We already have greater and lesser penalties for crimes committed with certain motives in mind. Reasonable provocation will mitigate a homicide from murder to intentional manslaughter; killing a man you catch a man in bed with your wife will net a lesser sentence than killing a man at random for the hell of it. Is this significantly different?
“This is not a practice reserved only to lawyers ya know.”
Jimmy: No, but in the Verbal Olympics, the lawers always take gold, silver and bronze. I just really find it fascinating that EVERY lawyer I know (and I know quite a few) has the same way of answering questions. Not to dis it any way. If I were a woman, I might even think it was “cute”.
I think my confusion about the earlier post from you stems from being confused about the quote you started with. If that quote is meant to read “You can be punished for what you’re thinking”, then it all makes sense.
Anyway, lawyer on! It’s nice to hear from the experts at least some of the time.
Pravnik I will assume what you said as true and attempt to show a difference by example.
Lets use Johnny Reb as the defendant. Johnny Reb believes all minorities are an infirmity to society and the Republic. Johnny believes they should be slaves, shipped back to their native country, or murdered. This is Johnny’s belief. He is so dedicated to the notion he is correct that he joins the KKK and the Skinheads. They of course agree with him believing something must be done about the minority problem. Minorities are a problem, as they see it, and murdering them, even one of them, serves their notions of racial justice.
If they wanted to strike a blow for the white man and caucasion race, if they wanted to do some good for the advancement of the right race, are they likely, based on their beliefs, to choose a white person as an example or a minority? They are going to select a minority. Similar to the man in California some years ago who fired upon a Jewish school. He targeted them because they were Jewish. His targeting was based upon his belief Jews were inferior parasites bringing down white society.
Under Wisconsin v. Mitchell both Johnny and the California defendant coud have their sentences enhanced because they selected their victims on the basis of the victim’s race. Their racial inferiority beliefs resulted them in selecting a minority and consequently they may be subjected to a few more years tacked on.
Now some may argue, and it has been argued, that beliefs are not really taken into consideration. The focus is really upon whether or not you selected the victim on the basis of their skin color. Theoretically, did this robber select the victim just because they were black and nothing more? If so, then this can constitute as a hate crime.
My problem with this argument is when an individual selects its victims on the basis of skin color they don’t do it simply in the abstract. Normally, there is an underlying reason as to why they selected the victim on the basis of skin color, such as racial inferiority. Beliefs of racial inferiority is what led to the selection of the victim on the basis of race. The two go hand in hand and from this perspective a penalty enhancement is punishing the belief, despite the fact it was the motive. Their belief is what led them to select the victim and enhancement in this scenario is punishing the belief.
Jimmy: How does that legal argument mesh with my point above about men raping women. They choose their victims becuase of their gender. Is all rape a hate crime?
Mace that is a good question. I personally would not consider it a hate crime comparable to Johnny Rebel killing a minority. Why? Because if the male is “heterosexual” then he is selecting his victim based off of his sexual preference as opposed to some belief that men rule the world, women are inferior and should be subjugated to every desire of man.
Now of course if you advocate the position by some that a hate crime only focuses upon whether or not the defendant selected his target on the basis of the targets race, religion, or gender then you would have a hate crime. But this belies the very implication of the meaning of a “hate” crime.
“Hate” crimes are those where the defendant selects the victim on the basis of the defendant “hates” the victim because of the victim’s race, gender, religion, or creed. Hence, the KKK of course “hates” minorities because of their belief that minorities are inferior, scum of the earth. So of course if a member of the KKK decides to “strike a blow for the white man” he is going to target a minority because their belief fosters and advocates this hatred for minorities. He certainly is not going to target a member of the “master race” such as a white person or caucasion. So from this perspective the defendant is in my opinion being punished for his “beliefs”. His beliefs had him select a particular target and as a result he could possibly get an enhanced sentence.
There are definitely people who consider rape and abduction of women to be a hate crime. Why not? The victims are entirely selected on the basis of their gender.
What about the case of Marc Lepine, who entered a technical college in Montreal, ordered all the men out of the room, and shot all the women, and then himself, leaving a note detailing his hatred of women.
