In virtually every state in the union, Henry is innocent; he has the complete defense of involuntary intoxication. Even if the complete defense is not allowed, no reasonable jury could possibly find that he held the criminal intent necessary for murder; at most he was “reckless” (in circumstances which do not evince a “depraved indifference toward human life”), which is only enough to sustain a conviction for manslaughter. Whether or not he was reckless depends on whether he should reasonably have known that he was or might be intoxicated, which is probably a question for the jury.
Meanwhile, Guido has committed murder for hire by lying in wait, which is intentional homicide with special circumstances and as such would make him death-eligible in most states that have the death penalty; in most of those that don’t he is facing life without the possibility of parole.
The problem with your example is that it includes elements that go beyond mere sentencing consideration. The two individuals in your hypothetical committed different crimes – it’s arguable (as I have pointed out above) that one of them did not commit any crime at all. There is no way, given the facts as presented, that the state can prove that Henry committed murder, while it is quite clear that Guido did. Different crimes, different sentences.
(You mean, “hate crime laws don’t punish…”, right?) Okay. Then why aren’t such “hate” crimes punishable as terrorism under anti-terrorist laws? You’re swasticka example fits that, too, over the simple grafitti defacist.
Special rights under the law seems unconstitutional to me. Can’t you tell?
I can’t think of a way to Wilson out of that, so yes.
Because they’re punished as hate crimes under anti-hate crime laws.
The example I described contains an additional element over similar facts, and so should be punished more harshly? gotcha. See? That wasn’t so hard.
I agree. Hate crimes legislation doesn’t constitute “special rights” any more than statutes dictating extra punishments for crimes against public officials or security officers.
Kelly, I seem to have a real knack for getting into disagreements with lawyers, but I need to argue my point. As I gather you understood, my example was intended to be ironic, looking at two diametrically opposed cases where a human life was taken to show that motive does matter. But if motive does not matter, then the idea of murder vs. manslaughter vs. negligent homicide boils down to one charge – homicide. No degrees, no circumstances. So they face the same charge. And if motive does not matter, then Henry cannot plead involuntary intoxication. It doesn’t matter why he killed the idiot; the fact is that he did it. I agree that an acquittal on grounds of involuntary intoxication is probably very justified – but the extremity of my example goes to prove the point that motive does matter.
I recognize the intent of your example. The simple fact is that intent (which is subtly different than motive) is such a fundamental part of the criminal law that it cannot be ignored, so much that the very definition of EACH AND EVERY crime includes some statement of the intent of the criminal
It is commonly said that the criminal law punishes evil intent, not evil consequences. It’s obviously hard to do that without taking intent into consideration.
I recognize the intent of your example. The simple fact is that intent (which is subtly different than motive) is such a fundamental part of the criminal law that it cannot be ignored, so much that the very definition of EACH AND EVERY crime includes some statement of the wrongful intent that suffices to make the act criminal. It’s not just enough to kill someone to commit a crime. You have to kill someone with some degree of wrongful intent before it becomes a crime; the more wrongful the intent, the more wrongful the crime.
It is commonly said that the criminal law punishes evil intent, not evil consequences. It’s obviously hard to do that without taking intent into consideration.
As esprix pointed out, is it to deter acts of violence and hate towards insular minorities that have traditionally suffered because of their status?
I have no hard numbers handy, but every debate I have seen between proponents of capital punishment and death penalty foes has those opposed to the death penalty citing reams of evidence proving that it is NOT a deterrent to crime.
If this is true, then wouldn’t it be even more true for hate crimes? I mean, if a possible death sentence won’t deter crime, how will a stiffer sentence because of deep seated prejudice act as a deterrent?
Is it just an attempt to seek vengance against the bigoted (doesn’t seem like a good motivation for an enlightened society, see the arguments against the death penalty cited above), or its simply a political ploy?
What practical good (other than the "feel-good vengance factor) comes from hate crimes laws?
in some jurisdictions violence against some minorities is not punished. if a law such as hate crimes is enacted at a higher level [ie, state or federal], then the larger jurisdiction can come in and provide punishment.
To show our distaste for the propagation of fear, and, to the extent justice can do such things, deter crimes meant to intimidate. I do not think you can minimize the expiation factor inherent in justice, either.
