Define the word “aggravates” in relation to your post. 
ag·gra·vate ( ²g“r…-v³t”) v. tr. ag·gra·vat·ed ag·gra·vat·ing ag·gra·vates 1. To make worse or more troublesome.
No I do not consider it worse morally. I see all violent crimes as attacks on society as a whole. You aren’t just injuring the victim, but you are costing society (if in no other way than court/jail/police costs).
At least this is true in violent crimes that are instigated by the perpetrator or his accomplises. Not necessarily ones that were commited in response to instigation by the victim. I.E. that if someone picks a fight with me and I ‘finish it’ I am commiting a moral wrong, but not as bad as if I pick a fight with someone else and finish it. Sorry for the run-on sentence.
And your right about the fact that extenuating circumstances do play a role in current law. But in most ways that it plays a roll, it is something that is imminently provable. It would be easy to prove in court both your examples above (IE. Was his family starving? Was he robbing the store when he shot the guy? et cetera) My contention with using motive in this particular way is that racism (or xenoism, since it can be applied to anyone different than you) is something that is not easily provable and is wholly subjective. It’s not like everyone carries one of two membership cards: KKK or NAACP.
When this subject comes up, peoples emotions become so charged that a person is often considered guilty until proven innocent. You get one person on a stand that says the guy made one gay joke in the past, and the public (via the media) is ready to lynch the guy as a bigot. At that point, it no longer matters whether the court finds the perp guilty or innocent, it’s not like he will ever be able to find work again. He’s a ‘racist’ let the other bigot’s work with him.
What is wrong with assuming that all violent crimes (barring some extenuating circumstance, like dementia, or ‘self defense’ or whatever) are just as severe as a hate crime and punishing them accordingly?
I fully agree that, when we’re looking at relatively minor crimes, the motives of the criminal are important when we’re passing sentence. A guy who pelts some random stranger’s house with eggs as part of a fraternity stunt deserves some kind of punishment. But a guy who throws eggs at the house of the first black family to move into his neighborhood is worse. So, if a “hate crimes” bill means that the first guy gets probation and community service while the second guy gets some jail time, that’s fine by me.
The problem is, once you get to SERIOUS crimes like assault and murder, I think it’s ludicrous to suggest that some motives are worse than others. Let me give you an example of what I mean. Afew eyars ago, an acquaintance of mine (not a friend, just an acquaintance) was bludgeoned to death in the parking lot of his apartment complex. According to the authorities, he had tried to pick up a woman at a downtown club. Her jealous boyfriend saw what happened, and followed the guy back to his apartment, where the boyfriend beat him to death with a baseball bat.
A gruesome crime? Absolutely. One deserving of the harshest possible punishment? Absolutely. I think everyone wil lagree on that.
Now, there’s one thing I haven’t told you about my acquaintance: I haven’t told you whether he was white or black. And you know what? I’m not GOING to tell you! I’m going to leave you guessing.
Now… does it really make a difference whether the victim in this case was white or black? Would this crime really be worse in your eyes if the killer was screaming “Take that, you N****er,” rather than “Take that, you S.O.B.,” as he battered my acquaintance to death?
Hate crime laws aren’t completely useless. There is a place for them. But once a crime reaches a certain level, such laws become unimportant. I mean, beating a man of ANY race to death with a baseball bat is a hate crime. There’s no way such an attack could be anything BUT a hate crime. An innocent victim is an innocent victim, whether his “crime” is flirting with the wrong girl or being black on a sunny day.
Astorian makes my point better than anything I can say.
astorian, you miss a key point, one that escapes most opponents of hate crimes laws, to wit: punishment of crimes has always reflected our values.
Let’s look at your example:
We don’t agree on that. In fact, given the facts you present, it is highly likely that the boyfriend was guilty of manslaughter, not murder, and subject to a considerably lesser sentence. As a society, we have decided that crimes committed in the heat of passion do not deserved to be punished as severely as premeditated crimes. That is a value judgment - we are outraged more by the concept of cold-blooded murder than by heat-of-the-moment actions.
In our society, the results of a criminal act is but one of the factors considered in determining punishment.
For example, a rape and an assault may both cause the victims to miss X amount of work, pay X amount in medical expenses, and inflict on both victims X amount of depression and mental suffering. But we punish the rapist much more severely than the assaulter, because rape offends our sensibilities more.
