Grendel, again, I’m not 100% sure of my position on this; I’m just saying what comes to mind.
It would seem to me that being homophobic or racist, does not also automatically make one independently wealthy.
Even racists have to show for work every day, take the garbage out, and change the oil in the car, just like the rest of us.
Homophobes and racists only have so much free time on their hands; most of them probably don’t beat someone up every day. They probably partake in such activities in their leisure time, when drinking and partying with their other idiotic friends on a Friday night. Notwithstanding that they’ll probably empty the victim’s wallet, I don’t see how there’s much financial profit in simply injuring people.
However, property crimes like mugging, bank robbery, and auto theft, do have some true financial incentives. And if crime is your sole source of income, you HAVE to go mug somebody tonight, or you’ll miss your car payment.
So it would seem to me that if anything, a person who commits crime for financial gain, might be MORE likely to repeat the act, than someone who is purely acting to satisfy his emotions.
But why would person A be making anti-gay remarks, Chris?
I’ll confess that I’ve been in situations just like you described- someone jumps a minor altercation to another level based on their own issues. Person A certainly didn’t set out to commit a hate crime, and in fact it would be hard to convict him of one- but that’s exactly what it was: The incident got out of hand due to person A’s prejudice.
If you are trying to talk about some makebelieve world where people start physical altercations for minor reasons I’m gonna have to call shenannigans.
This example actually goes against your argument. In this case extenuating circumstances can be considered in giving LESS time, not more. But the more important issue is that here the individual case would be looked at, and treated according to its merits! This is exactly what hate crime laws do not allow. You can’t commit a mass murder, then steal some money from a body to save your child and expect less time. There is no “child’s life” law that says every single crime commited with a motive to save a child automatically gets a lesser punishment, regardless of the individual case! That would be silly. As silly as hate crime laws?
Surely you realize the conspiracy to commit mass murder is itself a crime, not a motive…
What do you mean by “profit, etc.”? Are you saying that hate crimes are more evil than crimes based on a love for torturing people? Is it more evil to kill someone because you hate them or because you wanted to cause immense pain to the family that loved them? (Yes, other people are hurt even with your “nicer” motives) Any crime could have any number of equally evil motives, and all of these motives should result in the highest possible sentences. To do otherwise is unfair and hurtful. There should also be a chance to take individual extenuating circumstances into account to reduce the sentence. What we most definitely do not need is a law that says one evil motive is the most evil and causes the most harm, when this is not true, and even worse does not allow us to take the individual case into account, but rather group it into a general category. I could go on, but nobody even responded to my first post… although they did respond to chris, who basically used my same example but in a weaker form… hmmm.
How does this go against my argument? In each situation, the motive of the mugger is considered, and the motive affects the punishment meted out.
Yes, an extenuating motive lessens punishment. An aggravating motive increases punishment.
So, I’m assuming you are opposed to the laws of several states that hold that the murder of a potential witness against you makes you eligible for the death penalty, rather than simply life imprisonment? The “individual case” is not considered - except to the extent that we look at you motive for killing your victim.
::sigh:: Conspiracy is defined as an agreement between parties to commit a crime, combined with one overt act by any member of the conspiracy in furtherance of that conspiracy.
So Mr. Mugger does one thing - he beats and robs Chris. However, because his motive in mugging Chris was to raise money to buy explosives, he gets charged with conspiracy. He did the exact same thing as the mugger who beat and robbed Chris solely for profit, but gets a considerably harsher punishment, simply because of his motive.
Indeed, it goes farther than that. Mr. Mugger’s buddy can be convicted of conspiracy and be sent away for life - even though he has done nothing. He is entirely guilty solely because of his intent.
The “highest possible sentence” is death. But we don’t give the death penalty to muggers. We don’t give it to shoplifters. We have already made judgments of comparative evil.
And yes, IMO a hate crime is more evil, because the underlying motivation is evil.
With most crimes, the underlying motivation isn’t evil. When a mugger robs for profit, at base he is trying to get money, which our society doesn’t consider an evil thing. He’s simply going about it in an evil way.
OTOH, when someone beats up someone simply because the victim is white, both the actions and the underlying motivation are evil. Thus the punishment should be accordingly greater.
