(italics, bold mine)
There’s a pretty big difference in the lanuage there. The person saying “because” is obviously, as you note, a hate crime.
If you could prove that the person routinely uses that racial slur, or had other instances of racism then I think you could still call it a hate crime.
It seems to me there is some flawed logic at work in the reasoning behind hate crime legislation. True, there are too many killings motivated by hate, but there are also too many killings NOT motivated by hate. Statistically, to a certain degree, deterents can prevent crime, but they have no magical power over hate crimes specifically; the same effects could be had if special punishments were used in cases where the accused targeted people wearing green. It might lower the number of green-related incidents, but if that’s the case, why not apply it to the whole spectrum? When punishments for the same action are more severe in one scenario than another, either you’re pushing a punishment too far to be fair on one end of the equation, or you’re holding back deterent measures on the other. Either way that makes for some pretty fuzzy math.
It’s ridiculous to attempt to legislate away a pervasive social problem caused by people’s thoughts. I’ve always thought hate crime laws are mostly a symptom of American short attention span : the gradual process of education as a means of stopping hate is simply not as immediate and exciting as throwing people in jail for extended sentences. Saying we’ve just made a new law that punishes those who commit hate crimes seems more concrete than saying we’re trying to teach tolerence and doing our best. But in the end, isn’t punishing hate crimes focusing on the symptom (the crime) and not the disease (hate)? In the end I seriously doubt threatening people with legal action or even their lives will make a serious dent in their personal ideology, and as long as both hate and crime exist, the combination will continue to occur.
The criminal justice system has its hands full just dealing with the latter, its intended purpose and traditional providence. Dealing with hate is the responsibility of society, and as much as we’d like to pass that responsibility off to someone else, juggling social roles and confusing the function of government is not the answer. Only education cures ignorance and only curing ignorance will end hate. Until then, we can try whatever dramatic and costly “quick fix” we want… but the ultimate result is likely to remain underwhelming.
–Bailey
Like it or not, the criminal justice system is based on an economic model. The legal system generally assumes that stiffer penalties have a greater deterent effect. Thus we see proposals to increase penalties for assaults on hospital workers or flight crews when there is perceived to be some special danger. It probably doesn’t have much effect but makes legeslators feel like they are doing something.
Criminal law is a very blunt instrument unsuited to fine tuning human social behavior but good luck arguing that to anyone who writes or applies the law.
With hate crimes I think the key factor is the morality play. I suspect for instance that the shepard and byrd cases were so high profile largely because of the ongoing hate crimes debate. The trials served as a public forum to condemn acts of violence motivated by intolerance.
I am in agreement with the previous poster that the criminal justice system is sufficiently punitive now to make this a low priority item for me. The most interesting part of the debate is watching the conservative’s contortions as they try to defend their position.
I disagree here. I don’t think that the fact that someone hates a particular group of people automatically means his motivation for attacking someone of the group is that general hatred (and, by implication, an attempt to terrorize the group as a whole). If some guy hates blacks, and lives his life around black people, if his hate alone was motivation enough to commit crimes, why doesn’t he attack all blacks, or at least all that he thinks he can beat in a fight? If he finally does beat up some black guy, maybe there is something in particular about that guy that caused him to beat him up, even if it’s something ridiculous like ‘I didn’t like the way he looked at me’. Maybe he was predisposed to not like him because he was black, but that probably wasn’t the sole reason behind the crime.
Considering the reasoning behind hate crime laws I hear the most is ‘It’s not just a crime against a particular person, it’s an attempt to intimidate the group as a whole by leading them to believe they are unsafe because of their race/religion/sex’, I think they should have to prove that the motivation for the crime was in fact intimidation of the whole group, and since that is hardly ever going to be provable, I think it’s better to leave the laws off the books.
I have my sincere reservations abouthate crime laws. But I can see one reason for them. The motive. I can emphasive with the guy who holds someone up becuase he wants their money. I can understand the guy who kills someone becuase they slept with his wife. But I cannot understand or accept the motive “becuase i hate those *****ers”.
