A question about hate crimes

[Gren]

I've just read a post where someone said that he opposes hate crimes legislation because it gives more protection to certain groups, and in his opinion, no person should have greater protection under the law than another. However, when I read "current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability" I don't see anything that grants more protection to any citizen. If you were attacked for being white, or straight, or christian, or whatever, you'd still be protected by this legislation, wouldn't you? (I guess it would be more difficult to demonstrate it, but anyway) So what's the problem with this kind of legislation, then?

[Хahar 🤔]

It punishes motives rather than actions.

[dead0man]

It punishes motives rather than actions.

Nailed it in one.  Thread over.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It punishes motives rather than actions.

Hardly an unusual thing for the Law to do. There's a reason manslaughter and murder are seperate offenses.

[Franzl]

My problem with hate crimes is that it shouldn't matter whether you kill someone because he stole your wife....or simply because he's a Mexican. The person is still dead, and you still killed him.

The difference between manslaughter and murder isn't the same thing, IMO. They're two seperate crimes, the difference being the intent to kill.

But hate crimes punish what the court interprets motives to be, even within the context of a clearly defined crime. Yes, obviously courts do the same thing to determine sentencing often....depending on one's reasons for committing a crime, but I would prefer it remain that way, that each individual case be judged on its merits.

Hate crimes take away a portion of that individual judgement....and in addition to that, it's not always easy to determine whether race or sexual orientation or whatever were the primary motives.

If I kill a black neighbor of mine because he stole my car and in my rage shout "damn ni**er", does that make it a hate crime?

[John Dibble]

I'm also against them.

Motive is important in considering the punishment for a crime. However, it's not necessarily the nature of the motive that should be considered, rather whether that motive is justified. Racism isn't a justifiable motive for murder, but neither is killing someone just because you want his stuff and he won't give it to you. Neither of these motives are justified at all, and both indicate behavior that would likely continue, so I don't see why one is worse than the other and therefore I don't see why one should be punished more than other.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

It punishes motives rather than actions.

Nailed it in one.  Thread over.

Exactly, Xahar!!!!!!!  It's feel good bullsh**t.   I love it when a guy is charged with first degree murder AND a hate crime.

How many times will we exectute him or put him in jail for life??

Stupid feel good bullsh**t.

[Ban my account ffs!]

It punishes motives rather than actions.

Hardly an unusual thing for the Law to do. There's a reason manslaughter and murder are seperate offenses.

^^^ This

I see both sides of this issue.  On the one hand, I understand equality under the law.  Everybody gets the same protection and everybody has the equal right not to be harmed in their person by another individual.

On the other side, if you are, say, an effeminate gay man living in a very conservative area, your chances of being attacked is higher simply because of who you are.

So I have to err on the side of supporting hate crime legislation.  The attacker threw equality out hte window when he/she singled out a certain group to attack for being "different".

Of course you should have to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the perp was motivated by hate or prejudice against the victim due to race/religion/sexuality/etc.  If you plan to rob a house and you end up killing the guy that lives there and he happens to be black.. that's not a hate crime... obviously.

So.. yes.. we need hate crimes legislation, but the guidelines should be strict.

[dead0man]

But you never said why you "err on the side of supporting hate crime legislation".  Well you did but it was because gay people are, presumably, more likely to be attacked.  A small person is more likely to be a victim of a mugging, should size be added to hate crime legislation?

[Ban my account ffs!]

But you never said why you "err on the side of supporting hate crime legislation".  Well you did but it was because gay people are, presumably, more likely to be attacked.  A small person is more likely to be a victim of a mugging, should size be added to hate crime legislation?

Mugging shouldn't fall under the guidelines of hate crime legislation. 

My idea of limited hate crime legislation would be Matthew Shepard type cases... where the intent was to target the person precisely because he was gay.

So, I guess in your case, if the mugger mugs the person not because he wants to mug somebody to gain money... but simply to assault and harass a small person, then yes... that would be a hate crime.

[dead0man]

Yeah, but shouldn't people that drag people to death be punished harshly regardless of what excuse their conscious needed to do the deed?  Does the guy that drags a guy to death for raping his daughter hate less than the guy that does it because his victim was gay or black?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

So.. yes.. we need hate crimes legislation, but the guidelines should be strict.

The question begs itself - Who cares if he's convicted of a hate crime if he's up on and/or convicted of first degree murder, Bryan?  Does it bring solace to the family of the victim?

Now, if you want to suggest (and maybe you did), that if you go beat up a gay guy simply because he's gay and that would ADD time to the sentence........that's reasonable to me.

On capital offenses, it means nothing.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

seems perfectly fine with me.

[John Dibble]

As I said before I think that justification is what should determine sentencing. Someone who kills for money is no more justified than someone who kills because of race, religion, or whatever, so all other things being equal they should receive the same sentence. That's not to say that the motive can't be considered later on - most sentences nowadays allow for parole at some point, so the motive should be considered there. Parole ideally happens when we feel the person who is being paroled is not likely to commit the crime again. If a racist commits a crime based on race and there are no indications that his feelings on race have changed, then he shouldn't be paroled because he's likely to commit another race based crime.

Yeah, but shouldn't people that drag people to death be punished harshly regardless of what excuse their conscious needed to do the deed?  Does the guy that drags a guy to death for raping his daughter hate less than the guy that does it because his victim was gay or black?