And yes, there are other underlying motivations that are equally evil. And many of them are already considered in the law. If there are some that have been missed, well, let’s amend the laws to include them.
Yes, motive affects the punishment meted out. But as I said there is no “Child’s Life” law that makes any crime with the motive of saving a child automatically turn into a different crime with a lesser punishment. If your argument was simply to take motive into account when determining a sentence I would agree with you. But that is not your argument.
I am not opposed to taking the motive into account when determining punishment. If someone murders a witness, that motive should get them the harshest possible sentence for murder, which in the case you mention is the death penalty. You might say that the death penalty is not normally considered for murder, but that is because the motive is not normally as bad as silencing a witness.
Thank you. I thought I might have to look up “conspiracy” in order to prove to you that it is a crime, not a motive, but you did the work for me. Notice that the “one overt act” is not necessarily a crime. The conspiracy is the crime, as you have proved.
No… Mr. Mugger gets a harsher punishment because he is guilty of the additional crime of conspiracy, as you have defined it above. Did you already forget your own definition? Not only that, but his punishment is not for the mugging. He could just as easily have used some legal overt act to get money for his conspiracy, in which case it would be even more obvious that the conspiracy is a crime, not a motive.
No… the buddy is guilty of conspiracy as you have just defined it. And surely you know the difference between intent and motive? (Hopefully you will again look it up and prove my point for me)
I had no idea shoplifting had a maximum penalty of death! :eek:
First of all, I doubt many muggers have such a squeaky clean motive. You just may not know their true feelings. Second, I have no problem with giving a higher sentence for crimes based on hate or other evil motives. There is a range of possible punishments for a crime, and an evil motive can be used to get the very top punishment. What we don’t need is a law that substantially changes a crime and its punishment range based on part of the motive.
Yes, but it should not be changed into an entirely different crime so that the individual case cannot be looked at. What if someone beats up a white victim because they are white, but you find out their sister had just been murdered by a white man. Is their crime really a substantially different and worse crime than someone beating someone up because they enjoy causing pain? Why should we create a law that will not allow us to look at the circumstances, but forces us to fit a wide range of crimes, with different percentages of the motive based on hate, into one category that forces higher punishment?
Right. Let’s divide every crime into an infinite number of different crimes, based on motive. Let’s make prosecutors prove what the motive was in addition to proving the crime itself. Or we could set a range of possible punishments for each crime, and use the individual motive in a particular case, if it can be determined, to judge what the punishment should be… that way any of the motives in the “most evil” category would result in the top punishment!
I have responses to your points, and if you want them, I’ll provide them. But I think I see a way to get right to the nub of the argument:
OK, then. You acknowledge that motive can be taken into account when determining punishment. You also (impliedly) acknowledge that such a taking into account of motive may be written into the law.
So what are we left with to argue about? Whether the motive of racial/sexual/ethnic hatred should be one of those motives for which additional punishments are mandated under the law.
You say it shouldn’t, I say it should.
Let’s talk about that. Let’s stop this silliness about whether or not motive can validly affect the type of crime charged or the punishment meted out (or even the determination of whether a crime was committed at all) - it patently can.
A giant meteor that destroys the planet addresses everyone equally too. Not that that is similar to hate crime laws, but not everything that is equal is good.
Well, I wish you had responded to this:
You didn’t do my work for me this time? All right:
Motive is never a crime, and it does not determine the type of crime. In your example about murdering a witness, it is only the fact that they were a witness against you that makes a harsher punishment likely. Think about it… what if you murder a potential witness against you just because you don’t like their face? Will you be charged with a lesser crime because of your motive? No! Motive is immaterial.
In your example about the conspiracy, I have already shown that conspiracy is a crime, not a motive. It is the intent to commit further crimes that nets the criminals a higher sentence. It does not matter why they were planning those crimes. Again, motive is immaterial.
Hate crime laws are a terrible idea because for the first time prosecutors will have to prove not only intent and fact, but also the motive! This makes no sense! Motives are not only immaterial, but extremely complicated, and in reality nearly, if not completely, impossible to prove.