An embezzler who steals $5,000 from his company causes the same amount of injury as the cat burglar who breaks into the same company and steals $5,000. But the cat burglar goes to jail for a longer time, and an armed robber who steal $5,000 from that company goes to jail even longer. We have more fear of and antipathy towards the cat burglar or the armed robber, and we punish them more severely.
IMO, our values are such that crimes motivated by race, gender, religion, etc. engender greater outrage, and we desire to punish them more severely. There are good reasons for this greater outrage, be it memories of the Holocaust, lynchings in the South, etc.
Does this make logical sense? Perhaps, perhaps not. But logical sense has never been a requirement of penal law (witness the criminalization of drugs and prostitution, but that’s another issue). What it does reflect is democracy. The people do have a right, long-established, to determine that some crimes should be punished more severely than other crimes that cause the same amount of harm. Hate crimes laws are simply part of that long-standing tradition.
Sua
Sua, I dont expect you to know all the facts of a crime in a faraway town, but you’re simply wrong. 100% wrong. You seem to be inferring that the killing I described sprang from a barroom altercation. IF that had been the case, there’d be an argument for manslaughter. In reality, there was NO way this killing could be construed as anything but murder, and that was the crime the assailant was convicted of.
The acquaintance I mentioned made a pass (unsuccessfully) at a woman in a downtown club. Her jealous boyfriend, who observed what happened, waited for my acquaintance to leave the club. He followed this acquaintance in his car, for about 20 minutes, until they arrived at the victim’s apartment complex. The killer then jumped this man and bludegoned him with a baseball bat that he kept in his car.
Get it? This was no impulsive crime of passion. The crime was premeditated. The killer followed his victim for quite some time- enough time for most angry boyfriends to cool off.
To top it off, after committing the murder, the assailant didn’t have even a moment of horrific realization (“Oh my God, I didn’t MEAN to kill him! I just wanted to teach him a lesson” This wasn’t supposed to happen!"). Indeed, evidence suggests that
- the assailant was mighty pleased with himself
- the girlfriend (who had ridden in the car with her boyfriend) thought it was pretty cool that her man had beaten somebody up over her. They spent some time making out in the parking lot, immediately after the attack.
So, now you know. This was not a tragic spur-of-the-moment mistake by a guy who’d had a few drinks and lost his temper. This was a coldly calculated, planned attack.
And now that you know this, I ask again:
-
Does this crime deserve a severe punishment (be it life in prison, a lethal injection, whatever you consider the harshest acceptable sentence)?
-
Would your answer be different if I told you the race of the victim?
-
SUPPOSE that, during interrogation, the killer told police, “Hey, that N***er was hitting on my girl. No way I’m gonna let one of those animals touch a white woman.”
Does that make the murder a “hate crime”? If so, why? What makes the murder of a black man, in this instance, worse than the killing of ANY man?
Yes it does, because one can question if it was the race of the victim that made the attack lethal? Not just the temperament of the attacker, but if race pushed the amount of violence to the next level. You’re assuming that he would have killed any for hitting on his girl-friend and maybe you’re right. However once ‘race’ comes into it and the level of violence is so great, I don’t think it’s wrong to ask, if the victim was white, would he still be alive…? If so, then it’s a ‘hate’ crime…which is it?
Only the attacker can answer that, if he says that it was because of the victims race, then it’s a ‘hate’ crime, if not then it’s not. The victim’s just as dead either way of course…and maybe the attacker was just a mean SOB.
However if he make utterances has you suggested, once has to wonder if he wasn’t sending a message…
But has you’re holding important information from us, I’m operating a disadvantage here. Hate crime by definition, I think needs to operate on the knowledge that the race of the participants is a big part of the moviation. That knowledge is something that only you have access to.
Your questions presume that the answers would affect his sentence. If the guy, without any reference to his race or the race of his victim, got life in prison or the death penalty, then he ain’t getting any greater punishment. But the answers are as follows:
- Yes.
- No.
- Depends on the laws of the jurisdiction. As I noted, if the guy is up for the maximum penalty in the jurisdiction, then it is most likely not going to be characterized as a hate crime, because it is unnecessary.
Now for my questions to you:
-
Do you believe that the legal distinction between manslaughter and murder is proper, and that perpetrators of manslaughter should be given less jail time?