No, because even crimes against white christianish heterosexual men can be hate crimes. It’s not “it’s wronger for whites to target blacks” it’s “It’s wronger to threaten groups of people than it is individuals.”
Well, assuming by crime you mean “murder,” sure.
Well, it’s possible, sure. On the other hand, other laws deter crime. People don’t use drugs like they did in the latter part of the 19th century because drugs are illegal. Presumably its a matter of costs versus utility, at least among rational actors. Also, I think the societal impact of legislation cannot be overlooked. If you see X presented as bad as part of your cultural socialization, you’re presumably more likely to internalize X’s badness.
Commitment to a pluralistic society, deterrance, protection through confinement of more serious criminals, socialization/internalization, expiation
Those are the few that occur to me, anyway.
I dunno, Sox…do you think spray painting “The Mad Tagger Strikez Again!!!” on a derelict warehouse is better, worse, or the same as spray painting “Nigger! Don’t let the sun set on you in this town!” on a church? Think through it. Justify your answer. If I’m black and I read the latter, it sure won’t enhance my opinion of white people any, even if I don’t go to that church, will it? Run with the latter sentiment. Give me some impression that you’re actually considering the various issues at hand here.
Well, the death penalty can’t effectively deter crimes other than murder, since murder is the only crime which is constitutionally punishable by death.
Most criminal actors are not acting rationally. In addition, the inelastic demand for addictive drugs and the supply-tightening effect of prohibition makes the sale of drugs potentially far more lucrative (on a cost-benefit analysis) than it would be without prohibition. While prohibiting drugs decreases drug use, it dramatically increases socially unredeeming activities related to the trafficking and sale of drugs, activities which would probably not occur if drugs were not prohibited. Add to this the increase in crime by addicts desparate to obtain funds to purchase their fix, which is driven even higher by the higher price of drugs, which is also a direct consequence of prohibition. One could argue that drug prohibition laws encourage crime.
The decision to engage in drug dealing is controlled not so much by cost-benefit analysis, but by evaluation of risk. A person who has a sufficiently low aversion to risk and who is not particularly motivated by morality concerns can rationally choose to become a drug dealer.
But this is far afield of the topic of this thread and should be pursued elsewhere.
Why should there be special rules for hate crimes?
Because there are whole groups of people who are in danger from other people who may not even know them as individuals. But what these attackers do know is that individuals from these groups of people are black, or gay, or Jewish, or some other minority which they hate for no other reason than the fact that they belong to one of these groups.
Most of us members of majorities will feel some fear when we walk in a high crime part of a city, or even some fear that a random act of violence may happen to us. But the people of those minorities mentioned, and others, have much more to fear, some of them every time they walk out the door of their homes. And until that sort of fear is a thing of the past, we need those laws.
Even if it has not been proven whether or not they serve as a deterrent, these laws seem to bring the hate crimes more into the public eye, and acknowlegde that we are a society which will not tolerate hatred.
[That said, does anyone know if there are hate crime laws which are addressed to crimes against women: rapes, assaults, etc.?]
We did this on the first incarnation of the SDMB, apparently treason hasn’t been tested, but as a general proposition it’s certainly true. The death penalty cannot be sought for kidnapping or rape like it was in the old days, sure. Still “deterring crime” is a more general statement than "
deterring capital murder."
Criminals are assumed to be rational in the weak, economic definition of “rational.” Namely, they choose the most attractive (to them) of their various choices. Obviously, certain criticism may be made of that particular doctrine, but we are not engaged in a discussion of the clinical pathology of crime, or gambling, the other place where economic definitions of “rational” differ most strongly from ordinary usage.
History suggests theres an elastic demand for addictive drugs, at least as costs are reduced. This is presumably why they remain generally illegal.
I think this is somewhat overstated. I do not know that prohibition dramatically increases socially unredeeming activities, unless you’re being very specific about “trafficing and sale” so as to exclude “using”
Well, I will here own up to what I jumped on Sox for, using a general term “crime” for a specific action, “drug use.”
Which is basically a less formal or rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Actor X weighs costs Y against utility Z and makes choices based on their relative ratio.
