated crime. When the system only allows for the administration of a single form of punishment, then you're going to get stupid sounding shit.

 

[Eidolon]

My problem with the whole hate crime issue is that it only applies to minorities.

If a black man attacks a white dude, its just assault, reverse it though, and its a hate crime. Even if it was racially motivated, its very difficult for a white guy to make a case against a black guy for hate crimes.

My point is that the racial debate is one sided with whitey always being portrayed as the ignorant racist rednecks and minorities always on the receiving end of racism when in reality, its pretty much equally bad on both sides.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

My problem with the whole hate crime issue is that it only applies to minorities.

No, it doesn't.

And saying that it is "equally bad on both sides" is at best incredibly ignorant. You seem to have some race issues you need to work out.

 

[Unwardil]

My problem with the whole hate crime issue is that it only applies to minorities.

If a black man attacks a white dude, its just assault, reverse it though, and its a hate crime. Even if it was racially motivated, its very difficult for a white guy to make a case against a black guy for hate crimes.

My point is that the racial debate is one sided with whitey always being portrayed as the ignorant racist rednecks and minorities always on the receiving end of racism when in reality, its pretty much equally bad on both sides.

That would be an argument that the law needs tweaking in order to be even handed which is somewhat of a departure from the stance that the crime does not exist.