The whole concept of "hate crimes" is really, really dumb.

[TLDRIDKJKLOLFTW]

Every once in a while I'll hear about some murderer or offender getting extra punishment under some sort of "hate crimes" legislation, and I'm reminded of how completely retarded it is that we've managed to legislate people's thoughts and beliefs. Seriously, it's the closest thing we have to "thought crime."

Every violent crime is a hate crime - it's happening because the offender has found a real to have anger for someone else to the point where they feel that they have to do that person harm or even kill them. Why is it somehow worse if that reason is because they're a racist or homophobe, rather than a personal vendetta or just blind, unchecked rage at a traffic slight?

I guarantee that I have more hatred in my pinkie for those that I perceive as "rich" than an entire Klan rally does for blacks, or the entire Fred Phelps congregation has for gays. If a guy driving a BMW cuts me off in traffic and I end up murdering him, I can guarantee that it was more of a "hate crime" than any gay bashing due to my blind, unchecked prejudice and hatred for people that i perceive as being rich. Yet it would never be treated as a "hate crime."

Dumb.

[mswas]

I agree.

[Malodorous]

I dunno, if you beat your wife to death after thinking about it for a while, its first degree murder. If you do it in a fit of rage, its second degree, and a "lesser crime".

In other words, even putting hate crimes aside, the motivation for committing murder is often a factor in how the crime is regarded by the law.

Every violent crime is a hate crime - it's happening because the offender has found a real to have anger for someone else to the point where they feel that they have to do that person harm or even kill them

I'm sure people are murdered for reasons other then hate. If I stab you in a dark alley for your wallet, I wouldn't necessarily say I "hate" you, I just want your money.

[Ocean Annie]

I guarantee that I have more hatred in my pinkie for those that I perceive as "rich" than an entire Klan rally does for blacks, or the entire Fred Phelps congregation has for gays. If a guy driving a BMW cuts me off in traffic and I end up murdering him, I can guarantee that it was more of a "hate crime" than any gay bashing due to my blind, unchecked prejudice and hatred for people that i perceive as being rich. Yet it would never be treated as a "hate crime."

Dumb.

Killing someone because s/he cut you off in traffic is motive. Killing someone for no other reason than the perception of wealth is a crime motivated by preconceived ideas about a person. I still don’t buy it.

You may have a disdain for wealthy people but our society doesn’t. In fact, wealth is revered in our culture. On the other hand, discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation is extremely real and pervasive in our culture. Racial discrimination was legally mandated in the South until the Civil Rights Act. I believe hate crimes should be recognized and punished.

[Malodorous]

Every once in a while I'll hear about some murderer or offender getting extra punishment under some sort of "hate crimes" legislation, and I'm reminded of how completely retarded it is that we've managed to legislate people's thoughts and beliefs. Seriously, it's the closest thing we have to "thought crime."


Also, my understanding of hate crime legislation isn't that it's so punish "hate" (I think your reading too much into the name), it's too punish murders that are committed with a particular motivation that we wish to discourage. The US (and most other countries as well, I imagine) have something of a history of people committing violence against members of particular groups in order to terrorize or subjugate that group as a whole. So we've given people that do so harsher sentences. Indeed "hate" doesn't even enter into most definitions that I've seen of hate crimes, rather its the targeting of specific groups.

An analogy might be a person who blows up a store to damage a competitors business versus the same person who blows up the store as an act of terrorism. The second case would probably be treated as a greater crime, even though the actual act was the same.

[AskNott]

It is a peculiar idea to punish somebody more for a crime if it was based on hate, but I have mixed feelings about it. If you beat a guy up over a pool shot, that's bad. If you beat a guy up because he's Chinese, that's at least somewhat worse. That's my opinion.

A mental picture keeps coming into my head, though. A defendant in court says, "This wasn't a hate crime, your honor. I like that little Chink. I just broke his fingers 'cause I was mad at him. He embarrassed me."

[lowbrass]

As Malodorous pointed out, "hate" isn't really the operative word here. It's kind of a misnomer. Such legislation punishes people who attack others based only on what group that person belongs to: race, sexual orientation, etc... There is no motive other than pure bigotry.

[Larry Borgia]

If Joe beats up Jim because Jim looked at him funny, that crime doesn't go any further than Joe or Jim. If Steve, Karl, Sarah and Terry don't know either Joe or Jim, they're not directly affected by the assault. But if Joe beats up Jim because Jim is gay, black, Jewish, whatever, then it's not just an assault on Jim, it's also a terroristic threat against anyone who belongs to the same group as Jim. If Jim is gay, and so are Steve and Karl, it's a lesser assault on Steve and Karl as well. IOW, you get punished for the assault, and you get an additional punishment for the terroristic threat. I don't see what the problem is.

[Mr. Excellent]

If Joe beats up Jim because Jim looked at him funny, that crime doesn't go any further than Joe or Jim. If Steve, Karl, Sarah and Terry don't know either Joe or Jim, they're not directly affected by the assault. But if Joe beats up Jim because Jim is gay, black, Jewish, whatever, then it's not just an assault on Jim, it's also a terroristic threat against anyone who belongs to the same group as Jim. If Jim is gay, and so are Steve and Karl, it's a lesser assault on Steve and Karl as well. IOW, you get punished for the assault, and you get an additional punishment for the terroristic threat. I don't see what the problem is.

