Homosexuality + Hate Crimes

[Bogart]

The difference as I see it between killing in general, however random, and killing under hate crime laws, is a recognition that certain groups have historically been targeted at a higher rate that the general population. It's not that the killing itself is any more wrong, but in most cases the victims find themselves victimized for no other reason than they are percieved, or known, to be part of a group that is despised by the killer(s) rather than as a result of anything they have done which is used by the killer as justification for his or her actions.

[Bogart]

Keep in mind, that hate crime laws merely include as aggravating factors such things as race, religion and the like. They do not create separate and, as several of you wrongly suggest, another class of crime.  It is very much like giving the robber who commits battery in the course of a robbery a stricter sentence than the robber who simply commits the crime absent of the battery. 

[Bogart]

And that's fine, but by your logic we should do away with all aggravators. This should not be viewed as a black/white issue. It should be viewed as merely an effective prosecutorial tool. For example, if we were to get rid of an aggravator such as murder committed in the course of a robbery, which would you prosecute? Consider that there may not be enough evidence to win conviction on the murder as a stand alone crime, but attempted murder as an aggravator to robbery it allows the criminal to be punished for both crimes.

[Bogart]

I didn't say get rid of all aggravators, now did I? No. I said a premeditated murder commited in greed is no worse or better than a premeditated murder commited in racism.

Now, let's say a criminal enters a house while carrying a gun. The owner hears him enter, comes down, and the criminal shoots him. Now, we don't know whether or not he intended to murder the inhabitant or not as part of the initial plan, and as a criminal we can not trust his word on the matter. Let's also say we have enough evidence to prove that he entered the house to rob it and, intentional or not, that he was the one that shot the victim - you scenario does not deny either of these. Fact is, he entered the house with a weapon - which is a device meant to kill - which proves to me that he was willing to use force to achieve his ends from the start. In other words, he intended to use the weapon in an illegal manner - it was clear enough that he was willing to kill the inhabitant, whether that intent was if confronted or not is irrelevant. Intent is the same as the deed. Therefore, I would have absolutely no problem convicting him of both the crime of burglary and the crime of murder. By that same logic, any criminal using a gun against someone, by actual use or implication of willingness to use, should be charged with attempted murder, which to me is the same as successful murder and should receive the same punishment.

I don't think that everyone who carries a weapon in the course of committing another crime should be charged with attempted murder. I think you'd have a hard time getting a conviction. Even so, the logical conclusion of your previous post seemed to lead towards ending all aggravators, since they alter the punishment a convicted criminal will get with respect to a particular crime. My only point with respect to the murder/robbery scenario is to point out that one may draw a tougher penalty for murdering someone--intentional and premeditated or not--if doing so in the course of committing another felony. Intent is not the same as deed, as evidence by murder, manslaughter and attempted murder charges.

We prohibit law enforcement from profiling, but allow criminals to do so by not having hate crime penalties. One could make a good argument that a certain type of car being driven in a certain neighborhood by a certain type of person carries a statistical likelihood of being stolen.  We don't allow this likelihood to establish probable cause, however. Why? Because it risks being discriminatory.  This is what the gay basher is doing--profiling.

[Bogart]

1. Intent is the same as the deed. I don't care what the courts charge - if someone tries to kill you, but is unsuccessful in doing so, how is that different than if they didn't succeed? Please, do tell. As far as I'm concerned, attempted murder should be punished the same as murder - call the two different, but they are ultimately the same thing. Punishment shouldn't hinge on whether the criminal was successful or not.

They are different in the sense that in one instance you are dead and the other you are not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Punishments are notoriously poor deterrents to crime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, if you have enough evidence. Very often this is not the case and aggravators such as hate crime aggravators allow for the sentence to be toughened to match the dual nature of the crimes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, the point you're forgetting is that very often criminals get off with very light sentences because the evidence doesn't support a harsher sentence. Aggravators can compensate for this.

In an ideal world--the world many libertarians live in--we would always bring cases before juries that are cut and dried, where the facts are fully supported by the available evidence. But, in the real world of criminal justice, hate crime laws, like other aggravators, can be an effective prosecutorial tool.

[Bogart]

1. Ok. Let's say someone tries to kill me. I manage to keep them from killing me. I'm alive - that's a difference as far as *I* am concerned, but the criminal wanted me dead - how does his failure change his guilt? He still showed that he was willing to commit the act, the only difference on his part being that he failed when he tried.

A key difference in my opinion. That is why we have murder and attempted murder--as is must be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why is recitivism such a problem?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. What I am saying, is that we may not have enough evidence. We may not know the facts conclusively. You are dreaming up a perfect scenario. It is rarely so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, we very often don't know and can't prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And so do aggravators.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oddly, you advocate punishing motive in the first paragraph, but seem against punishing motive here--though you call it emotion here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, it should be strict but fair. Unfortunately, it is not. If it were fair, I would not have to worry that a jury would find my attacker not guilty because they figure the homo probably had it coming.

[Bogart]

Don't have time to respond right now. I'm going out. Sorry, I spelled it wrong. Here is the information.

re·cid·i·vism (r-sd-vzm)
n.

A tendency to lapse into a previous pattern of behavior, especially a pattern of criminal habits.
The relapse of a disease or symptom. Also called recidivation.