That’s exactly why good hate crime legislation cannot be written so that it simply allows you to say “oh, well of COURSE they targeted him because he was gay!” You have to actually prove that element of the crime with evidence of what they did to induce a broader social fear.
Nobody here claims that penalties for non-hate-crime crimes should be any less appropriate. It’s bad form to plant this suggestion. The argument being made here is that social harm beyond the base crime should be punished more than the appropriate penalty for the base crime.
Just because the additional social harm may be seen as less serious than the base crime should not mean that it goes unaddressed.
Which should we give more weight to? The motivations that were successfully argued at trial or the ones that the convicts came up with much later from their prison cells? If they have new evidence to present to the court, then there are procedures in place for them to seek reduced sentences.
This is a little misleading because there are two variables here: kids/adults and random house/black family house. However, if a prosecutor can make a convincing case that the adult egged the black family’s house because they are black, then there should be a suitably harsher penalty. Otherwise there should be a suitable penalty for what can be proved.
Again, just because the additional social harm may be seen as less serious than the base crime should not mean that it goes unaddressed. Imagine a bank robber who shoots two tellers during the course of the crime. Compare that to the robber who shoots one teller. Then, on the way out sees a black teller. He gives a five minute racist rant and shoots this teller too. Say the first robber gets two death sentences. If I understand your argument, the second robber should get the same sentence because there’s no point in prosecuting the less serious (hate) crime. But then why prosecute the second murder at all? The robber can only be put to death once, right?
The whole hate crimes thing was well-intentioned, but turned out to be a crock. That seems to happen a lot.
My experience:
My son punched another kid, who filed assault charges. The prosecutor wanted to bump it up to a hate crime, on the basis that the kid he hit was gay. However, my son was unaware that the kid was gay, largely because, in fact, he was not. The prosecutor would have really liked to get the kid up on the stand and testify that he was gay. Apparently a little perjury meant nothing, if it could get a stiffer penalty for my son. Fortunately, that scenario didn’t play out.
The bottom line is, when you hand police and prosecutors enough bullshit to use, they’ll do their damnedest to smear it all over the place.
Could you show me the hate crimes statute that only specifies certain genders, races, sexual orientations, religions etc. ? 'Cause I’ve never seen it.
The ones I’ve seen are facially neutral.
But how do you address it? The sentence for any premeditated murder is either life without parole or the death penalty. How would it be different for a hate crime? Super-duper life without parole or perhaps cook them extra crispy on the chair? I don’t see any way it can be addressed.
I’ve gone back and forth on this topic since college, when I was hyper-liberal, and supported any and all hate crimes legislation. And though I’m criticizing one thing PCapeman said, his comment about vandalizing with a smiley face vs. a swastika raised an excellent point. Those are clearly not the same crime.
I guess what I’m saying is that while I wish there were a way to impose a harsher sentence on someone who kills/tortures a minority because they’re a minority, there’s really no practical way of doing so. So, ironically, the practicality of the “hate crime” designation would seem to be inversely proportional to the harm done by the underlying act. Odd.
But it does. If the perpetrator thought the victim was homosexual, it’s a hate crime, even if the perpetrator was in error.
IMO, this discussion is missing a key point. Deterrence is not the only criterion, or even the primary criterion, for determining the punishment for a crime.
Nor is harm caused by the crime. This is easy to demonstrate. Example: a non-sexual assault usually is punished much less severely than a rape, without regard to the actual physical, emotional, psychological trauma caused by the particular attack. A person who embezzles $5,000 is in jail for a considerably shorter period of time than one burgles $5,000. Etc., etc.
No, the primary determinent of the severity of punishment is outrage. The more a crime offends our sense of decency and justice, the more severely it is punished, without a great deal of regard to the actual harm caused by the crime.
This is the true explanation for hate crime legislation. We, as a whole, are more deeply offended by the idea that someone beat someone else up solely because of the victim’s race, religion, etc., than we are by the idea of someone beating someone else up because the victim insulted the perpetrator’s mother. And so, at least in locations where hate crime legislation has passed, we punish the first assault more severely than the second assault.
Personally, I have no problem with this. Our penal codes are chock full of such judgments. Given that this concept is at the root of our system of criminal justice,* I have no problem with expanding that concept to hate crimes.
Sua
*The concept is also present in our civil justice system as well, but that’s not on point here.
But it’s not. Not only is Murder 1 not always life w/o parole, but Murder- with the right motive- can be Manslaughter. So ‘hate crimes’ in my mind speak to motive. If you murder a man because he raped your wife, that’s Manslaughter (IMHO, and I can understand you doing so, even though it’s still illegal): killing someone just because he’s “…” is Murder One, with the stiffest penalties. It’s senseless, and whoever does it is a sociopath.
The prosecutor gave up his baseless additional hate-crime charge. Sounds like even he concluded the evidence couldn’t support it. Sounds like a case of the judicial system working properly - even with one participant acting unscrupulously.
I see your point with this extreme example (murder one/death penalty). It makes more sense as the crime and penalties get less severe. A life sentence becomes life plus X years - still a little pointless but it’s done. A 50-year sentence becomes 50 plus Y years - might affect parole or early release. A 10-year sentence becomes 10 plus Z years - now it’s getting clearer.
I’m guessing that courts sometimes seemingly overkill (so to speak) with sentences with the idea that if one conviction is overturned the other crimes still have been tried and the other sentences must still be served. That and the value of symbolic justice if nothing else.