Read the following article about a brutal multiple rape, robbery, and murder spree in Wichita KS back in 2000. Try to think if you have ever even heard of it. Odds are you haven’t, because the national media has ignored it. Read the end of the article, where the police are questioned for not even pursuing the possibility of race being a motivating factor in the crimes.
Besides being opposed to hate crime legislation as being essentially criminalizing thought, this particular case especially demonstrates that these statutes are not pursued equally amongst all races. If the perps were white and the victims black, does anyone doubt that a hate crime would have been charged?
I cannot post the entire article as it is too long. Here is the best link I have to it. The trial on this is about to start, or has already. Have you heard anything about it?
I never understood the law on this and other murderous issues. Who cares if the murder was premeditated or committed in the midst of a rage? The victim is just as dead. Who cares why someone was killed? Murderers should go to prison for life no matter what. If someone kills me, they are out of prison and on the street in less than 15 years. If a person kills the president, they would never get out of prison. People are people and dead is dead. The circumstances should not matter. Manslaughter / accidental killing… like traffic or hunting should be prosecuted differently. Criminal negligence has to be handled differently. Intentional killing should be prosecuted the same. Status of the victim should not matter. The motive should not matter.
This was discussed in Part 1 of the currentWhite Nationalism thread. It is quite the cause celebre for the neo-Nazi crowd, even though there is no evidence whatsoever that the Carr brothers were committed their crimes out of hatred for white people.
And if it ain’t motivated by racial hatred, it ain’t a hate crime. Period.
It is not illegal to hate someone so killing them because of that is NOT a bigger crime.
I can’t understand how one could make murder more criminal. Oh… if there was torture involved so the victim died a slow painful death. Murder should require life in prison, no parole. Even if the crime was worse, the punishment should be the same… life in prison, no parole. The hate crime law could be worthwhile in prosecuting people that were involved but did not actually do the killing. In that case, they could be punished more severely.
Those who commit hate crimes are a greater danger of recidivism.
If a man beats another man because he was sleeping with his wife, he has hit his target. If a man beats another man bacause of the color of his skin or sexual orientation, he still has targets for his rage when he is released.
Look, people who rail against “hate crimes” are mistakenly concerned that their own prejudices are being criminalized. They are not. Hateful people are allowed to harbor all the prejudice they want. They are not allowed to commit crimes however.
All a “hate crime” statute does in provide a sentencing enhancement if the prosecution is able to prove the “hate” as a motivating factor. This is no different than bumping a manslaughter to murder based on malice of the perpetrator. Another example is increasing the sentence based on whether a gun was used, a hostage taken, another crime being bumped from misdemeanor to felony because it took place during the commission of another crime. Larceny bumped to burglary, etc.
This stuff happens all the time, and it is largely based on motivation of the perpetrator.
At the risk of sounding facetious, hate doesn’t commit crimes, hateful people do, and their sentences should be enhanced because of their slimier motivation. People who are arguing against special “hate crimes” are really stating that the motivation does not matter at all, when in fact motivation is an essential element in crimes. They are saying that someone who robs a store of a loaf of bread in order to eat because they are hungry is no different than someone who robs a store because the owners are of a particular race.
**Those who commit hate crimes are a greater danger of recidivism. **
Life in prison for murder would prevent this. Life without parole.
They are saying that someone who robs a store of a loaf of bread in order to eat because they are hungry is no different than someone who robs a store because the owners are of a particular race.
I will go out on a limb here and say, that fewer than 3% of thefts are perpetrated by people that are hungry. The store owners would have an option of pressing charges wouldn’t they?
I am Sparticus:
While I agree with you in principle, unfortunely that’s not how it works in the real world. The absolute core of hate crime laws can be summed up in two words: political correctness.
Paraphrasing George Carlin, the moment any group gets some recognition the next thing they get are slogans, a headquarters, membership dues, armbands, bylaws etc. etc. etc. It is human nature to want to not just be equal, but to get special treatment. Especially to ‘make up for past indifferences’.
No, they are not. These are all real, tangible actions committed by the criminal, not thoughts.
Well, they need to be in the eyes of the law. The store owner is out a loaf of bread just the same.
Like it or not hate crime legislation inherently puts into law the idea that one group’s life is worth more than another’s. That to kill is wrong, but to kill a homosexual is worse. Even if that’s not the intention, that is the result.
Consider that committing a crime based on hate has at its core the attempt to influence other people of that race by sending a message. The KKK weren’t just interested in the individuals that they burned out and lynched, they were explicitly sending a message to the rest of the blacks. It was an attempt to do something above and beyond the specific crime.
If you put grafitti up that says your gang name, it’s a crime of vandalism. If you put up swastikas on a synagogue, is it still just vandalism?
I believe that is the idea behind some hate crimes laws.
No, I am not. What, you think I’ve never heard the argument that a crime is a crime no matter what motivates it? Puh-freakin’-leez. The point, my dear insect worshiper, is that it ain’t a hate crime if it ain’t motivated by racial hatred. The entire premise of the OP is without factual support.
jacksen, you’re falling into a media trap. Hate crimes legislation makes it to the front page when there has been a murder motivated by race, but hate crimes legislation will have no effect on murder cases. In just about every jurisdiction in this country, life in prison or death are already the punishments for murder.