I'm not sure I agree with your distinction here. Even when "hate" isn't involved, our society expressly does *not* view crime as simply a matter between the victim and perpetrator. All crime is viewed as frightening, and a threat to society as a whole - that's why we have the State prosecute crimes, rather than the victim bringing a suit (as in civil trials, where it really *is* just between the alleged victim and defendant)*. In fact, prosecutors can (and do) file charges against defendants even when their alleged victims are not all that interested in pressing charges. The community is *always* the victim of crime, and for violent crime the solution is usually to lock the fellow up.

Now, I understand that members of community X would find it troubling to have Jim wandering around if he thinks they're fair game for assault. But we, as a society, find it troubling to have *anyone* wandering around who thinks that *anybody* is fair game for assault - that's why we build prisons. Why should community X's fear that "this guy may beat me because I'm black/gay/jewish/white/whatever" be given any more weight than a neighborhood's fear that "this guy may beat me on my way to my car because he lives in this neighborhood and needs money for heroin"? I think both concerns are very, very serious, and require a serious response - but I can't see why one requires a more vigorous response than the other.

Another argument that's commonly made is that hate crimes encourage similar crimes - but the same can be said of conventional crimes. If I mug an old lady, and get away with it, this sends a signal to other miscreants that old women are easy sources of cash. The solution, again, is the same in both the hate and non-hate cases - criminal prosecution, imprisonment if there's a conviction.

Crimes are very bad deeds, committed by bad people. Perhaps there's some fine gradation that can be made between various motivations for the badness - but at the end of the day, I can't see society benefiting from going to the effort. I have to side with VCO3 on this - hate crime legislation makes little sense.

*Setting aside things like suits brought by governments and punitive damages, for simplicity's sake.

[Marley23]

Every violent crime is a hate crime - it's happening because the offender has found a real to have anger for someone else to the point where they feel that they have to do that person harm or even kill them.
Not even remotely true. If I punch someone and rob him, it's not because I hate him. It's because I wanted to steal and/or sell his stuff. Hate doesn't enter into it.
Why is it somehow worse if that reason is because they're a racist or homophobe, rather than a personal vendetta or just blind, unchecked rage at a traffic slight?
The logic is that, when you commit some crimes - say, robbing a black family's house and then leaving some racist messages spray painted on the house - you are not only harming that family. You are also making other black families feel threatened. The idea of hate crimes might be flawed, but it's not nearly as dumb as people who call it 'thought crime' suggest.
I guarantee that I have more hatred in my pinkie for those that I perceive as "rich" than an entire Klan rally does for blacks, or the entire Fred Phelps congregation has for gays.
Have you ever acted on that hatred? I don't think you have, and I don't think what you wrote here is true.

[Ocean Annie]

Crimes are very bad deeds, committed by bad people. Perhaps there's some fine gradation that can be made between various motivations for the badness - but at the end of the day, I can't see society benefiting from going to the effort. I have to side with VCO3 on this - hate crime legislation makes little sense.

*Setting aside things like suits brought by governments and punitive damages, for simplicity's sake.

Motive should be a consideration in determining the seriousness of a crime. People with a conscious can and do commit murder all the time. There is a difference between someone motivated to kill a lover because of a sexual affair and someone motivated to kill for the thrill of it. The person who kills out of passion usually lives with guilt and regret. The person who kills for a thrill or because of race, religion, sexual orientation usually has no remorse and probably feels justified; these are the people with no respect for human life. Women who kill abusive spouses and children who kill abusive parents are not motivated to commit a crime in the same way a person who kills during a robbery.
The same can be said for someone who steals because of hunger and someone who steals because of greed.

I agree with Malodorous. Hate is just a term used to determine motive and motive goes to the root of criminal behavior.

[Hail Ants]

Hate Crime legislation is nothing more than political correctness brought to an extreme. In order to prove it you have to prove what the perp was thinking when he committed the crime. This involves bringing up quasi-relevant things from their past, statements, opinions, jokes etc. and making them legally relevant to their crime.

Besides making a ridiculous amount of extra work for the legal system, it does nothing but force the issue onto the slippery slope of direct evidence vs. emotional feelings, and emotion will win that fight every time!

And its ultimate end will be what its called, namely to make hate a crime. In a way it already has. And that scares me. In America it is not illegal to hate blacks, Jews, or gays and it never ever should be! But the people who support this think that it should. They think that the way you end something bad is just to make a law against it, regardless of how impractical, unenforceable, or fundamentally wrong it is big-picture wise.

Not to mention the unintentional but inevitable side-effect of making the lives of minorities legally not equal, but more valuable than non-minorities.

[Hippy Hollow]

Hate crime legislation is certainly a legacy of the ugly history of racism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism in this country. As many have noted in this thread, someone who intentionally seeks to injure or threaten people because of race/sexual orientation/religion is conveying a message far greater than "I have a problem with you individually." And though we don't have hate crime legislation for someone who attacks old people, I can assure you that the DA and the judge will throw the book at those people.

Intent matters, especially when it's quite transparent.

