hate crimes

[refusal]

*Originally posted by hermn8r *
**Is the extra day for hating Jews? Wouldn’t this be criminalizing hate? Hate, while awful, is legal in America isn’t it? Is it acting on hate that is being made a crime in a ‘hate crime’? What am I missing here?

I like to consider myself open to more information and willing to change my mind on things like this, but up to now, I’ve always thought ‘hate crime’ legislation criminalized ‘hate’ which is (and should be) legal. BAD, AWFUL etc, but LEGAL.

Thanks for the information. **

Hate may be legal but acting on hate is illegal. Wanting to kill someone is legal, but attempted murder is punished more severely than assault. The reason is partly one of deterrence, and partly to punish more those people who have worse intentions.

[Stonebow]

i have always equated ‘hate crimes’ with domestic terrorism. you are not harming an individual, you are attempting to create fear in an entire subset.

so even if we want to get hate crimes off the books, i’d still like to see people that engage in the same sorts of behavior brought up on domestic terrorism charges.

[Otto]

Here’s the Supreme Court’s opinion in the case pravnik and I referenced.

Pursuant to a Wisconsin statute, respondent Mitchell’s sentence for aggravated battery was enhanced because he intentionally selected his victim on account of the victim’s race. The State Court of Appeals rejected his challenge to the law’s constitutionality, but the State Supreme Court reversed. Relying on R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. ___, it held that the statute violates the First Amendment by punishing what the legislature has deemed to be offensive thought and rejected the State’s contention that the law punishes only the conduct of intentional victim selection. It also found that the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad because the evidentiary use of a defendant’s prior speech would have a chilling effect on those who fear they may be prosecuted for offenses subject to penalty enhancement. Finally, it distinguished antidiscrimination laws, which have long been held constitutional, on the ground that they prohibit objective acts of discrimination, whereas the state statute punishes the subjective mental process.

Held: Mitchell’s First Amendment rights were not violated by the application of the penalty enhancement provision in sentencing him. Pp. 4-12.

(a) While Mitchell correctly notes that this Court is bound by a state court’s interpretation of a state statute, the State Supreme Court did not construe the instant statute in the sense of defining the meaning of a particular word or phrase. Rather, it characterized the statute’s practical effect for First Amendment purposes. Thus, after resolving any ambiguities in the statute’s meaning, this Court may form its own judgment about the law’s operative effect. The State’s argument that the statute punishes only conduct does not dispose of Mitchell’s claim, since the fact remains that the same criminal conduct is more heavily punished if the victim is selected because of his protected status than if no such motive obtains. Pp. 5-6.

(b) In determining what sentence to impose, sentencing judges have traditionally considered a wide variety of factors in addition to evidence bearing on guilt, including a defendant’s motive for committing the offense. While it is equally true that a sentencing judge may not take into consideration a defendant’s abstract beliefs, however obnoxious to most people, the Constitution does not erect a per se barrier to the admission of evidence concerning one’s beliefs and associations at sentencing simply because they are protected by the First Amendment. Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U. S. ___; Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 (plurality opinion). That Dawson and Barclay did not involve the application of a penalty enhancement provision does not make them inapposite. Barclay involved the consideration of racial animus in determining whether to sentence a defendant to death, the most severe “enhancement” of all; and the state legislature has the primary responsibility for fixing criminal penalties. Motive plays the same role under the state statute as it does under federal and state antidiscrimination laws, which have been upheld against constitutional challenge. Nothing in R. A. V. v. St. Paul, supra, compels a different result here. The ordinance at issue there was explicitly directed at speech, while the one here is aimed at conduct unprotected by the First Amendment. Moreover, the State’s desire to redress what it sees as the greater individual and societal harm inflicted by bias inspired conduct provides an adequate explanation for the provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders’ beliefs or biases. Pp. 7-10.

© Because the statute has no “chilling effect” on free speech, it is not unconstitutionally overbroad. The prospect of a citizen suppressing his bigoted beliefs for fear that evidence of those beliefs will be introduced against him at trial if he commits a serious offense against person or property is too speculative a hypothesis to support this claim. Moreover, the First Amendment permits the admission of previous declarations or statements to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent, subject to evidentiary rules dealing with relevancy, reliability, and the like. Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631. Pp. 10-12.