Personally, I think that instaed of “hate crime”- we should add years to ANY “senseless” violent crimes. Do an armed robbery- OK, a crime- but “makes sense”. The storeowner pulls a gun- and you shoot him 1st. Ok- that is murder- but it still makes sense. But to just gun the dude down “becuase- why not?”- that is the mark of a sociopath. And a lot of hate crimes ARE commited by sociopaths. These folks are just plain sick- and really we should just shoot them down like we would do a mad dog- as, IMHO, they are no longer “human”.
If they did that to him because he was a gay, it’s a hate crime. If they did that to him because they were vicious, bloodthirsty thugs looking for kicks on a Friday night and did not know he was gay at the time…
IMHO, the same punishment should be waiting for them in either case, because both cases would be equally heinous.
I don’t get this. The victim is just as dead in both cases. There is the same depraved indifference to human life. The lives of the victim’s loved ones would be just as shattered. Is someone who would pick a victim at random somehow less of a danger to society? I think they should be treated the same way.
Courts already take motive into consideration when deciding on punishments, they always have. What they are doing now is creating whole new crimes, based solely on motivation, which can be damn hard to prove.
If someone commits a heinous crime which appears to be motivated by hatred of an entire group, the jury and/or judge can take that into consideration, and there is no standard of proof that has to be provided for them to decide to give the maximum sentence. In the case of a hate crime, the offense is based on motive, meaning that it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This seems unnecessary and wasteful of the courts time, and also infringes on our 1st Ammendment rights.
When we add hate crimes, we have to decide how much of the motivation has to be provided by hatred of that group for it to be considered a hate crime - does it only need to be one contributing factor, and not the primary reason for the crime? In that case, a LOT of robberies could be classified as hate crimes, i.e. ‘lets go rob that Korean convenience store, they are always ripping us off’ or ‘What’s that white guy doing in this neighborhood? Let’s go mug his white ass.’ Do we want race to be a factor in every trial where the perpetrator and victim are different races/religions/sexes? How about cases where race is the main reason, but not the only one, i.e. some white guy calls a group of black militants niggers and gets the shit beat out of them - if he was black, they probably would have left him alone.
I think the only time where this kind of motivation is significant enough to warrant separate charges above and beyond what are given for the crime itself is when it is clearly a case of the person doing it for the sole purpose of terrorizing the entire group, and I don’t think that can be proven without a confession, and I think we already have laws against terrorism. I don’t care what kind of past history a person has, what kinds of groups they are a member of, you can’t assume motive when motive IS the crime.
Okay, suppose two rednecks see a black man walking in their neighborhood, so they club and knife him to death out of racial hatred. These dudes are convicted of a hate crime because of the terror it causes the black community. Now suppose in an alternate universe the same two rednecks see a white businessman walking in the neighborhood, so they club and knife him to death for his wallet. Their motive is money in this case so it is some how less bad than the other. What about the terror it causes in the business community fearing robbery? How does the fear the black community feels at a hate motivated murder more worthy of harsher punishment than the fear of the business community feels at robbery motivated murder?
Robbery related murder IS punished more severely already.
All interracial crime will not be considered a hate crime. The motivation must be hatred of the victim’s race/enthnicity/etc. If a white guy knifes a black man in order to mug him, it is not a hate crime.
All races/enthnicities/etc. are equally protected by hate crime legislation. If a group of young black men go out to beat up a cracker, they have committed a hate crime.
Hate crimes are not separate crimes under most actual or proposed legislation. Instead, it is an exacerbating factor that would increase the sentence, much like killing a police officer or a witness, or murder for hire, etc.
Motive and state of mind are always considerations in criminal prosecutions. The first requirement in criminal law is that the accused must have the requisite mens rea (loosely, intent) to commit the crime. Hell, drug laws specifically cite state of mind in their titles (possession with intent to distribute).