(Note: I tried to find a politically neutral site but failed. It seems that it is indeed remembered as something of a hate crime.)
And if a mysogynist abducts and rapes a woman, how is it different from a racist murdering a black person? If you believe those who say that rape is as much about power as about sex, then his heterosexuality doesn’t have much to do with it.
One of the reason I oppose hate crimes is it seems to be a vehicle by certain groups to get higher sentences from crimes against their particular political agenda. Whenever I try to outline a rational approach to hate crimes, the category just tgets so big as to be meaningless.
Argh! This is why I simply want to end the pratice of hate crimes laws altogether; most political discussion is one thing, but this starts dealing with the human mind and then it all gets tangled together and then you’ve just have a gordian not and no sword.
Because this alone does not seem to satisfy the term “hate” crime. Are they selecting their target because they “hate” their target? Or is the defendant selecting his target for reasons unrelated to his “hatred” but because he is horny, she looks damn good, he hasn’t had any in awhile and an opportunity presents itself when she walks down a dark alley by herself. He is not bisexual, he is not homosexual, but he is heterosexual and is attracted to women and so, naturally, in accordance to his natural instinct to be attracted to women, he is going to select a woman to rape. This to me is not a hate crime.
Jimmy:
But by your logic a gay man raping a woman would be a hate crime. Again, I just don’t understand the hate crime logic.
What’s your thought on this scenario (that I posed in another thread like this several months ago):
-
Bob is in his local bar having a drink when he see’s Jim walk in. Jim is wearling a polo shirt. Bob makes a commment to his buddies that he hates yuppies. Bob bumps into Jim (intentionally as verified by witnesses) and picks a fight. As he pounds on Jim he yells: “stay out of this bar yuppie scum”.
-
Bill is in his local bar having a drink when he see’s Jack walk in. Jack is wearling a shirt w/ a rainbow flag emblem. Bill makes a commment to his buddies that he hates fags. Bill bumps into Jack (intentionally as verified by witnesses) and picks a fight. As he pounds on Jack he yells: “stay out of this bar faggot”.
Bill would almost certainly be charged with a hate crime (in states where they exist), but I can’t see that Bob would. Same fight, same “hate”, different crime.
- The “thoughtcrime” argument - It is long established that motive may enhance both a crime and the sentence. Examples: in New York State, arson 2 becomes arson 1 if the motive was pecuniary gain. Again in New York state, murder 2 becomes murder 1 if the motive is to silence a witness.
To counterpoint jimmy1, the thoughts “I love money” and “I hate witnesses against me” are equally protected as “I hate black folk.”
Astorian
That may be a defensible idealist POV, but the fact of the matter is that, under the law, motive is in fact relevant in the charging and sentencing of many serious crimes, including homicide. Since that it the circumstances with which we must deal, the issue is whether racial/sexual/etc. motivation is an appropriate consideration.
Let’s place your hypothetical interview in New York State and change the circumstance from a homosexual victim to a potential witness against the perp.
[QUOTE]
*
Cop: So, why’d you do it? Is it because he was going to testify against you?
Punk #1: What?!! I didn’t even know the cops were investigating me. I killed him because he pissed me off.
Punk #2: Well, I knew he was going to testify against me. Yeah, that’s why I helped Punk #1 to kill him.
Under this set of facts (putting aside conspiracy and some other issues), Punk #1 gets charged with Murder 2 and gets 25 years to life, and Punk #2 gets charged with Murder 1 and gets the death penalty.
Fair? Maybe not to Punk #2, but the distinction is still appropriate. As a society, we want to protect the integrity of our criminal justice system by imposing the strongest deterrent possible against killing witnesses.
Society, for reasons of communal amity, wishes to deter as much as possible people from acting violently on their prejudices. It is a valid and viable social goal.
IMO, many arguments used by my fellow pro-hate crimers are losers, or at least overly confusing. Personally, I really hate the “a hate crime is a crime against the whole minority community” argument. Not only do I believe that the evidence for this is scant, I also think that the argument leads nowhere. Convenience store robberies are a crime against the whole community of convenience store owners, for example, and it imposes real costs on all of them. But it ain’t a hate crime.