169 Wis. 2d 153, 485 N. W. 2d 807, reversed and remanded.

Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

R.A.V. vs St. Paul was a cross-burning case.

[astorian]

Pop quiz: suppose, just SUPPOSE… that the guys who killed Matthew Shepard were being interrogated. Imagine that the scenario goes like this:

Cop: So, why’d you do it? Is it because he was gay?

Punk #1: He was gay? Huh. Go figure. I didn’t even know that.

Punk #2: Yeah, we just thought it would be fun to torture and kill somebody. We were just bored, you know? Anyway, this little guy practically falls into our laps, and we could tell he wouldn’t be able to put up much of a fight.

Punk #1: Yeah, so we just kicked the hell out of him, and left him out to die. It was cool.

So… IF the interrogation had gone that way, would gay rights groups heave a sigh of relief? “Oh, thank goodness! They killed him just for the heck of it! At least it wasn’t a HATE crime!”
I sure HOPE not!

Can you grasp that, once we’re dealing with crimes of a certain magnitude, the perps’ motives become irrelevant? Whe we’re dealing with a brutal murder, I fail to say how one motive (the killer didn’t like blacks or Jews) is more deplorable or more worthy of punishment than another (somebody flirted with the killer’s girlfriend).

As I’ve said many times before, racism/homophobia/etc. can and SHOULD be considered when the crimes are smaller. There’s a qualititative difference between a guy who spray paints the name of his favorite rock group on a subway car and a guy who spray paints a swastika on a synagogue. The former deserves a hefty fine and a lot of community service. The latter deserves some real jail time.

But when the crimes are serious, I honestly don’t care whether the criminal is driven by racism or by mere greed. Murder is murder. Aggravated assault is aggravated assault. If you commit such a crime, I say you deserve the most severe punishment possible, REGARDLESS of why you did it.

[Otto]

Let’s try to not have this turn into GD territory, OK?

As for hate crimes enhancers in murders and the like, when such enhancers become redundant prosecutors have the option of dropping them. For example, cite. Hell, prosecutors always have the option of dropping them or not charging them in the first place. They’re optional enhancers, not mandatory charges.

[UnwrittenNocturne]

OK, now I do not agree with hate crime laws. The valid point is that a hate crime terrorises a portion of the populace, but might I add that other crimes, not so motivated, would seem to me to terrorise the entire populace? By putting on additional penalties for crimes motivated by hate, are we not legitimising the view that some people (or their property) are worth more than others in some respect?

[Otto]

Well, to use the vandalism example, it’s highly unlikely that society of any significant segment of it is going to feel terrorized or threatened by seeing “Bobby Loves Sue” sprayed on a synagogue. It’s much more likely that society or a significant segment of it will feel terrorized or threatened by seeing a swastika on a synagogue. Since the target of a hate crime doesn’t need to be a minority (black on white violence as noted, or gay on straight although I have never heard of such a case) such laws are not saying that person A or group A is more valuable or important, but that victimizing someone based on race, religion etc. is so unacceptable that it is deserving of greater punishment. Sort of like how, say, sexually assaulting a child tends to be a more serious offense than sexually assaulting an adult is not saying that children are more valuable than adults. Such laws are saying that the crime is more serious based on the effects beyond those of the simple act of the crime, not that the victim is better or more important.

[Nametag]

What non-lawyers don’t understand is that this “you can’t be punished for what you’re thinking” notion is wrong. A critical part of every crime is mens rea, the “guilty mind.” To be guilty of most crimes, you must intend the illegal act. In the case of homicide, there are several crimes which are distinguished solely by the killer’s state of mind— intent, premeditation, recklessness, provocation, etc. define the difference between murder and manslaughter, first degree and second degree, even guilt and innocence.

Hate crime laws add to this calculus, but not substantially. Intent is already an issue; it’s just more of an issue now. The reason we have criminal justice at all is to maintain the peace and defend the public; hate crime laws recognize that some motives present a greater challenge to these goals. The peace is threatened more by people who hate entire groups than by people who hate individuals.

[Chronos]

Minor hijack, by the way: Please don’t use the word “punk” synonymously with “thug” or “lowlife”. IANAP, but as I understand it, the present-day punk movement is actually fairly similar to the hippie movement, just with a different style of music.

