Hate Crime Question

[PlainJain]

I was watching a movie tonight in which one of the characters was beaten severely because they thought he was gay. In the film the perps were originally charged with a hate crime but the 'hate' part of it was dropped when it came to light that the victim was not actually gay.

I realize this was just a movie, but IRL if a crime committed was hate based and those committing the crime were mistaken about the target victim, could the hate part of the crime still apply?



.

[ftg]

For US law, the grounds are for "actual or perceived". I.e., if the perps perceived the victim as gay, then they're in a heap of trouble.

The "perceived" part is recent. State laws vary, and many states don't consider hate crimes against gays a special category.

In general, don't get legal advice from movies. Double Jeopardy is a particularly glaring bad example.

[Woodenspoon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoNBx6S2P7g
title of the video is stupid, but andrew sullivan is right

[IAmNotSpartacus]

Originally Posted by ftg

The "perceived" part is recent. State laws vary, and many states don't consider hate crimes against gays a special category.

This, to an extent. Naturally California holds sexual orientation as a protected class.

I.e., California's coding of the offense:

For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all other state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly requires a different meaning, the following shall apply:

(a)"Hate crime" means a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim:

(1)Disability.

(2)Gender.

(3)Nationality.

(4)Race or ethnicity.

(5)Religion.

(6)Sexual orientation.

(7)Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.

(b)"Hate crime" includes, but is not limited to, a violation of Section 422.6.

PC 422.55

[md2000]

Young Adult, IIRC, was set in Minnesota. What's the law there?

The logic is wrong, anyway. We prosecute people based on their thoughts or intents all the time. First degree murder - I plan and plot to kill you - is a different crime from that of second degree murder - you pissed me off so much at the moment that I lost it, grabbed the axe and hacked at you over and over until you were dead. Manslaughter - I punched you so hard you died, but it was just a bar fight and I had no intent to actually kill - is even less of a crime.

Motivation and intent are specific parts of a crime. If a crime is based on prejudice, then society may choose to deal with it more harshly to send a message.

What I do find hypocritical, is that in society where freedom of speech is not a right, outside of the USA, a hate crime can be one of hateful speech. Sticks and stones and all that... You can disagree with society all you want, but to put it into action (or incite others to) should be a crime when it actually (physically) hurts others.

the danger of hate crime is that what passes for hate crime is most often the cause of the day. Who knows, 20 years from now when the baby boomers are all 70, assaulting anyone over 65 may automatically be a hate crime. You know their bones are brittle...