I don't think this is the best example, as I think most would sympathize with the guy whose daughter was raped - if the judge or some of the jury members are parents you can bet some leniency will be on the table. Heck, even without any parents in that group I'd say it's likely. The hate in this case is justifiable on the basis of it being against a particular individual who has done terrible harm to a loved one, though not justifiable enough to get off of a prison sentence given the crime of course. Pretty much anyone would feel the need for vengeance in this kind of case.

A better example would be someone who drags a guy to death just because he hates the other guy for having a nicer car or something. We all get jealous of others sometimes, and some even hate others for what they have, but the vast majority of us would never kill someone over it. There's no justification.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Yeah, but shouldn't people that drag people to death be punished harshly regardless of what excuse their conscious needed to do the deed?  Does the guy that drags a guy to death for raping his daughter hate less than the guy that does it because his victim was gay or black?

Dragging a guy to death because he raped your daughter is more or less a crime of passion and I would argue that while the punishment should still be harsh, it should be somewhat less than if you just targeted somebody who is innocent for just being who they are.

At the end of the day:  Motive is a huge factor in crime.  Just like you need a motive in order to charge someone with 1st degree murder, motive should play a role in all violent crime. 

[ScottM]

To me, it's ridiculous to consider some crimes as "hate crimes" and other as "normal crimes." For example, premeditated murder is most likely a hate crime regardless of motive. I agree with others who have said that the idea is for nothing more than to make some people feel good. Wrong is wrong regardless of who does it and who they do it to. Period.

[Хahar 🤔]

I really don't see much of a difference between killing a gay person because of their being gay and because the murderer simply likes killing.

[ScottM]

I really don't see much of a difference between killing a gay person because of their being gay and because the murderer simply likes killing.

My point exactly. Killing someone in cold blood is simply killing someone in cold blood regardless of who/what they are and why they were murdered.

[Franzl]

To me, it's ridiculous to consider some crimes as "hate crimes" and other as "normal crimes." For example, premeditated murder is most likely a hate crime regardless of motive. I agree with others who have said that the idea is for nothing more than to make some people feel good. Wrong is wrong regardless of who does it and who they do it to. Period.

Yeah, and a harsher sentence can always be given at the discretion of the court for certain motivating factors.

There's no reason to legislate that some motives are worse than others. Each case is individual.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I've just read a post where someone said that he opposes hate crimes legislation because it gives more protection to certain groups, and in his opinion, no person should have greater protection under the law than another. However, when I read "current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability" I don't see anything that grants more protection to any citizen. If you were attacked for being white, or straight, or christian, or whatever, you'd still be protected by this legislation, wouldn't you? (I guess it would be more difficult to demonstrate it, but anyway) So what's the problem with this kind of legislation, then?

One of the factors you are missing is that the legislation you cite includes additional penalties to the punishment.

Thusly if you steal a person's wallet because you simply want their money you face on set of penalties, whereas if you steal their money because you "hate" them for a factor provided for by the statute, the punsihment is greater if convicted.

In addition, there has been some movement to define conduct which in and of itself is not criminal, to become criminal, if motivated by some form of "hate" proscribed by the law.  In this context, a clergyman noting the bibilical prohibition against homosexuality, could be prosecuted for a "hate crime."

[Franzl]

In this context, a clergyman noting the bibilical prohibition against homosexuality, could be prosecuted for a "hate crime."

Saying homosexuality is immoral is certainly not punishable, or if it ever did become a crime, it would immediately be struck down as unconstitutional.

Despite my opposition to hate crime legislation per se, I do think that encouraging people (like a pastor in his congegration) to commit crimes based on race, sex, etc. is a very big problem. And in the event that a crime is commited as a result of such encouragement, the pastror could be regarded as an accomplice.

[CARLHAYDEN]

In this context, a clergyman noting the bibilical prohibition against homosexuality, could be prosecuted for a "hate crime."

Saying homosexuality is immoral is certainly not punishable, or if it ever did become a crime, it would immediately be struck down as unconstitutional.

Despite my opposition to hate crime legislation per se, I do think that encouraging people (like a pastor in his congegration) to commit crimes based on race, sex, etc. is a very big problem. And in the event that a crime is commited as a result of such encouragement, the pastror could be regarded as an accomplice.

First of all, my example was NOT theoiretical.  Here's a brief account of what happened:

NEW YORK CITY: The Rev. Joseph Jenkins was arrested today as he preached to his congregation of 500. As he said, ‘The Bible says it is a sin for a man to lie with a man!’ four federal undercover agents rose from their seats in the crowded church and handcuffed the pastor. He was later charged before a US Magistrate under the federal ‘Hate Crimes’ law.”

Second, there was no encouragement to commit what would otherwise be a crime.  Where you got the idea of mixing inciting and hate crimes is beyond me.  I made no reference to such in my post, and the example I cited had nothing whatsoever with inciting.

[dead0man]

Can I get a non-Fundie cite for this pastor arrested for statements made at the pulpit?  If this were true it seems like there would be a lot more info about it out there, all I can find is it referenced on hardcore Fundie sites and they seem to be using each other as their references.  On the other hand, if it was complete BS it seems like THAT would be out there too, but I'm not finding that either.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Could someone explain quite how 'hate crime' legislation in the U.S actually works, please?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Could someone explain quite how 'hate crime' legislation in the U.S actually works, please?

Links are in the wiki article.    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States