Your points have generally been valid, but I think you’re just kind of expecting too much from the legal system. We set laws as best we can (in theory), and adapt them (hopefully) as issues come up.
If “wilding” or that “knock out game” became a persistent and pervasive crime, then a federal “Just Can’t Beat People Up For Fun Act” would soon be passed. There are always legal gaps that need to be filled. You could argue that we should leave it all up to judges, but inevitably you get some idiot judge who makes a bad call - which is often how these laws get enacted.
Yes, it is unjust that these kids might get off with a 25% lighter sentence if it isn’t considered a hate crime. But overall, I think hate crime legislation sends the important message that we view these crimes as particularly despicable, because it’s much easier for crimes between visually distinguishable people to snowball into something that tears the social fabric irreparably. I’m personally ok with a few people getting a lighter sentence than they should once in a while to help stave off civil armageddon.
This is all well and good, but, again, assault is actually against the law. There doesn’t have to be a hate crime for serious sanctions to apply. If two white guys beat up another white guy and send him to the hospital because he thinks the Eagles are a better band than Creedence, they can still get sent away for a long time.
What is sad about it? We make laws to address anti-social behaviour as we, as a society, view it. It’s not always efficient or perfect but what the hell else are you going to do? I can pretty much guarantee that a round table of criminologists and statisticians aren’t going to produce a set of laws you’re in love with.
And I would repeat and expand on the point no one responded to, which is that black people hating white people after 350 years of slavery and Jim Crow, followed mostly by “now you’re on your own, good luck—and you’ll need it, because we’re not repaying you for the lost wages or punitive damages for what was done to your people“ is actually not as antisocial as simply thinking it’s fun to brutalize an innocent person in unusual and creative ways.
It seemed like you were saying that a non-hate crime assault would get a lesser charge than an assault that was a hate crime. This isn’t true. The assaults get the same treatment. It’s just that with a hate crime, there are now two crimes instead of one. The assault doesn’t get a “lesser sentence” as you put it. It gets the same sentence. The second charge is what gets more time.
I just realized (because your Pit thread was bumped in my subscribed threads), that you’re the guy with the intellectually racist but politically liberal (?) ideas. You may recall in that thread that I said I didn’t know you but found the dichotomy interesting. So quick question: Did you feel animus towards blacks before the elderly black woman saved you from the Latino gang (sorry you went through that -sounds terrifying), and was that a conversion moment that left you “split” intellectually and emotionally on the issue?
Now as for your post - I’m starting to see why that Pit thread was started ;). I don’t see anyone saying that a hate crime is more/less antisocial than a Jokeresque Beat-O-Rama, and after rereading the thread I don’t see where you made the point you say no one is responding to. I’m not quite sure I understand anything actually - you seem to be saying we shouldn’t have hate crime laws because blacks were/are mistreated, but do you realize the very first hate crime legislation was enacted after the Civil War to protect blacks from the Klan? I’m guessing I’m misunderstanding your point. What would you like to see done and why?
I just don’t think it’s unjust that a single crime gets a lesser sentence than two crimes. (Technically hate crime is an aggravating factor rather than a separate crime, but I think the point stands. There are all sorts of aggravating and mitigating factors that can increase or decrease a sentence.)
There’s a straightforward answer to your question. Adding a “hate crime” charge may in sometimes make little difference in to the sentence, and may sometimes make a large difference. A hate crime element would usually make a much greater difference in percentage terms to something that would otherwise attract only a light sentence.
In this case in the OP here, the act in itself is so heinous that I would hope it would warrant extremely serious charges, perhaps even attempted murder, whatever the motivation. I would hope that adding a racial hatred element would make little difference (in percentage terms) to the sentence, for just the reasons you state.
But go back to the example of defacing a synagogue with “Go Bears” vs defacing it with a swastika. Here, the hate crime element of the second crime should make a huge difference (orders of magnitude difference) to the sentence. It elevates dumb graffiti to something more akin to terrorism.
Slackerinc seems to be attacking a straw man version of hate crime legislation where it rigidly applies some fixed percentage addition to the sentence, regardless of the circumstances and whatever the baseline severity of the sentence.
That is a quote of the legal code that supports what I said, that there is not any specific crime of “hate crime” that a prosecutor could charge someone with, and that “hate crimes” in the state are treated as a sentence enhancement to existing crimes instead.
I have no reason/desire to engage in an online stoning of you or your positions. My one jab was just for fun because I didn’t understand the point of that post. I’d genuinely like to know about the gang incident and what’s your issue is with hate crime legislation vis a vis the historical treatment of blacks.
Attempted murder might be a tough one to sell. I think robbery, aggravated battery, and wanton disregard for life or whatever the legal term is. When they jumped forcefully on his abdomen they could have easily caused major internal injuries and killed him. To say they tried to kill him is a bit too much, if they really wanted him dead, he would be.