I was surprised to find that Massachusetts recognizes “hate crimes’-by special statute! I have a big problem with this:
-why is a crime carried out with “hate” any worse than one carried out without?
-how can anyone determine if a murder was carried out 'with hate”?
-these laws set a VERY BAD precedent-they establish a special class of victim, and open the way toward seperate justice systems-I’m thinking ahead to when the US has to allow “Sharia” law for muslim immigrants.
What’s the concensus on this? :eek:
I was surprised to find that the United States recognizes “premeditated murder” by special statute! I have a big problem with this:
-why is a crime committed with “malice aforethought” any worse than one carried out without it?
-How can anybody determine if a muder was carried out with “malice aforethought”?
-These laws established, quite some time ago, a VERY BAD precedent- they established a special class of criminal, and open the way towards seperate justice systems- I’m thinking a head to when the US has to allow “cook 'em and eat 'em” law for cannibals.
What’s the consensus on this? :eek:
Ahem.
A hate crime, not only not setting any precedent, as it deals with motive, is a more grievous crime because it is a terrorist action. A crime of passion is a crime against someone, as is a premeditated crime of violence or greed. A hate crime sends a very clear message to an entire community: violence is random and directed at people solely because of their membership in that community. It should be prosecuted as such.
To answer your questions:
-
Hate crimes laws have been found to be constitutional in State v Mitchell.
-
A crime carried out “with hate” is generally worse than a crime carried out without, because crimes that are directed against people because they belong to a specific group, in addition to harming the person the crime is directed against, also serves to intimidate and marginalize other members of that group.
-
The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that the crime is motivated by hatred. This can be shown the same way you show any other motive.
-
I disagree. The laws don’t establish a special class of victim…they establish a new class of criminal. .
But anyone can be a victim of a hate crime. I don’t know how it opens the way toward seperate justice systems -
There is no consensus on the appropriateness of hate crimes legislation, and you can find people both for and against it.
You wouldn’t, by any chance, be willing to get your answers from the dozens of past threads on this very subject, would you, Ralph.
I take it you’re opposed to the idea of a crime of murder, to the charge of reckless driving, to the idea of criminal negligence, the tort of medical malpractice, etc.? Because motive and intent play a major part in the legal definition for each.
And I am not going to go through the conceptualization required to distinguish between “a special class of victim” and “a criminal action founded on hatred for a group on the basis of a suspect classification.” That is, Blacks aren’t specially protected; crimes based on racial hatred are targeted. Pardon the melodramatic stereotype, but the black gang member who assaults an innocent white-kid passerby because “he’s a child of the oppressive white establishment” is just as guilty of a hate crime as the white supremacist group assaulting a black family. If Jerry Falwell had been telling the truth about being assaulted by a gang of radical gays in LA “because he was a Christian,” they would have been guilty of a hate crime against him.