-
Do you think it is proper that rapists should get more jail time than assaulters, even when the physical, economic and psychological damage inflicted by the rapist and the assaulter is equivalent?
-
Do you believe that it is proper that an embezzler gets less jail time than a cat burglar, even when the amount stolen is the same?
If you answer “yes” to any of the above, then you accept that it is proper to give differing punishments for causing the same injury, based upon the character of the crime.
The question then becomes, is a racially/religiously/etc. motivated crime of such a character that a different punishment is appropriate?
Sua
I you attack a person who is basically anonymous to you; attack them only because of a trait they share with millions of other people, you are explicity threatening every other person who shares that trait. Thus a hate crime is a crime of action and a crime of threat, to coin a phrase; it’s related to extortion in that way. So it is not as “simple” a crime as killing someone who owes you money.
If you kill someone who owes you money, you are of course explicitly threatening everyone else who may owe you money; a much smaller group, you’re likely to agree, than gays or blacks.
Even though both crimes comprise the same action, one has the intention, like a terrorist act, of extorting an entire group of people.
So if I kill someone who has a car so that I can steal his car, I am, in effect, sending a threatening message to all people who have cars. Should this crime be treated as a “hate crime” since it is, according to your model, threatening a large group of people? Also, since more people in the US own cars than are black, should the carjacker get a more severe sentance than the KKK lyncher?
Shiva, you are right, and that is why the “threatening message” (and the related “domestic terrorism”) argument in favor of hate crimes legislation is a poor one that I wish my allies on this issue would drop.
Whatever the purported “message” of the perpetrator is irrelevant. What is relevant is the message that we want to send. And that message is a simple one - crimes based upon bigotry deeply offend and outrage us. We cannot do anything about your hateful thoughts, but if you transform those hateful thoughts into actions, we will come down on you like a sledgehammer on an ant.
It ain’t a bad message to send.
Sua
And no one has answered my question yet. Wouldn’t it be better to say that violent crimes deeply offend and outrage us, PERIOD? Rape is rape, murder is murder, theft is theft, and assualt is assault.
To answer your earlier questions.
- Difficult to say, I do think that some instances of killing are not the same as murder (see self defense). But I actually think that murder ‘in the heat of the moment’ is just as bad, if not worse, than a ‘cold blooded’ murder.
- No
- No
I’ve set up this hypothetical question before, but I’ll risk sounding like a broken record.
Imagine you’re one of the police officers interrogating the creeps who killed Matthew Sheppard. You ask the punks, “So why’d you do it? Is it because he was gay?”
The punks snicker at you. One says “He was gay? Huh, go figure. I never even knew that.” The other laughs, “Shoot man, I didn’t know he was gay. We were just bored, and we thought it would be fun to beat the snot out of somebody. He looked like a harmless little runt who wouldn’t put up much of a fight.”
What’s your reaction? A sigh of relief (“Oh, thank God! We were afraid this was a hate crime! Luckily for us, these guys are just violent misanthropes, rather than homophobes!”)? I HOPE not! I hope everyone can agree that, once a crime reaches THIS scale, the killer’s motives are ridiculously irrelevant.
As I’ve said numerous times before, motives CAN be very relevant. Vandalism is always bad, but a kid who spray paints the name of his favorite rock group on a subway car isn’t in the same league as a guy who spray paints “Death to Jews” on a synagogue. Assault is always bad, but a drunk who slugs a guy who insulted his mother isn’t as bad as a thug who jumps and assaults gay men for fun. MAYBE, if hate crimes legislation can catch a few bigots EARLY, and give them severe punishments while their crimes are still relatively petty… maybe they can prevent some more serious, more violent crimes down the road.
But there DOES come a point, in my mind at least, at which a crime is so evil in and of itself that I couldn’t care less why the criminal did it. Killing Matthew Sheppard because he was gay is unforgivable- but it’s NOT worse than killing some random passerby on a whim.
I can’t believe we’ve gotten this far and no one has mentioned the fact that people who commit crimes based on the race are more likely to commit such crimes again. Forget all this “Attack on the community” stuff. If a man is beaten to death because he is black, his murderer is the type of person who commits murders based on race. If a man is beaten to death because he and the murderer’s wife had an affair, the murderer is the type of person who will commit a murder when he is greatly aggravated by an occurance.