Motive can be taken into account when determining punishment because, although it is not part of the crime, the motive can give extenuating circumstances that justify a lower sentence, or it can show evil circumstances that justify a harsher sentence. This does not mean it should be written into the law, because motive is NEVER part of the crime. It is immaterial. It is the exact same crime. Hate crime laws make motive relevant to the type of crime commited, and FORCE, not allow, a harsher sentence. This really makes no sense.
What do you mean “one of those motives”? There are NO motives for which additional punishments are mandated. I agree that hatred is one of the most evil motives, and as such the criminal should get one of the highest possible sentences for their particular crime. But motives are immaterial and nearly impossible to prove, and as such they are not and should not be relevant to what the actual crime commited was! Do you really want to divide every crime into an infinite number of motive-crimes?
So, since I have disproved all your examples of motive affecting the type of crime or if it is a crime at all, you want to just skip that and assume that you were right? You are still confusing motive with intent. Once again, motive is immaterial. Hate crime laws make it materal, and this is a bad thing. To be fair we would have to make similar laws for every other motive, and this is impossible because motives are almost impossible to prove, and they should not have to be proved. We can still give people with a motive of hate the highest possible sentence for their crime! There is no need, and indeed it would be an extremely bad idea, to make a law that hate motives, alone among motives, are somehow material to the crime and FORCE a higher punishment regardless of any other circumstances.
There are many other crimes which have indirect victims and can scare the entire population of a city or even a state. Ever hear of Richard Ramierez, David Berkowitz, Jack the Ripper, Daniel Rolling, the Zodiac Killer, or the Ted Kaczynski?
There’s plenty of other less famous examples. Have you ever seen a college campus where several rapes had occured in a matter of months and the police suspect it is one man? How about the fear that every parent feels when they find out a child in their neighborhood was kidnapped?
It seems rather silly to me to punish someone more severly because of indirect victims.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. In New York State, murdering a witness is a different crime than murdering your spouse. Murdering a witness is murder in the first degree, killing your spouse is murder in the second degree (not intent, but motive is at issue - in both cases you intended to kill someone - the difference in the two crimes is why).
Similarly, manslaughter is a different crime than murder, solely because of motive.
Motive is utterly material. What matters is why you committed the overt act. If the overt act was legal and not done to further your conspiracy, there is no crime. If the overt act was legal, but done to further your conspiracy, then you are guilty of conspiracy.
Same precise act, two different motives. And the motive for committing the overt act determines whether a crime has occurred.
I am trying to rethink my position; I still support hate crime legislation, but I guess I probably need a more well thought out reason.
From an emotional standpoint, I feel like (and I’m sure others do as well) I am walking around with a target on my back in some areas. In that way, the son of Sam example is comparable. With the exception that when son of Sam was killing brunettes women could and did change their hair color- skin color is harder to change.
My wory, and it still seems valid to an extent, is that when a gay basher gets out of prison he still has targets for his hate- nothing can be done to take away his initial motive.
Given the high rate of recidivism in our penal system your concern is warranted. However I think that your concern would apply equally well to many rapist, robbers, extortionist, arsonist, child molesters, and others who commit violent acts. I wish it were as simple as saying we can remove the motivation these people have. We’ve been trying to do that since the Code of Hammurabi.
What’s even more frightful is that many people who go through the penal system come out more hardened then they were when they got in there. Supposedly two of the men who dragged James Byrd, Jr. to his death came out of the Texas penal system a greater danger to society then when they went in.
I am having trouble expressing my point of view, which is one sign I need to think about it more. I know that I agree with the idea of hate crime legislation, and I know some of the reasons for that, but I can’t quite put words to it. Part of it is purely self interest, since I have been gay bashed in the past (not since high school, and not nearly as bad as what others have gone through). Part of it is that unreasoning hatred seems so alien to me, like crossing a line that can’t be returned over- as TMBG sang “You can’t shake the devil’s hand/ and say you’re only kidding”. Part of it is the feeling that, as you said MEB, the situation will only get worse when they get out.
In most instances I like to hope for reform on the part of one who is convicted of a crime, unlikely as it may be. In the case of Skinheads/ gay bashers/ Klansmen, etc. I honestly think reform is impossible.