As an aside, VC03, how relative is your definition of "rich?" You realize just by virtue of living in the US, you're rich compared to most of the people in the world, don't you?

[athelas]

Let's say I were to clock someone in a bar and the police arrived in response. As I was being dragged away, I said "I hate X; you should all die!"

If X = Yankees fans, then nobody cares; they'll just continue manacling me.
If X = Jews, then suddenly things look more grim.

It seems ludicrous to me that the same hate, and the same crime, are punished unequally under the law.

[ElvisL1ves]

A "hate crime" is not one that's motivated by hatred for the specific person victimized, but by hatred for the entire group of which the victim is a member. Its target isn't just that one person, but the entire group. An attack on a Chinese person because of his Chineseness is not the same as a personal attack - it is intended, at least in part, to terrorize and isolate all Chinese.

An attack on a Yankees fan because of his affiliation does not, however, terrorize and isolate all Yankees fans. There is no history, or credible fear of occurrence, of a systematic campaign of discrimination and terrorization of Yankees fans, other than by the Steinbrenner family. But there are many ethnicities and religions for which that history and fear are quite real and credible.

Motivation does obviously matter in assessing the degree of severity of the act. So does the number of persons targeted. Does that help explain what hate crimes are?

[TJdude825]

Not even remotely true. If I punch someone and rob him, it's not because I hate him. It's because I wanted to steal and/or sell his stuff. Hate doesn't enter into it.

The logic is that, when you commit some crimes - say, robbing a black family's house and then leaving some racist messages spray painted on the house - you are not only harming that family. You are also making other black families feel threatened. The idea of hate crimes might be flawed, but it's not nearly as dumb as people who call it 'thought crime' suggest. If I understand you correctly, the robbery is not what makes it a hate crime, it's the racist messages. So, what if the racist messages are displayed in a non-criminal way? Spray paint on someone else's house is illegal no matter what, so let's say I paint the same racist messages on my own car or house, or on the internet, but somewhere that they are clearly visible to the same black family. Assume the level of publicity is the same, so other black families are equally likely to hear about it.

Certainly, some will feel threatened, but what is the crime?

[ElvisL1ves]

In my state, perhaps criminal harassment (http://www.doe.mass.edu/news/news.asp?id=1318). Other jurisdictions obviously may vary.

[Ravenman]

This involves bringing up quasi-relevant things from their past, statements, opinions, jokes etc. and making them legally relevant to their crime.

Besides making a ridiculous amount of extra work for the legal system...Do you have a cite for this?
In America it is not illegal to hate blacks, Jews, or gays and it never ever should be! But the people who support this think that it should. As far as I know, the ACLU supports First Amendment rights for racists as well as hate crimes legislation, so I don't think you're right.

[Ocean Annie]

If I understand you correctly, the robbery is not what makes it a hate crime, it's the racist messages. So, what if the racist messages are displayed in a non-criminal way? Spray paint on someone else's house is illegal no matter what, so let's say I paint the same racist messages on my own car or house, or on the internet, but somewhere that they are clearly visible to the same black family. Assume the level of publicity is the same, so other black families are equally likely to hear about it.

Certainly, some will feel threatened, but what is the crime?

TJdude825, people still have the right to exercise free speech in the U.S. Anyone can slap up a website, write a book, or put a bumper sticker on a car to convey a belief or philosophy despite how offensive or distasteful it is to others. I support free speech for the Klan or Nazi group because, unfortunately, it protects my right to free speech. I know cross burning is a state issue. I am sure it is probably some kind of fire code violation in many states.

The hangman's noose and swastika fall under free speech. I suppose it depends on whether the free speech is intended to intimidate and prevent a person from accessing his/her civil rights.

[Polycarp]

Hate Crime legislation is nothing more than political correctness brought to an extreme. In order to prove it you have to prove what the perp was thinking when he committed the crime. This involves bringing up quasi-relevant things from their past, statements, opinions, jokes etc. and making them legally relevant to their crime.

Besides making a ridiculous amount of extra work for the legal system, it does nothing but force the issue onto the slippery slope of direct evidence vs. emotional feelings, and emotion will win that fight every time!

And its ultimate end will be what its called, namely to make hate a crime. In a way it already has. And that scares me. In America it is not illegal to hate blacks, Jews, or gays and it never ever should be! But the people who support this think that it should. They think that the way you end something bad is just to make a law against it, regardless of how impractical, unenforceable, or fundamentally wrong it is big-picture wise.

Not to mention the unintentional but inevitable side-effect of making the lives of minorities legally not equal, but more valuable than non-minorities.

As people have pointed out in some detail already, both motive and intent figure into the definition of a crime. On April 13, 1990, a large, strong man broke several of my ribs and plunged a blade into my chest, taking several thousand dollars from me. He was never prosecuted for it.

And if I have my way, he never will be; I'm very grateful to him. You see, he was a cardiac surgeon doing a bypass operation that saved my life.

The degree of a crime, or even its criminality, is often dependent on what the intent of the person committing the putatively criminal act was.

Likewise, there are several reasons for the sentences imposed at the end of criminal trials. Sometimes it's purely punishment. Sometimes it's the rehabilitation of the offender. But very often it is for deterrence. Not only will the man sentenced for the crime be prevented from committing another crime, but the severity of the sentence imposed will, according to theory, cause others who might be considering the commission of that crime to have second thoughts.