This issue has been done to death, and within the last week, too. I suggest y’all read the thread linked by minty green before posting, to avoid duplication.
Sua
In both cases in sounds like the victim is in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Marc
Because robbery related murderers are often charged with 1st degree murder.
Marc
The police, and the prosecutors, for a fact, do this. I personally know a man that was tried for a hate crime because he was attacked by a homeless person and defended himself, killing the vagrant. The problem? The vagrant was gay; therefore it must have been a hate crime. Fortunately, the jury found my acquaintance innocent.
A conviction for a hate crime looks better than an ordinary conviction, because of the extended sentence, on a prosecutors record. So they use whatever coincidence they can to add more charges or upgrade the initial charge.
Badtz Maru [alleging that hate crimes violate the First Amendment]
“You cannot defend yourself 100% from being convicted of premeditated murder by never discussing it. You CAN defend yourself 100% from being convicted of a hate crime by never saying anything about your beliefs. This is how hate crime legislation infringes on our right to free speech.”
Sorry, Badtz, this hypothesis just won’t cut it. If I have premeditated and committed assaults and murders, I can’t talk about it or I risk getting caught. It’s absurd to distinguish between that self-interested curb on my speech and the curb on the speech of a bigot who–you are asking us to believe–curbs his or her bigoted speech b/c he or she contemplates becoming the intentional or unintentional perpetrator of a crime against a member of the disliked group. On the same grounds one could argue that every aspect of the criminal law provides us with an incentive never to speak to anyone! In either case,the best way to defend yourself from being charged with a hate crime is not to commit a violent crime. Hate crimes legislation conceivably become a problem when people guilty of commiting violent acts are falsely accused of commiting them on grounds of hate. The answer to that problem is the same as for any problem of criminal jurisprudence–innocent until proven guilty. If you were arguing that the standard of proof must be very high, I might see your point. Otherwise, you’re on exceedingly shaky ground as your argument–mistakes might be made; speech might be curbed for the sake of self-interest–are nowhere exclusive to hate crimes legislation.
"Hate crime laws can be abused as well."
Guess what, Badtz? All laws can be abused. Start defending people on death row whose lawyers were sleeping during their defenses and you might come across as sincere on this issue. Otherwise, you just come across like a guy who is so concerned to privilege the speech rights of bigots that no other rights, including victims’ rights, count for anything at all. Doesn’t that sound a bit like preferential treatment for bigots? 
“*How can you be 100% certain that a crime was caused because of someone’s hatred of a group, even if there is evidence that they did hate the victims group? *”
You can never be 100% certain of anything in criminal jurisprudence. That’s why that they call the standard “beyond reasonable doubt.”
Bear in mind, I appreciate the fact that you are arguing in a spirit of good faith. But I’d like to see some evidence about the conviction rate for hate crimes. I’d like to know how the rates of convinction, appeals, etc. compare to other kinds of legislation. Otherwise, you’re just assuming that hate crimes legislation is more prone to abuse than other kinds of distinctions within the penal code. No one has as yet countered my argument that business crimes aren’t prosecuted at the same level and penalized in the same way as are petty thefts and victimless drug crimes. Why not get exercised about that kind of preference?
Demise, your example of the person exonerated for a hate crime suggests to me that the judicial system works. Sure, lots of people get screwed by the justice system. Mistakes are made. But why single out this particular mistake? Where is your concern for innocent people being incarcerated or executed? Again, you seem to want special treatment for a category of individuals: bigots or apparent bigots who are guilty of violent crimes but didn’t necessarily commit them with hate in mind. Perhaps you and Badtz should start an organization: Americans against the Victimization of Convicted Violent Criminals who are Innocent of Underlying Hatred. Maybe John Ashcroft will give you a donation
spooje,do you really and seriously believe that Matthew Shepard wasn’t singled out b/c he’s gay? Please provide any evidence to the contrary. Otherwise we might as well cast doubts on anything and everything. Again, we’re speaking of “beyond reasonable doubt.”