Motive = An emotion, desire, physiological need, or similar impulse that acts as an incitement to action.
Intent = an aim or purpose, but the legal definition of intent includes: The state of one’s mind at the time one carries out an action.
The specific emotion or desire that incites an action is not material. Anyone who is familiar with the law knows this. Motive is ALWAYS immaterial. There are distinctions between murder 1, murder 2, manslaughter, etc, but these distinctions are based on intent. For example, if a murder is premeditated, that is part of the intent, the state of mind at the time of the action, and thus it is first degree murder. In manslaughter the intent was not to kill, but the action was so reckless that death should have been foreseen. The specific emotion leading to the act is not material, and it never determines the type of crime. Being temporarily insane because of an overwhelming emotion speaks to your state of mind, so it is part of intent. It does not matter what that emotion was. As for killing a witness, it has a higher punishment for the exact reason that killing a cop has a higher punishment. It does not matter what your motive is, it is simply the fact that you killed a witness or a cop that makes it a harsher punishment.
The interesting thing is, not only do hate crime laws make motive material, but they forbid the judge to fully consider the intent! In my example about someone who beats a white man because they hate white people, but their sister was just killed by a white man (they hated whites before this), you should be able to consider their intent, but no… let’s just throw it into the “hate crime” category, who needs to look at the individual case?
The ultimate purpose of hate crime legislation is to discourage harmful acts arising out of extreme prejudice against a specific segment of society. Burning a cross on the lawn of a person of color in an all-white neighborhood has significance beyond an act of vandalism, and should be treated as such. Criminalizing such acts is intended to discourage such behaviors.
The usefulness of hate crime legislation is less clear if one uses an extreme crime, such as homicide, as an example. Existing laws provide strong disincentives toward committing such acts, so that it is more difficult to justify the use of hate crime legislation to discourage such acts.
Just wanted to point out that, hell yes in your example the criminal needs to be punished. You are talking about blindly looking for a white man, not the white man who killed the sister.
The city I live in had a terriblething happened once because some bigots went looking for convenient victims after they thought someone had committed a crime.
Once again, we are talking about some truly fucked up individuals here. In what way are you saying that your example shouldn’t be a hate crime? The victim is not being attacked because of anything he did, but because of what someone who shares some meaningless characteristic with him did.
Do you honestly feel that those idiots who attacked Arab Americans and East Indian Americans [sub]'Cause, y’know, they look like ay-rabs[/sub] after September 11 are somehow less guilty?
One reason I think hate crime laws exist is in an attempt to punish those that might incite “gang” or “lynchmob” mentality. It’s punative, which happens in civil law all the time. These are crimes that eat away at the very substance of our constitution. You might say that all crimes do that, but some crimes are DIFFERENT. They go against everything we’ve stood up for all these years-- Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.
Hate crime laws force us to keep moving forward…we don’t want to go back to the days of slavery, gay bashing, and degrading. As a nation we’d like to think that those days are gone. This is a way of letting people know that we aren’t going to turn our heads anymore or create a separate set of laws that enable bad guys to be bad to people who “aren’t like them.” Did that make sense?
Now, before you say “A-hah!” motive is immaterial to whether intent to commit a crime exists. Absolutely, no question about it. However, motive is absolutely not immaterial to what crime was committed
For proof of that, let’s look at the New York’s murder statutes. N.Y. Penal code s. 125.27(1)(a)(v)
A person is guilty of murder in the first degree when:
With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person; and
*** [snipped - murdering of cops, peace officers, etc.]
(v) the intended victim was a witness to a crime committed on a prior
occasion and the death was caused for the purpose of preventing the intended victim`s testimony in any criminal action or proceeding whether or not such action or proceeding had been commenced, or the intended victim had previously testified in a criminal action or proceeding and the killing was committed for the purpose of exacting retribution for such prior testimony, or the intended victim was an immediate family member of a witness to a crime committed on a prior occasion and the killing was committed for the purpose of preventing or influencing the testimony of such witness, or the intended victim was an immediate family member of a witness who had previously testified in a criminal action or proceeding and the killing was committed for the purpose of exacting retribution upon such witness for such prior testimony.