Now, the basic character of a hate crimes law is that it functions as an aggravation condition in the criteria for sentencing. Tom, Dick, and Harry each severally held someone at gunpoint, and were charged with assault. But Tom drew his gun on a policeman whom he mistakenly thought in the dark was a burglar ransacking his house, when in fact the cops had been called by the neighbors. Dick acted in the heat of an argument with Pete. And Harry did it because he hates Japanese, and Sakuro had the misfortune of crossing his path while he was angry.

Take note that the same crime was committed in each case. Most people would feel Tom should be let off lightly or have his case dismissed, because he acted in a case of mistaken identity. Dick of course gets a normal sentence for drawing a gun on someone else in an argument.

But let's look at what Harry did. He's not being sentenced for hating Japanese people. He's privileged to be prejudiced against them all he wants, in thought and, more or less, in word. He's being sentenced for holding someone -- Sakuro -- at gunpoint. But not because he hates Sakuro in particular; rather, because Sakuro is Japanese. Law-abiding people of Japanese descent should not have to be afraid of being assaulted by people like Harry, according to the conventional wisdom of American society. So the sentencing criteria are defined in a manner that says, "We want to deter people who hate on the basis of race, color, creed, etc., from committing crimes on the basis of their hatred for groups identified on the basis of race, color, creed, etc."

It's a deterrent. It's imposed on an actual criminal act, in the example an assault, not for "thought crime." It judges on the basis of intent in exactly the same way as premeditated murder is distinguished from manslaughter.

[The Flying Dutchman]

I feel the same way as the OP.

It just isn't fair to the rest of us males who aren't part of a protected minority and are victims of an assault.

Some of us I'm sure have faced violence as a result of "being different" Remember the school bullies? Perhaps we weren't macho enough. But only if we can claim we were gay can we get our tormenter a more severe sentence.

[Marley23]

If I understand you correctly, the robbery is not what makes it a hate crime, it's the racist messages. So, what if the racist messages are displayed in a non-criminal way?
I'm not a lawyer and I don't know if the laws are the same everywhere, but my understanding is that nobody gets charged with a hate crime if there is no other crime committed. Hate crime charges are only added to other crimes. So if that's correct, the racism itself is not criminalized.

[The Hamster King]

It judges on the basis of intent in exactly the same way as premeditated murder is distinguished from manslaughter.Well said, Polycarp. The criminal justice system takes intent into consideration all the time. Accidents are treated differently than deliberate acts. Premeditated crimes are treated differently than crimes committed in a moment of passion. Crimes against law enforcment officials are treated differently than crimes against normal citizens.

A crime intended to harass or intimidate an entire class of citizens is worse than a crime directed at an individual. And, as such, it should be punished more harshly.

[lowbrass]

Why should community X's fear that "this guy may beat me because I'm black/gay/jewish/white/whatever" be given any more weight than a neighborhood's fear that "this guy may beat me on my way to my car because he lives in this neighborhood and needs money for heroin"? I think both concerns are very, very serious, and require a serious response - but I can't see why one requires a more vigorous response than the other.

In the latter example, the perpetrator would get a harsher punishment than simple assault, because the charges would be assault and robbery. Any example you pick will be unique, so I don't think it makes sense to analyze it in terms of "Is X worse than Y?"

[brickbacon]

Not to mention the unintentional but inevitable side-effect of making the lives of minorities legally not equal, but more valuable than non-minorities.

Bullshit. Plenty of minorities have been charged with hate crimes against White people. In fact, I would be surprised to see any legislation that precludes minorities from being charged with hate crimes against a member of the majority. Here (http://www.racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/005/02.htm) is one site (among countless others) that have links to articles regarding minorities charged with hate crimes against White people.

I feel the same way as the OP.

It just isn't fair to the rest of us males who aren't part of a protected minority and are victims of an assault.

Some of us I'm sure have faced violence as a result of "being different" Remember the school bullies? Perhaps we weren't macho enough. But only if we can claim we were gay can we get our tormenter a more severe sentence.

Nonsense. See above.

[crowmanyclouds]

... It just isn't fair to the rest of us males who aren't part of a protected minority and are victims of an assault. ...Really? Any reason that you didn't just say it clearly straight White males?
Got a cite that you have to be a member of a protected class?Hate Crime Statistics, 2006 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/index.html)
In the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, the victim of a hate crime may be an individual, a business, an institution, or society as a whole. Nationwide in 2006, law enforcement agencies reported that there were 9,652 victims of hate crimes. Of these victims, ten were victimized in two separate multiple-bias incidents.