The former person is quite likely to commit more crimes of a violent nature. The latter may very well not be. Therefore, the former person in the bigger threat and should be sentenced appropriately.
Hate Crime laws enhancing sentences remind me of Nigel Tufnel’s amplifier:
Differences between 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter are based on intent, not motive. The range of punishment for a crime, 3-5 years, 15-20, etc are, or should be adequate for motive. I would expect to give a bias-based crime a heavier sentence than one with a more understandable motive, but I fail to understand why only certain motives require additional punishment. if a maximum of say 7 years for assault is not adequate, raise the maximum sentence overall. Segregating out motives is not necessary at all. Make ten louder, don’t add on eleven for only certain motives.
pinqy
You are incorrect. For example, in the state of New York, if you kill someone because you motive is to silence a witness, you have committed 1st degree murder and are eligible for the death penalty. Also in the state of New York, if you commit arson with the motive of financial gain, you have committed first degree arson and receive a stiffer punishment.
Motive as an element of the crime is uncommon, but it certainly a traditional part of American law.
As has already been established, all crimes are not treated equally. If that is your belief and goal, you first have to eliminate the distinctions given between murder and manslaughter, rape and assault, embezzlement and burglary, etc.
Given that we do treat crimes unequally, enhancing punishment when crimes are based upon bigotry is simply another distinction, not anything outside the tradition of American law.
Sua
A representative sample of past threads:
First Hate Crime Sentencing (June 2003)
hate crimes (May 2003)
Why hate crimes laws are bogus (October 2002)
Hate Crimes Laws: assumptions (June 2002)
Hate Crime Legislation Revisited (March 2002)
White victims of hate crimes? (February 2001)
Why Hate Crime laws are a really bad idea (February 2001)
Hate Crime Legislation vs. Free Speech (January 2001)
That’s not the case here in Virginia. The differences between Capital Murder, 1st degree and 2nd degree murder and manslaughter are based solely on effect and intent of the crime. As for arson, the punishment if the intent is to defraud is higher. Yes, it specifically says “intent.” Perhaps I’m dwelling on semantics, but even in the cases you mention, there is a distinct effect beyond the base crime. Even intimidating a witness is a crime…fraud is a crime. So for 1st degree murder and 1st degree arson in NY, the base crime is compounded by an extra effect/purpose that is criminal by itself. Bias crimes do not have any extra effect/purpose. The claim is that they are “terroristic” or threats to all of that group, but they are not always explictly so. I would agree that “Kill all Jews” on a synagogue does constitute a distinct threat in addition to the crime of defacing property. Calling an individual by an epitaph or even selecting a member of a group based on group membership or perceived membership does not constitute a distinct threat. They merit maximum punishment in my opinion, but a distinct add-on sentence?
pinqy
I understand that Virginia may have different laws than the state of New York, but that is irrelevant. The point remains that in the American legal tradition, motive is acceptable as an element of a crime.
In New York law, 1st degree arson requires a motive of “pecuniary interest” - not intent to commit fraud. If a person commits arson because a buddy offers him a bright, shiny nickel if he burns down a building, he has committed first degree arson.
As pecuniary interest is not an independent criminal act - indeed, it is the foundation of our economic system, your attempt at distinguishment fails.
As for whether crimes based on bigotry deserve a distinct add-on sentence, that is a question for the democratic process. No constitutional principle is impugned or legal tradition violated. How we choose to punish a crime depends solely (assuming no constitutional violation) on how we feel about that crime.
There is nothing unusual about this. Crime and punishment have always been culturally specific. Even Europe and the US disagree on what is a crime and how it should be punished, from prostitution to denying the Holocaust. An affair in the US is grounds for divorce, while it is grounds for stoning elsewhere.
And we, as a culture, have decided that we really, really don’t like crimes based on bigotry.
That’s a perfectly proper impulse. It may not be the most rational impulse - as people here have noted, a mugging for monetary gain causes the same harm as a mugging based on race - but there is no requirement that penal law meet an abstract rational requirement.
When it comes down to it, it is very simple. When I read the paper and read a blurb about a guy beaten up outside a bar, I feel little outrage - that’s life in the city. But when I read about a black guy being chased through the streets in Breezy Point, I am seriously pissed and I want the perps to go down for a very long time. I’m not alone in this opinion, and my legislative representatives react to the common mass of opinion. That is right and proper.
Sua