I don’t disagree with your sentiment, George. I raised my question as a conversation starter. I don’t think I have the answer. As a citizen, I’m offended by both examples, but I certainly am much more offended by the latter. I’m just not sure adding the “hate crime” classification and its stiffer sentencing is the best way to deal with it.
I beg to differ on your distinction between deterrence for murder and detterrence for other crime. I think that studies on whether tougher criminal sanctions deter criminals shows that it generally does not. Making something illegal has a deterrent value - - that is, if an activity was not criminal, but is then classified as a crime, law abiding folks tend to be deterred from participating (your drug example, for instance). Hate Crime legislation adds further criminal penalty to an already established crime. If there was no deterrence to commit the act which forms the basis of the offense, how much more deterrent value do you get from adding the hate crime classification? None, I would argue.
Another problem I have with hate crimes is it seems to be a violation of double jeaopardy. (Now KellyM and other attorneys will point out, the Supremes have upheld these laws on this issue, but I think is was an incorrect interpretation). The Wisconsin case that went to the Supremes a year or so ago is the perfect example (I don’t recall the name, look for that later). A group of black youths were convicted of beating up a white man. The leader of the gang got two years for violating Wisconsin’s criminal assault/battery law. During the course of the fight, the leader was heard to utter something to the effect of “let’s get the white boy,” or something like that. This put it into the “hate crime” category, and he got an additional two years. I would argue that he has been punished twice for the SAME CRIME. If “hate crimes” could be classified as soemthing seperate, then fine, but I really don’t think they can be. I have no problem with making a particular act a severer punishment (attacking the president, shooting a cop, blowing up a federal building, painting racial epithets on a church as opposed to another building), but to take what would otherwise be a conviction for a established crime, and punish the defendant again because of what he was thinking about while he committed the crime, smacks of double jeopardy to me.
Another factor is an aspect of what some refer to as “special rights” in this area. I don’t discount the emotional impact of a racial motivated crime such as painting swastikas on a synagouge, or “nigger’s get out” on the side of a black man’s home. But what about the owner of the building who has simply been defaced. I mean, I live in a neighborhood where gang symbols are regularly painted on houses and garages. This is done without thought to the race of the occupant of the house (I beleive they are “marking” thier territory). If caught, these gang members will be convicted of vandalism and destruction of property. If its a white or hispanic gang, and they paint my African American neighbor’s garage as part of a campaign to intimate members of his race, the punishment is severer. So, even though the damage to both parties is the same, the crime against my neighbor is deemed worse because of my neighbor’s race, or because of the attitude of the criminals towards him. Arguably, that places him in a “better” position than me, giving the appearance of “special” treatment.
Finally, I have a lot of trouble with criminalization of thought and attitude. While I have no personal objection to punishing someone for violating another’s civil rights, particularly while they use a criminal act to do so, I fear a slippery slope where the motivation of everything done with regards to a member of one of these identified insular minorities will be looked at under a legal microscope. This is a tremendous headache, and will arguable lead to absurd results. If the specific intent for a crime is present, the motivation for that intent is usually superfulous. Plus, once you get beyond the (usually)bright lines of the traditionally protected categories of people spelled out in the constitution (race, religion, ethnicity, to a degree sex), the implementation becomes a whole lot murkier. I suspect the real motivation behind expanding the categories of hate crimes to include sexual orientation is to take the contitutionally protected religious belief (held by millions) that homosexuality is immoral and transform it into an invidious hate crime that must be eradicated. Yea, I’m a conspiracy theorist at heart, I guess. But I see the potential for a consitutional conflict of magnanimous proportions.
Like I said, I don’t think I have the answer. I think the concept of committing a crime against someone who is gay simply because he is gay is reprehensible. But if someone commits the same crime against me, and I suffer the very same damage/hurt, why should the gay person’s assailant get a stiffer sentence? Because I am not part of a minority group the law sees fit to protect, the crime against me is not as big a deal? Help ME out here, George. Convince me.
Well, thats the thing, I don’t think the damage to both parties is the same. It would be disingenous of you to argue that simple vandalism affects people beyond its immediate target, except perhaps in some weak “one broken shutter” way. Terrorism, on the other hand, hurts people beyond its immediate targets. In fact, that’s the whole point of terrorism. Then, the community has to deal with the various backlashes, uh…the Nation of Islam, say, Zionism, that kind of thing, an overall climate of suspicion, fear.