By Bias Motivation
An analysis of data for victims of single-bias hate crime incidents showed that: * 52.1 percent of the victims were targeted because of the offender’s bias against a race.
* 18.1 percent were victimized because of a bias against a religious belief.
* 15.3 percent were targeted because of a bias against a particular sexual orientation.
* 13.5 percent were victimized because of a bias against an ethnicity/national origin.
* 1.0 percent were targeted because of a bias against a disability.
Racial bias
Among the single-bias hate crime incidents in 2006, there were 5,020 victims of racially motivated hate crime.* 66.4 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-black bias.
* 21.0 percent were victims of an anti-white bias.
* 4.8 percent were victims of an anti-Asian/Pacific Islander bias.
* 1.5 percent were victims of an anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native bias.
* 6.4 percent were victims of a bias against a group of individuals in which more than one race was represented (anti-multiple races, group).
Religious bias
Of the 1,750 victims of an anti-religion hate crime:* 65.4 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
* 11.9 percent were victims of an anti-Islamic bias.
* 4.9 percent were victims of an anti-Catholic bias.
* 3.7 percent were victims of an anti-Protestant bias.
* 0.5 percent were victims of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
* 8.4 percent were victims of a bias against other religions (anti-other religion).
* 5.3 percent were victims of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).Sexual-orientation bias
In 2006, of the 1,472 victims targeted due to a sexual-orientation bias: * 62.0 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-male homosexual bias.
* 20.9 percent were victims of an anti-homosexual bias.
* 13.7 percent were victims of an anti-female homosexual bias.
* 2.0 percent were victims of an anti-heterosexual bias.
* 1.4 percent were victims of an anti-bisexual bias.Ethnicity/national origin bias
Hate crimes motivated by the offender’s bias toward a particular ethnicity/national origin were directed at 1,305 victims. Of these victims:* 62.8 percent were targeted because of an anti-Hispanic bias.
* 37.2 percent were victimized because of a bias against other ethnicities/national origins.
Disability bias
Of the 95 victims of a hate crime due to the offender’s bias against a disability:* 74 were targets of an anti-mental disability bias.
* 21 were victims of an anti-physical disability bias.
Just to kill this before it gets started, of the 5,020 victims of racially motivated hate crime in 2006, 21.0 percent were victims of an anti-white bias.State laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States#State_laws)

45 states and the District of Columbia have statutes criminalizing various types of bias-motivated violence or intimidation (the exceptions are AR, GA, IN, SC, and WY). Each of these statutes covers bias on the basis of race, religion, and ethnicity; 32 of them cover sexual orientation; 32 cover disability; 28 cover gender; 13 cover age; 11 cover transgender/gender-identity; 5 cover political affiliation.

31 states and the District of Columbia have statutes creating a civil cause of action, in addition to the criminal penalty, for similar acts.

27 states and the District of Columbia have statutes requiring the state to collect hate crime statistics; 16 of these cover sexual orientation.

In Wisconsin v. Mitchell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Mitchell) (508 U.S. 476 (1993 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/508/476.html)) the Supreme Court unanimously held that state penalty-enhancement laws for hate crimes were constitutional and did not violate First Amendment rights to freedom of thought and expression.As defined in the 1999 NCVS (National Crime Victim Survey), "A hate crime is a criminal offense committed against a person or property motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, ethnicity/national origin, gender, sexual preference, or disability. The offense is considered a hate crime whether or not the offender's perception of the victim as a member or supporter of a protected group is correct".
In the United States federal prosecution is possible for hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity. As of October, 2007, Congress is considering legislation that would add gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list (see Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_Act)).CITE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#United_States)So, as soon as Congress passes that law, men will be able to get their tormentors a more severe federal sentence too.

CMC +fnord!
Originally posted by Hippy Hollow
... You realize just by virtue of living in the US, you're rich compared to most of the people in the world, don't you?Just cause I got it and I think you'll appreciate it, The Global Rich List (http://www.globalrichlist.com/index.php)

[Qwertyasdfg]

I have thought about this topic in the past from time to time but never been able to get an easy answer.

On the one hand, hate crimes are (or should be defined as) crimes motivated primarily by hate for the victim's group rather than the victim as a person, and which and can reasonably be construed as intended to intimidate/threaten the group as a whole. Certainly punishment should fit the magnitude of the crime, and I think it's fairly clear that this crime is of a higher magnitude than a crime motivated by greed or some personal dispute or whatever. Hate crime is a form of terrorism. As such a serious crime, it should only be applied to those cases where there is strong evidence that the crime truly was motivated by hate and intended to threaten the community at large (i.e. just because a criminal made racist comments in the past, and attacked that particular group doesn't make the crime itself a hate crime. But if the crime was clearly motivated by hate and intended to intimidate, as in the murder of MLK, certainly it should be treated as a more severe crime.)

On the other hand, the purpose of imprisonment should be at least partially be to rehabilitate the prisoner, otherwise we'd might as well keep them locked up for life. If we tack on extra years to a sentence beyond what we feel is necessary to rehabilitate the prisoner simply to make ourselves feel good about being tough on crime, and therefore release someone less-than optimally rehabilitated, we're kind of shooting ourself in the foot. But then again, if we sentence based purely on some notion of optimal rehabilitation, we will not be discouraging the crime itself as much.

Really though, as far as I know there's very little rehabilitation going on in American prisons anyway, more of a crime college, so I say that until we're willing to make a serious attempt at rehabilitation, we might as well keep hate-criminals off the streets as long as possible.

So to summarize, hate crimes improve the punishment, deterrence and separation purposes of imprisonment, but probably undermine the notion of rehabilitation, but then we've pretty much given up on that anyway.