[bibliophage]

I think this topic is better suited to Great Debates, so I’ll move this thread over there.

bibliophage
moderator GQ

[Iteki]

:eek: Crap, I don’t do GD… out of my depth here…

*Originally posted by hermn8r *
**Let’s say 2 days in jail.

Is the extra day for hating Jews? Wouldn’t this be criminalizing hate?**

No, the extra day is for intimidation, if you prefer that term.
If it weren’t for the fact that the word terrorism hs been completely bastardised, then yes, terrorism would be a very good term. “We hate you, we are going to hurt you, we are going to send a real message to those of you that we can’t actually get with this one action”. That sentiment can of course be more or less clearly articulated.

The comparisons to “thought police” are completely overdramatic. It is no more “thought police” than any other non-physical crime, such as conspiricy, intimidation or what have you.

(Bear with me through another awkward analogy if you will, it’s how I think).
Lets say we are neighbours. We have been arguing about parking, and leaves and stuff for years. We strongly dislike eachother. If I leave a hot-dog on your front porch, I don’t get arrested. If I leave a dead kitten on your front porch, chances are the police are going to want to have a word with me.

I play an online game that has the rule “Everyone has the right to be an asshole, but when it crosses over to harassment, you get smacked down”. This is, for me, similar.

[black_rabbit]

*Originally posted by UnwrittenNocturne *
**
…
By putting on additional penalties for crimes motivated by hate, are we not legitimising the view that some people (or their property) are worth more than others in some respect? **

Who’s life would be worth more? Note that the aggravating factor applies when the attacker is a member of a minority group as much as it does when they’re from the majority. Note the SCOTUS case mentioned by both Otto and pravnik, where the attackers were black and the victim white.

I mean, does the fact that we mete out more punishment for aggravated murder than vehicular homicide mean that the lives of those who are killed during a robbery are more valuable than the lives of those killed by drunk drivers? Of course not.

*Originally posted by Chronos *
**Minor hijack, by the way: Please don’t use the word “punk” synonymously with “thug” or “lowlife”. IANAP, but as I understand it, the present-day punk movement is actually fairly similar to the hippie movement, just with a different style of music. **

…except that we become violent when you compare us to hippies.

Actually, most “punks” tend to take the lowlife connotation as something as a point of pride, at least the ones who don’t have their heads up their asses.

[Rhum_Runner]

*Originally posted by Nametag *
**What non-lawyers don’t understand is that this “you can’t be punished for what you’re thinking” notion is wrong. A critical part of every crime is mens rea, the “guilty mind.” To be guilty of most crimes, you must intend the illegal act. In the case of homicide, there are several crimes which are distinguished solely by the killer’s state of mind— intent, premeditation, recklessness, provocation, etc. define the difference between murder and manslaughter, first degree and second degree, even guilt and innocence.

Hate crime laws add to this calculus, but not substantially. Intent is already an issue; it’s just more of an issue now. The reason we have criminal justice at all is to maintain the peace and defend the public; hate crime laws recognize that some motives present a greater challenge to these goals. The peace is threatened more by people who hate entire groups than by people who hate individuals. **

Clearly what you intend to do is important, mens rea and all that. It isn’t clear to me that why you intend to do what you do matters, or should matter, in most cases. Man robs store to feed starving family vs. man who robs store to feed coke habit. Both men have committed the same crime, and had the same mens rea, i.e. purposeful and knowing action, but they were motivated by different things. Similarly, man spray paints church with “Dick loves jane” or “Death to Jews” in each case there is no dispute that the action was intentional, what is at issue is whether or not the subjective motivation for the crime should be a valid grounds for an inhanced penalty. If people think that hate crimes are a form of domestic terrorism, then we should pass domestic terrorism laws, and convict people under that theory. To me, adding longer sentences for the same acts because of subjective motivation is the equivalent of punishing people for their thoughts.

[Magiver]

I originally thought hate crimes legislation was total BS because the concept was already covered using “aggravated” in conjunction with the crime. I didn’t realize this term was not universally defined (as also would be the case with hate crime laws).

So IMO, it is an extension of “aggravated” as is defined individually, by state. I still think it is BS but only because it is used as a vote gathering tool. You could easily tack on supplementary conditions to “aggravated” without all the self-aggrandizement.