To my mind, the issues are, (1) do hate crimes impose greater societal costs than similar non-hate crimes, and (2) does society have the right to impose greater punishment and deterrence on crimes with greater social costs?
The answer to both is “yes.” The societal costs of hate crimes is high, in terms of community unrest, divisions between segments of the community, increased fear, etc.
And of course society has the right to impose greater punishment on crimes with greater social cost; hell, we do it all the time.
[ul]
[li]a rape and a simple non-sexual assault may cause the same level of physical injuries, lost work time, medical costs, etc. But the social costs of rape are higher, so the punishment for rape is considerably more severe;[/li][li]a person who embezzles $50,000 spends less time in jail than a person who robs $50,000 from a bank. Again, the social costs of armed robbery are more severe.[/li][li]Blowing up a $1,000,000 building for profit imposes greater social costs than blowing up a $1,000,000 building out of anger. You go to jail longer.[/li][/ul]
Hate crimes is simply another instance where we see a greater social cost in a crime and impose stricter penalities to try to deter it.
Sua
I apologize for not being american and therefore not understanding all this…so hate crimes can only be committed against someone in a minority group? I am a white, straight, christian male so I think I´m in the smallest minority around, but I don´t ask for special laws for people who don´t like me - and I´m fairly sure this is all the idea of an old, rich white man thinking happy thoughts. Do people like to be singled out like this?
A crime is a crime. It seems astoundingly stupid to me to punish individuals more for something you call a “hate crime” because…what? It could enrage a minority group?
If you wear a swastika (I´m not mentioning free speach here, waaay out of my league) while beating a black kid up, you are committing a crime - just as you are if you are wearing a priest´s robe while beating up a white kid. The latter could cause confusion, but the first might cause a riot. Isn´t inciting a riot a crime? Isn´t that basically what you are saying a hate crime is?
While ignorant people keep passing stupid laws like this one we will never have equality in the world. Laws like these point out that someone is different than someone else and should therefore be treated differently. It amazes me that this law comes from a country that preaches equality and free speech all over the world.
“I apologize for not being american”
UG:
Apology accepted. Can we enlist you to bring France around to your way of thinking?
Hate crimes are terrorism.
Esprix
Legally, no, they are applied equally. Although I’m sure some members of the NAACP would disagree.
Nope.
When I prosecuted the gay bashers who attacked me in 1997, the Hate Crimes law in Oregon had built in penalties which made sure that the minors who attacked me would be educated on tolerance.
No, it is NOT the same hate!
“Yuppies” have never been defined by any court or government body as a “protected class”, that is, a group known to be hated & subjected to prejudice by some, unlike “faggots”. So it’s not likely that “yuppies” in general would feel threatened by Bob saying “I hate yuppies.” But it IS likely that gays in general would feel threatened by Bill saying “I hate faggots.” (Probably with good reason – I’ve seen studies that show that the majority of gays have been verbally or physically attacked for being gay.)
The “different crime” is that one is an attack on an individual, the other is an attack on an individual member of a “protected class”, as a way of threatening that entire class.
Yes Sua but in my own posts I freely admit thoughts are not punishable in and of themselves. So I do not see much of a “counterpoint” to be made as I would agree with you the thoughts of “I love money” are protected just as “I hate black folk” and I am not certain what language you are gleaming from my post where I indicated otherwise.
It is difficult to contend with much of what you say in the rest of your post. You made some really great points. However, even under your analysis the end result is still enhanced punishment because of an individual’s “particularized belief” resulted in him selecting a particular victim. The points you illuminate are important but divert attention away from the more important issue of whether or not abstract belief can be taken into account resulting in an enhanced sentence as a result of this belief, which is tantamount to punishment as a result of having this belief.
As Justice Rehnquist observed a judge may not take into consideration abstract beliefs in sentencing a defendant. Hate crimes, however, permit this to occur.
Lets use a cross burning example. Lets say a member of the KKK decides to burn a cross in an African American’s front yard. His intent in doing so is to intimidate the residents. Intimidation is illegal. He chose the yard to burn the cross in on the basis of the resident’s characteristics, such as race. Hate crime?
John this would not necessarily be a hate crime. In addition, both Bill and Bob could plausbily be guilty of having committed a hate crime.