Or because the criminals are worse people who are doing more damage to society.
Except, as you well know, even you can be the target of a hate crime, and presumably the prosecutors would seel the appropriate penalties if that’s the case.
Me too.
Oh, no, not that again.
I’m really less than worried about that, myself, given the finite resources a particular prosecutor may spend on any given case, and I will not oppose something I support based on an unlikely chain of consequences. In fact, the whole business reminds me of Mencken’s succession of imaginary hobgoblins.
either way…motive, intent. I have to admit I’m a little fuzzy on the difference, but I do not think focusing on intent erally changes anything in the discussion.
Well, that’s a slippery slope, especially since hate crime law wouldn’t alter anyone’s ability to dislike gays, just as it doesn’t change anyone’s ability to dislike Catholics or Italians or Men, and the ability to fire or not rent to gays would be covered under entirely separate laws.
Well, now that you see it, perhaps you can work around it.
I don’t, since the laws in question don’t specify groups, but rather motivations or intent. Thus, special rights are not created, but rather, heinous acts are formally criticized.
[Out of mercy for those with low-res monitors, I fixed the messed up tags. --Gaudere]
[Edited by Gaudere on 10-14-2000 at 12:43 PM]
Except this assumption is wrong. A great deal of crimes are committed by people who themselves admit after the fact that if they had thought about it, they would not have committed the act. This is especially true of violent crimes.
Addicts have a rather inelastic demand for drugs; they need their fix and will do nearly anything to get one. I’m not saying that prohibition doesn’t decrease demand.
Risk-aversion is a personal factor which determines what the actor does when the cost is not clearly greater or less than the utility in the average case. A risk-adverse person will not engage in an activity where the cost roughly equals the utility when the probability of costs exceeding utility is high. A risk-tolerant person will engage in the activity in that case. Basically, given a fair bet, risk aversion determines whether you buy in. This decision is made on the basis of personal attitudes and allocation of resources; there is no clear rational reason for or against buying in.
You’re not telling me anything I don’t disagree with, so you’ll have to take this one up with David Friedman or someone.
I see what you’re saying, okay. It does now seem that Sox was using the death penalty to make a larger point, that stiffer penalties in general don’t deter crime, and I have to admit I have no good answer, except that deterrance is only one of the potential benefits I see from hate crime legislation, and a certain native skepticism. I’d perhaps like to see this followed up on, if anyone (else) is up for it.
I think you might be commiting amphiboloy there; when discussing economic matters, “rational” means very little more than “wants to” or “makes most attractive (to them) choice (at the precise instant of choosing).”
If someone beat you up because they thought you were gay, they would be punished under the hate crimes law. You would NOT actually need to be gay for this to occur. But what is the likelihood of you being beaten up randomly and without cause? I don’t know the ins and outs of sentencing, but I have a feeling that without hate crimes laws, a gay person being bashed would probably be treated the same as two people getting in a fight in a bar over a pool game. They should be treated differently, if you ask me. But then, I don’t play pool.
The thing those of you opposed to the so-called “special rights” should remember is that everyone is protected, not just gay people. Anti-gay hate crimes can be and have been committed against straight people. For support, I have an anecdote about something I saw on television! (okay, I know that’s a bit weak, but you’ll see my point) I remember a couple I saw on television that suffered an attack because the wife of the couple, who had short hair, was thought to be a man, and the couple gay, when that was in fact not the case. With a hate crime law, this crime would be classified as a hate crime, even though the people involved were heterosexual.
So the thing to think about is: are you butch enough (or feminine enough) to never have to worry about being perceived as gay? How about your kids? Would your opinion of the law change if you were in danger of being beaten or killed just for walking down the street, or is that a special right? Would you be okay with it if I fired you for being gay, whether or not you actually were? Because if you support an employer’s right to fire based on sexual orientation, then you have to realize that anyone can be fired for being perceived as gay [or straight] independent of the correctness of that perception.
I understand people’s opposition to hate crimes laws, but if there’s special consideration given to race and religion, I think sexual orientation should be added, or else the whole set of laws removed.