[/QUOTE]
Now, let’s look at a different crime in New York, Murder in the Second Degree N.Y. Penal Code 125.25(1) :
(I’m snipping out felony murder and depraved indifference murder, as they aren’t relevant to the discussion)
So, let’s see here. You have the intent to commit murder. That’s normally murder in the second degree. However, if your motive is to eliminate a witness or to get retribution against a witness, the crime you have committed is in the first degree - even though your intent remains the same.
OTOH, if your motive is to aid the suicide of another, you haven’t committed the crime of murder in the second degree, but instead (at most) you have committed the crime of manslaughter in the second degree.
Further, if your motive (remember, the thing that caused you to act) was extreme emotional disturbance, you haven’t committed the crime of murder, but instead of (at most) the crime of manslaughter in the first degree.
In each instance, the intent is a necessary element to determine whether a crime occurred. However, motive determines which crime.
If that is not currently a criminal act, it should be. It is more than vandalism, it is threatening, and it should have higher possible punishments, but a motive of hate should not be required to get these punishments. Anyone who tries to terrify and intimidate anyone in the way you describe is guilty, not only those who have hateful opinions. I don’t get why you would want to protect those with other terrible motives.
Matthew Shepard’s killers could have gotten the death penalty, but Matthew’s parents didn’t want them to. They did not have to be convicted of a hate crime in order for the death penalty to be possible. I believe in very high punishments for homicide, we just do not need different punishments based on the criminal having opinions we do not agree with. Punishing opinions is scary to me, because what opinion will be next? Will it eventually be illegal to hold any opinion that is in the minority?
Huh? I agree that hate crimes are not really useful, but are just a poorly thought out way to make a political statement, but I am unaware of a “separate set of laws” protecting bad guys who are bad to people who “aren’t like them.” Again, I think you are giving way to much credit to people who commit crimes for other reasons than irrational hate. They have their own terrible motives, and in any case their actions are just as bad.
I don’t think it is right to deny a fair trial, in which the intent involved in the individual case is considered, to someone just because you do not like them. We can agree that we don’t like people who hate, but I still think they deserve the same fair trial as everyone else. Also your reasoning is one of the major reasons I don’t like hate crime laws… they devalue the suffering of every other victim. “The victim is not being attacked because of anything he did”? Yeah, as opposed to all those women who are just asking to be raped, all the families who are foolish enough to own any property, and everyone who is crazy enough to leave their house in the morning… :rolleyes:
Again, thank you for proving my point for me. I looked up the definitions I used too, and I don’t see what the difference is or why you say mine were wrong, except that your definitions are much better for my argument. “When the intent to do an act that violates the law exists, motive becomes immaterial.” Read this line a few times… it says that if intent exists, then motive is immaterial.
Why would I say motive is immaterial to whether intent exists? Your own definition states that if intent exists at all, motive is immaterial.
Wrong. Think about it logically… what if your motive is the desire to silence a witness, but you kill the wrong person, someone who is not a witness at all? You will not be charged with killing a witness, because you didn’t kill a witness. Now look at hate crime laws. What if you kill someone because you think they belong to some minority you hate, but find out later that they don’t? You are STILL charged with a hate crime, because even though you did not kill someone from that minority, you had hate in your mind. In this case it is not a person being protected, it is hatred being punished. And hatred, although we all agree that we don’t like it, is legal.
You are still confusing motive and intent. Extreme emotional disturbance is part of your state of mind, which by your own definition is part of intent. In the case of assisted suicide it is also your state of mind that matters. It does not matter why you are assisting suicide, it only matters that you are in fact assisting suicide, rather than just murdering someone.
The very fact that you say intent is a necessary element proves that motive is immaterial, because if intent exists then motive is ALWAYS immaterial. Just look at the definitions you provided. We can already punish crimes adequately, if we can’t then we need to allow stronger punishment for every crime of a certain type, not only those in which the criminal holds hateful opinions which we disagree with. This is simply unfair to victims of all other crimes, and criminalizes thought which I believe is a very bad idea and goes against all principles which I thought this country was about.