[LonesomePolecat]

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know if the laws are the same everywhere, but my understanding is that nobody gets charged with a hate crime if there is no other crime committed. Hate crime charges are only added to other crimes. So if that's correct, the racism itself is not criminalized.
And that's the problem. Whites are often gratuitously accused of racism not only by non-whites but by many white liberals, as the recent rape hysteria at Duke University rape shows. If a white guy gets into a fight with a black guy and uses the "n" word in anger, he may find years added to his sentence for committing a hate crime. But if the guy he's fighting uses words like "cracker" or "honky," most likely nothing will be added to his sentence at all. The standards by which they're judged won't be the same; the white guy will be found guilty of "hate" much more quickly and easily than the black guy. There are no clear, universally accepted standards for judging what a hate crime is. I suspect many hate crimes against whites aren't categorized as hate crimes simply because the victims are white.

[Marley23]

If a white guy gets into a fight with a black guy and uses the "n" word in anger, he may find years added to his sentence for committing a hate crime.
Not to dodge your question, which is a valid one, but what kind of fight is this guy getting into that he is being thrown in jail for years? Perhaps his choice of epithets is not his biggest problem. :p Yes, people might be more willing to suspect white people of racism - that wasn't the whole story at Duke, but it was part of it - and the lack of a clearly defined standard of hate is an issue. If you're going to say that white people are getting singled out, though, some kind of evidence would be good.
But if the guy he's fighting uses words like "cracker" or "honky," most likely nothing will be added to his sentence at all.
Upon what do you base this comment? Okay, you've created a hypothetical where something happens because you said it happens, but do you have evidence it actually occurs?
I think brickbacon's post show that people do indeed get punished for anti-white bias.
I suspect many hate crimes against whites aren't categorized as hate crimes simply because the victims are white.
I think white people, like everyone else, sometimes see prejudice against them even when there's no evidence of it.

[LonesomePolecat]

Not to dodge your question, which is a valid one, but what kind of fight is this guy getting into that he is being thrown in jail for years? Perhaps his choice of epithets is not his biggest problem. :p Yes, people might be more willing to suspect white people of racism - that wasn't the whole story at Duke, but it was part of it - and the lack of a clearly defined standard of hate is an issue. If you're going to say that white people are getting singled out, though, some kind of evidence would be good.

Upon what do you base this comment? Okay, you've created a hypothetical where something happens because you said it happens, but do you have evidence it actually occurs?
The Jena affair, the phony Duke rape scandal and the Tawana Brawley hoax are all examples of how whites can suddenly find themselves accused of "hate crimes" on the basis of little or no evidence.I think brickbacon's post show that people do indeed get punished for anti-white bias.
(shrug) I didn't say that no one ever gets punished for hate crimes against whites.

I think white people, like everyone else, sometimes see prejudice against them even when there's no evidence of it. True, but whites are obviously much more vulnerable than non-whites to unfounded accusations of racism.

[Marley23]

The Jena affair, the phony Duke rape scandal and the Tawana Brawley hoax are all examples of how whites can suddenly find themselves accused of "hate crimes" on the basis of little or no evidence.
I'm only vaguely familiar with the Tawana Brawley case, as it happened when I was 5. (It looks to me like the whole thing was crap.)
While people were called racist in the Duke and Jena cases, nobody was charged with a hate crime. In fact, in the Jena case, no white people were arrested at all, and the racism charges came from the way school officials and law enforcement overlooked something that arguably was a hate crime.
White people aren't a minority. In that sense, yes, white people are more vulnerable to being accused of racism because, for obvious reasons, they are less likely to be victims of it. From the standpoint of legal hate crimes, though, I don't see any evidence to support what you're saying.

[Sitnam]

And VCO3 keeps saying he's turned over a new leaf.

[The Hamster King]

I'm only vaguely familiar with the Tawana Brawley case, as it happened when I was 5. (It looks to me like the whole thing was crap.)No one was charged with a hate crime in the Tawana Brawley case. In fact, the case was so shoddy that the grand jury refused to charge anyone with anything at all.

[Hail Ants]

And Harry did it because he hates Japanese, and Sakuro had the misfortune of crossing his path while he was angry.How, exactly, do you legally prove that he hates Japanese people? What is the legal definition of race hatred? What scale or degree do you use and at what point exactly does this certain abstract level of hatred (combined with violence) make you chargeable with a hate crime?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

[Crocodiles And Boulevards]

The Jena affair, the phony Duke rape scandal and the Tawana Brawley hoax are all examples of how whites can suddenly find themselves accused of "hate crimes" on the basis of little or no evidence.
(shrug) I didn't say that no one ever gets punished for hate crimes against whites.

True, but whites are obviously much more vulnerable than non-whites to unfounded accusations of racism.

Sorry, maybe I just haven't been keeping up with the news, but I thought the Jena "affair" was clearly an example of a racially charged crime. Nooses hanging from a tree in an obvious nod to lynching is certainly a hate crime.

On a quick review, I can't find anything about white people being found guilty of hate crimes that there was no evidence for. A hate crime charge, like all other charges, does require evidence to prosecute it. As for being simply accused of hate crimes, well, I'll admit that those kinds of things do happen. However, unless the accusations pan out in litigation, I don't see what might be the problem besides negative publicity.