[John_Mace]

How are the guys who killed Matt Shepard any more guilty of a “hate crime” than any lowlife who rapes and killls a woman? (BTW, were they even prosecuted for a hate crime?)

It’s not like they put a sign up above his body that said: “Attention all fags. This will be your fate”. Now that might have an element of “terror” to it. They picked someone who is gay in the same way that the rapist/murderer picked someone who is female.

[buttonjockey308]

The idea that you can get a greater sentence for the same crime because of your INTENT is not a new one, in fact as previously referenced, intent is the foundation of most, if not all personal crimes. Still, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around something so left field as hate crimes. The methods used to determine intent are somewhat scattered, in that one must follow a secnario to it’s the logical conclusion; example…

Subject A strikes subject B’s car with his own. B exits his car, seven kinds of pissed off, and screaming at A. “You stupid bastard, watch where you’re going, what the F%&k were you looking at?” A gets out of the car with a tire iron, and proceeds beating B about the head and shoulders with said tire iron. B runs away, A follows, strikes a final blow to B’s occipital cranium, dropping him like a sack of doorknobs. While still enraged, A says “Stupid _______ son of a bitch (insert gay, straight, black, white, whatever) had that coming.”

Is this now a hate crime? Was it a hate crime all along? Did it start as aggravated battery (the agg. factor being the tire iron)? What was A’s motivation? Will A be honest about his motivation, keeping in mind the hate crime laws?

Now, I realize this is but one scenario, yet we’ve got to be honest here, really, agg. batt. to manslaughter, is just that. A hated B for smashing his new car, this a hate crime too?
Hardly. It’s road rage, right? Wrong. How about murder? Nope. It’s manslaughter. A didn’t intend to kill B, he just did, and just subsequent to the act, he referenced his race/gender/orientation, which, to a bystander or witness willing to give a statement, would prompt authorities to proceed with hate crime charges, even though it’s far from a hate crime.

I honestly understand the rationale behind hate crime laws, and certianly, they are well intended, but the end result is flawed, and not just a little bit.

—What Would Scooby Doo?

[Jimmy1]

“you can’t be punished for what you’re thinking” notion is wrong.

Well this simply is not correct. One cannot be punished for what they are thinking. Merely thinking about committing a crime is not punishable. Thoughts are not punishable. More is required than just abstract thought.

With this said one must understand the difference between motive and intention. Belief may constitute as a motive in selecting a target. The belief all minorities must die would be a motive for an individual to select a minority to kill. If his penalty is enhanced as a result of his motive, in this instance his belief, then they are tacking on years as a result of his belief. As a result this is tantamount to punishing a person for his or her thoughts or beliefs, something that is not permissible.

[John_Mace]

Jimmy:

Maybe it’s just me, but I read your post 3 times and I still can’t figure out if you’re saying thoughts can or cannot be punished.

You must’ve already aced that class that all lawyers take to write the way they do (“belief may constitute as a motive”).

[Jimmy1]

John:

The mere thought of committing a crime is not punishable. I am saying only thinking about committing a crime is not something an individual can be punished for. Simple thoughts is not a sufficient condition for punishment but rather thoughts, in particular the bad kind of thoughts, are a necessary condition for punishment of some crimes. Meaning they are not sufficient to render punishment but their existence is necessary for punishment to be possible for some crimes. More is needed than just thoughts, it takes a culpable mind, an act, and for some other instances much more before a crime has been committed and punishment is possible.

As for the belief may constitute as motive idea. I say this only because not on every occasion will belief operate as the motive for committing a crime against a particular individual. I could rob Bill Gates because I need money and my motive in this scenario is not my belief but my need for money, or greed. In other situations belief may operate as the motive for selecting an individual to perpetuate a crime against.

I wasn’t so much writing as a lawyer as much as I was trying to be careful to stay away from absolutes. This is not a practice reserved only to lawyers ya know.

[pool]

you should be judged for the crime you committed, not your motivation for doing it.
white man # 1 kills a black man purely for the purpose of stealing his wallet for some quick cash.
white man # 2 kills another white man because he needs some quick cash.
white man # 3 kills a black man because he thinks the black race is inferior and worthless.
white serial killer’s third victim is a black man whom he kills because he is a sadist.
Whats the difference, four people are dead, who cares why they were murdered, their killers should all receive the same punishment.