EB, I agree with you that education is a better preventive approach to hate crimes and, as I said up above, I don’t consider hate crimes legislation to be a high priority since we already have the most punitive judicial system in the Western world. That said, I don’t see any of our conservative and libertarian friends clamoring for an educational approach to discouraging prejudice. Quite the contrary, I’d say.
Ned, if you think these are contortions check out a gun control thread!
Okay let’s suppose someone commits what can be clearly shown to be a hate crime and is convicted:
Without hate crime legislation, the perpetrator is punished for his actions, with the sentence determined by various factors(including, but not limited to, motivation).
With hate crime legisation, the perpetrator is punished for his actions, and then punished seperately for the motivation.
That’s what I have a problem with - the idea that of all possible motivations for beating and killing people, bigotry is somehow special. All other things being equal, a person who uses violence to express his bigotry deserves roughly the same treatment as any other sociopath.
In a previous thread on this very subject, someone described a case where a guy got pissed off at someone, got drunk, called the other guy, left a nasty message on his answering machine containing numerous obscene racial slurs, and was prosecuted under the hate crime law of where he lived. IIRC, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to community service, his “victim” got to sue him, and he is also a convicted felon now.
And for anyone who thinks hate crime laws are an effective deterrent - dream on. As was previously stated, people who commit the type of crime these laws target are, generally speaking, sociopaths, and I seriously doubt the average sociopath is in the habit of thinking about the consequences of his actions until the cops come for him.
What’s even worse is when hate crime laws exclude sexual orientation as a prosecutable motivation, which IIRC is still the case at the federal level, and possibly in some states. That’s basically saying that bigotry against homosexuals is less immoral than bigotry against blacks, Jews, etc.
I entered this thread ready to try to talk sense into people.
Reading through it, I found that sua sponte had (predictably) said what I wanted to, and with far more clarity that my planned post.
So, only this comment: Reread Sua’s post. I stand 100% behind what he says.
I entered this thread ready to try to talk sense into people.
Reading through it, I found that sua sponte had (predictably) said what I wanted to, and with far more clarity that my planned post.
So, only this comment: Reread Sua’s post. I stand 100% behind what he says.
Oh, and this: Exacerbating and mitigating factors have been a part of the Anglo/American criminal law since the days of Edward I, on a conservative guess. So this isn’t asking for some new legislative concept; it’s merely extending an existing principle of law to cover something which IMHO deserves it.
So you can see another point of view. Hate crime legislation says that crimes not motivated by hate are more acceptable then those motivated by hate.
Marc
NO HE IS NOT. With hate crimes legislation, racial/etc. hatred is an exacerbating factor that serves to enhance the sentence, just as murder for hire or murder with the intent of silencing a witness to a prior crime are exacerbating factors. It is still just one crime.
One more time, then I am done with this whole silliness.
5. Free speech is not implicated by hate crimes legislation. How do I know that? The Supreme Court has already held that.
6. We already factor in motivation in every criminal prosecution. Sometimes motive defines the crime, sometimes it is an exacerbating/mitigating factor in sentencing.
The only question for debate is whether or not racial/ethnic hatred is an appropriate exacerbating factor. Personally, I think it is - not for deterrence purposes, not for the fear hate crimes may cause in the community affected, but because we as a society have a right to express our outrage at crimes of this nature, and exact our retribution on people who commit such heinous and senseless crimes. Further, we can find that these crimes damage our social fabric in a way that ordinary crime doesn’t. Finally, it doesn’t make the victim of the hate crime more valuable than other members of society, for two reasons. First, all members of society, white or otherwise, are equally protected by hate crimes legislation. Second, persons who perpetrate “ordinary” crimes against members of a particular class of persons do not get enhanced punishment. Third, we already have enhanced penalties for crimes against certain persons, for example cops and witnesses. No one claims that we are declaring that cops and witnesses are more valuable than the rest of us.
Sua