In a legal sense, everyone is equally vulnerable to being accused of a hate crime. However, I take it to mean that in our society a white person is more likely to be "victimized" by this allegation because minorities are more likely to "play the race card." Perhaps that expectation, in both directions, is yet another unfortunate stereotype we need to work on.

[Richard Parker]

How, exactly, do you legally prove that he hates Japanese people? What is the legal definition of race hatred? What scale or degree do you use and at what point exactly does this certain abstract level of hatred (combined with violence) make you chargeable with a hate crime?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

I think you're missing Polycarp's point. The legal system makes these kinds of judgments all the time. How exactly do you prove that a man killed his wife because of his extreme jealously over her recently discovered infidelity? What level of jealousy is necessary?

We prove these things based on evidence, like any other crime. And a jury decides whether or not they find that evidence convincing in the case of guilt and a judge decides in the case of sentencing.

[pizzabrat]

True, but whites are obviously much more vulnerable than non-whites to unfounded accusations of racism.
Obviously? What are you basing that on?

[Stoid]

Every once in a while I'll hear about some murderer or offender getting extra punishment under some sort of "hate crimes" legislation, and I'm reminded of how completely retarded it is that we've managed to legislate people's thoughts and beliefs. Seriously, it's the closest thing we have to "thought crime."




I agree with you completely, and as a liberal, I find it terribly embarrassing and distressing that my side of the aisle is responsible for this crap, along with universities trying to control speech, etc. It grinds my ass.

As for closest thing to a thought crime. though... I dunno. I could debate you about that, although now that I consider it, you're probably right. I just happen to think that busting people for THINKING that they are going to meet a 13 year old for sex when no 13 year old actually exists is pretty much a thought crime and it pisses me off. (Look at it this way: if a 19 year old girl told you that she was 13 and looked it, and you fucked her, should you be busted? Fundamentally the same thing as the "to Catch a Predator" bullshit.)

[lekatt]

Well said, Polycarp. The criminal justice system takes intent into consideration all the time. Accidents are treated differently than deliberate acts. Premeditated crimes are treated differently than crimes committed in a moment of passion. Crimes against law enforcment officials are treated differently than crimes against normal citizens.

A crime intended to harass or intimidate an entire class of citizens is worse than a crime directed at an individual. And, as such, it should be punished more harshly.


Well said, and I hope someday we will have laws against hate groups. Meaning those groups whose primary reason for being is to hate other groups of people.

[Czarcasm]

Well said, and I hope someday we will have laws against hate groups. Meaning those groups whose primary reason for being is to hate other groups of people.
Such as...?

[redman]

I think the original intent behind hate crime legislation was to try and prevent a hate crime from inciting additional hate behavior. If Joe kills Jim because Jim wronged Joe, that's one thing, if Joe kills Jim because Jim is a member of a group, then others that have a bias against that group may get the idea that it is okay to act on that bias.

It does make me wonder how they determine if it is a hate crime. As a white man, if I were to kill a black man, would it be automatically assumed that I hate black people?

[athelas]

Well said, and I hope someday we will have laws against hate groups. Meaning those groups whose primary reason for being is to hate other groups of people.I'd hate that law.

[pizzabrat]

Well said, and I hope someday we will have laws against hate groups. Meaning those groups whose primary reason for being is to hate other groups of people.
If you're serious, how could you possibly word such a law as to not violate the 1st amendment (or are you for repealing the 1st amendment)?

[lekatt]

If you're serious, how could you possibly word such a law as to not violate the 1st amendment (or are you for repealing the 1st amendment)?

I thought I did.

[The Hamster King]

As a white man, if I were to kill a black man, would it be automatically assumed that I hate black people?No. There's had to be some evidence of your intent. If you were robbing a convenience store and shot the clerk, who happened to be black, you probably wouldn't be charged with a hate crime.

On the other hand suppose you've repeatedly told your buddies how unhappy you are with the number of black people who have recently moved into your neighborhood. You've said things like, "Somebody ought to teach them a lesson." and "Those fellas in the KKK have the right idea." Then one night, for no apparent reason, you purposely run down a random black man who's walking down the sidewalk. Then you'd probably be charged with a hate crime.

As many of us keep pointing out, the justice system takes the state of mind of the accused into account ALL THE TIME. If a hate crime is an Orwellian "thought crime", then premeditated murder is also an Orwellian "thought crime".

[The Hamster King]

Well said, and I hope someday we will have laws against hate groups. Meaning those groups whose primary reason for being is to hate other groups of people.I disagree. Free speech is far too valuable to be discarded so lightly.

[tomndebb]

I thought I did.As far as I can tell, ther 1st Amendment is still operational, so it appears that you have not repealed it, yet.

[Hail Ants]

On the other hand suppose you've repeatedly told your buddies how unhappy you are with the number of black people who have recently moved into your neighborhood. You've said things like, "Somebody ought to teach them a lesson." and "Those fellas in the KKK have the right idea." Then one night, for no apparent reason, you purposely run down a random black man who's walking down the sidewalk. Then you'd probably be charged with a hate crime.No offense, but if you can't see what an unbelievable can of worms that is, or how any lawyer could and absolutely would literally twist that to suit whatever means he needed, then you're not living in the real world.

