It seems like hate crime is so narrowly defined and hard to prove that it might be counterproductive to have it as a thing.
It should be a crime that is hard to prove, given that it requires making assumptions on someone’s thoughts (other categories do that too, and should also be a high bar to meet). However, it’s an important category to have, since what we call hate crimes are often a form of intimidation that has its roots in domestic terrorism.
Targeting someone because they are Jewish makes it scary for a Jew to worship openly. Attacking someone for being black can be used to keep blacks out certain neighborhoods or away from polling places. It has a cumulative ripple effect that goes beyond the individual victim, but impacts the the group from which the victim is a member.
Certainly someone from a majority group can be a victim of a hate crime, but the impetus for the hate crime designation was to get at people who used violence or the threat of violence to keep disenfranchised and minority people down. You can’t separate the category from its history, even if it it has expanded beyond it.
Great. Now put yourself in a DA’s shoes and kindly explain how you will convince a jury to convict on your mind-reading of a suspect’s intentions.
Sheesh.
What you think is immaterial. “Hate crimes” are specifically defined in statute, and no statute anywhere in the United States defines hate crimes the way you are defining them.
Please tell me how you really feel about me.
I’m generally a fan of narrowly defined laws, so I don’t see that as a drawback. FBI statistics say that around 8000 charges of violating hate crime laws were made in 2017, although I can’t find any statistics about conviction rates.
Not sure how being able to put give who spray paints a swastika on a synagogue a longer sentence than somebody who spray paints “Go Bears!” on a synagogue is “counterproductive.” What end do you think we would be better able to achieve by giving those two offenses the same punishment?
It’s a trap!
How about the same reason we protect freedom of expression as a fundamental constitutional right? If it’s perfectly legal to either carry a sign that says “Go Bears!” or one with a swastika, why should the punishment for graffiti vandalism be any worse for one than for the other? The part that’s a crime is that you marked up property that’s not yours with paint.
nm
Defacing someone’s property isn’t covered by freedom of expression. Neither is threatening someone. I don’t have a problem treating an act that both defaces someone’s property and threatens them differently from an act that merely defaces someone’s property.
So you believe it would be illegal to walk on the sidewalk outside a synagogue carrying a sign with a swastika on it? There’s no question that this is intended to be intimidating, but it is also their constitutional right to be intimidating in that way.
Did I say that? No? Then it’s a safe bet I don’t support it, either.
Post #62 tried to explain the why of it.
There are tons of videos of stuff like this online
Here is video of an attack with multiple assailants outside a Washington DC hotel:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dupsgOsdeI4
It has to be a terrifying scenario, you can’t even blame someone that isn’t a cop for not stepping in because it’s completely chaotic and overwhelming and they will likely end up a victim as well. Completely at the “mercy” of the mob.
Then it’s only defacing property and not also an illegal threat like you claimed. You can’t have it both ways.
Not only can I have it both ways, I actively do. Carrying a swastika on a sign in front a synagogue is not a hate crime. Painting one on its front door is.
Obviously I do, just as I have said repeatedly. One is a perfectly legal act, and the other one involves defacing someone’s property, presumably making it some kind of misdemeanor. But that’s the only difference I see, unless there is trespassing involved. But there should definitely not be a different punishment for spray painting the swastika versus spray painting “Go Bears!”
It has to be a crime first.
The difference is that the swastika is the implication of a direct threat: “We want to Holocaust you” (or something to that effect.) Whereas “Go Bears!” is a mere nuisance and no threat. Yes, the sign holding it is also a threat, so it’s somewhat murkier, but the swastika and Bear-cheering aren’t the same.
Carrying “Go Bears!” sign = “I am a fan of a sports team, and I follow the law.”
Carrying a Swastika sign = “I am a dumbshit who supports racist genocide, but I’m following the law (for now at least).”
Spraypainting “Go Bears!” on a synagogue=“I am a fan of a sports team, and I’m willing to break the law in support of the team.”
Spraypainting a swastika on a synagogue=“I am a dumbshit who supports racist violence, and I’m clearly willing to break the law as part of that support of racist violence.”
The fourth item on the list is way, way worse than the combination of its parts. When someone combines a message of hate and a demonstrated willingness to break the law, that’s way worse than either element individually.