As many of us keep pointing out, the justice system takes the state of mind of the accused into account ALL THE TIME. If a hate crime is an Orwellian "thought crime", then premeditated murder is also an Orwellian "thought crime".Wrong. Premeditation is not a motive for murder, its a method.

Something that I want to make very clear about all this:
Suggesting that murdering for hate is somehow much worse than murdering for money is fundamentally wrong!

Murder is the most heinous act one can commit. Even comparing it to the act of 'hating' inherently belittles the crime of taking another human life. It becomes about hating blacks or gays or Jews instead of about killing another human being. I actually know and am friends with people who do the former to some degree (and so are all of you). I don't know anyone who's done the latter.

You're doing exactly what the people you want to punish do. You're defining something based on race, religion or sex, not the immorality of murder itself.

[Czarcasm]

lekatt, I'd still like to know which groups you were referencing in post #39. Who are the groups that pick on other groups that you'd like to outlaw?

[lekatt]

If you're serious, how could you possibly word such a law as to not violate the 1st amendment (or are you for repealing the 1st amendment)?


Has nothing to do with the first amendment. Has to do with refusing people to form terriorist groups. To hate and terriorize other groups solely because of their nationality, etc. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Hail Ants]

Has nothing to do with the first amendment. Has to do with refusing people to form terriorist groups.Ahem, this is the text of The First Amendment of The US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Before terrorists do any actually terrorizing they do a lot of what could only be described as 'peaceably assemble'-ing. It doesn't matter if they're talking about doing violent things, until they actually move forward into committing violent actions its still a peaceful assembly.

Look, we all know that hate groups and hate speech are bad things. But you cannot just make a law that contains such broad and ambiguous terms as 'evil' or 'hate' and expect it to be enforceable.

And you cannot simply put an asterisk next to the First Amendment and at the bottom write: * except for hate speech and hate groups

[The Hamster King]

Wrong. Premeditation is not a motive for murder, its a method.It is a mental state. The actions the murderer takes leading up to the murder may provide evidence as to his intent, but it is not the actions that are the aggravating factor. It's the intent itself.

This makes perfect sense. A person who loses himself in a moment of high emotion and commits a violent act is not as morally culpable as a person who ruminates on the crime before committing it. Determining the internal mental state of the murderer is key to determining how severely he deserves to be punished.

If, as you claim, premeditation is merely a method then all we're doing is punishing meticulous murderers more harshly than sloppy ones. Where's the justice in that?

Something that I want to make very clear about all this:
Suggesting that murdering for hate is somehow much worse than murdering for money is fundamentally wrong!Hate crimes terrorize entire communities. That's why it's an aggravating factor. A lynching is a murder first, but it's also an attempt to intimidate and terrorize others besides the primary victim.

It's the same reasoning that leads us to punish criminals who kill police officers more harshly than criminals who kill ordinary civilians. It's not that police officers' lives are inherently more valuable. Rather it's a recognition that an attack on a police officer is an attack on the general social order as well as an attack on an individual. Similarly, those who commit hate crimes are attacking the general social order and deserve a harsher punishment.

You're doing exactly what the people you want to punish do. You're defining something based on race, religion or sex, not the immorality of murder itself.That a crime is committed is still the key point. The intent of the person committing the crime is merely an aggravating factor. Do you disagree that determining the intent of the murderer is an important part of arriving at a just sentence?

[The Hamster King]

It doesn't matter if they're talking about doing violent things, until they actually move forward into committing violent actions its still a peaceful assembly.Not necessarily. If they actually are planning violent actions they may be involved in a criminal conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)), even if they never manage to carry out their plans.

[tomndebb]

Something that I want to make very clear about all this:
Suggesting that murdering for hate is somehow much worse than murdering for money is fundamentally wrong!

Murder is the most heinous act one can commit. Even comparing it to the act of 'hating' inherently belittles the crime of taking another human life. It becomes about hating blacks or gays or Jews instead of about killing another human being. I actually know and am friends with people who do the former to some degree (and so are all of you). I don't know anyone who's done the latter.

You're doing exactly what the people you want to punish do. You're defining something based on race, religion or sex, not the immorality of murder itself.I am NOT a proponent of hate crime legislation. However, leaving aside murder, (because that is an extreme case), I can see several real situations where the hate exacerbates the crime. If your typical jerk spray paints "fuck you" across the front of the house of the elderly lady down the street, she will suffer a certain amount of distress. However, if she is Jewish and you spray paint "fuck you kike" with a Hakenkreuz or is she is black and you spray paint "fuck you nigger," I strongly suspect that her level of distress will be considerably higher.

- - -

As to intent: we already judge crimes based on intent. First degree/Aggravated Murder includes the intent to kill a person followed by the actual killing. Second Degree/Simple Murder requires that the killing be deliberate, but that the motive arise from an immediate emotional response rather than a deliberate and previously thought out choice to kill. Manslaughter requires only that the death result from one's actions, even when there was no intent to kill, usually arising from an intent to inflict harm short of death. Negligent Homicide rerquires only that ones actions (or failure to act), resulted in a death, even when there was absolutely no intent to inflict harm.

I do not promote hate crime legislation because I suspect that it fails to accomplish any of the hazily expressed goals it is intended to addreess. However, there is clearly a hate component to hate crime analogous to other existing laws.