Hate crime enhancers will more often come into play in assaults/rapes, etc.
Not this again. Hail Ants motives (i.e. thoughts) are indeed the elements of certain crimes, and increase the sentence. Two examples under New York law:
Most murders in New York are 2nd degree murders, with a maximum sentence of 25 years to life.
Murder someone where your motive was to silence a witness, however, and the crime is first degree murder, eligible for the death penalty. Same actions - you pull the trigger. But if you have the wrong thought in your head, you will be put to death.
Intentional arson under New York law is generally 2nd degree arson. However, if your motive is pecuniary gain, the exact same arson becomes first degree arson. Same actions - you toss a Molotov into a building. But if, while you tossed that Molotov, you were thinking, “boy, I’m going to make a killing on the insurance,” you’ve committed first degree arson, and are going away for 25 years to life. Note that you don’t actually have to gain a penny from the arson, so it’s not the action of receiving money - it’s the motivation.
BTW, the arson example destroys this argument of yours:
It is not illegal to desire pecuniary gain (indeed, it’s the basis of our system). But despite the fact that pecuniary gain is legal, arson for pecuniary gain IS a bigger crime under the law.
Now that we recognize that in certain circumstances thoughts are indeed criminalized, let’s move on to the real debate - should bigoted thoughts, when coupled with criminal action, be one of those circumstances?
To me hate crime laws are appropriate for the following reason:
Who are the intended victims of a particular criminal act? For an ordinary murder, the intended victim is the person who was killed. For the hate murder, the intended victims are all of a large group of people. Only one may have died, but all were targeted.
So it makes sense to me that the punishment by a little greater for the latter act.
I see where you were trying to go, but I think your point falls flat. In the examples you cited, as with most “enhanced” sentencing, the reason for the increased penalty is that the primary act was commited in furtherance of another crime. In your first example, the crime could be witness tampering, etc. In your second example, it could be insurance fraud.
The distinction with hate crimes is that the primary crime is NOT committed in furtherance of another crime.
Also, a point not mentioned yet is that hate crime legislation is an umbrella larger than simply enhanced sentencing. I would call federal “civil rights violation” trials another example of hate crime punishment. To me, these are even more egregious, as they seem to constitute double jeopardy, or at best, jurisdiction shopping.
grendel72 above takes away the individuality of the perpetrator, and decides to judge him as a class of people (“people who commit hate crimes”) – isn’t that the definition of profiling? Of prejudice? Isn’t that committing the very offense that we are accusing the perpetrator of? If I could prove that people of a certain race tended to criminal recidivism, could I use that fact when sentencing a person of that race?
Telemark says, “Consider that committing a crime based on hate has at its core the attempt to influence other people of that race by sending a message.” So, under that logic, hate literature or hate speech should also be illegal? Why not?
suranyi wants people to be punished for symbolic crime.
The arguements in favor of hate crime laws are positively Orwellian.
Again, everything you mention can (and must) be corroborated with additional physical evidence. Silencing a witness, being paid to kill someone etc., these all involve other people and/or events. There would be physical evidence that someone was going to financially gain from commiting the crime.
Ya know, I’m reminded of that scene in Steve Martin’s ‘The Jerk’ when M. Emmet Walsh goes postal, picks his name out of the phone book and tries to shoot him. When he misses him and keeps hitting cans of oil Steve Martin’s character is so thick he thinks that “He hates these cans!! Stay away from the cans everybody!!”
Interpreting a crime against one person as an attack on an entire group is unreliable, unprovable, un-American, and down right dangerous behavior.
No, that is not true. The article clearly states that any evidence that may show racial motivation has been sealed and is not being allowed to be disseminated. Further, it states that no effort has been made to establish if race was a motivating factor. In other words, authorities are going to lengths to AVOID determining if this is a “hate crime” under the current statutes. If the races were reversed, do you have any doubts that every person the perps have known since the 3rd grade would be questioned as to their level of racial animosity? The point being that the only crimes that are considered hate crimes are those committed by whites.
Actually, they aren’t examples of enhanced sentencing - they are elements of a different crime.
But in any event, the New York 1st degree murder and 1st degree arson statutes are not limited to murders and arsons committed in futherance of another crime. For example, the 1st degree murder statute applies even when (a) there are no criminal charges pending or contemplated, and (b) where the murderer is mistaken when he/she believes the victim is a witness. For witness tampering, you need both elements - so there is no other crime. All that is necessary is the thought.
First degree arson is even more clear. If a guy is pissed off at somebody, but is too afraid to burn down his house himself, he can promise another person five bucks if the other person sets the house on fire. That’s first degree arson, without any other crime being committed.
In my original example, the thought I place in the arsonist’s mind as he was throwing the Molotov was “Oooh, I’m going to get so much insurance money.” You could replace that thought with “Ooooh, I’m gonna get $5,” and you still have first degree arson.
First of all, that’s a facially incorrect argument. The same guy who goes out and beats up a random white guy may loooooove Mike Bibby, and never want to see him harmed. There is no reason to think that a person who harms another because of race/gender/etc. has any desire to harm others of that race/gender/etc.
A guy who beats a homosexual senseless because the homosexual made a pass at him make have no problem with other gays, so long as they don’t try to make a move on him - but he has still committed a hate crime.
No, for me, the rationale for hate crimes is very simple. The sentence imposed for various crimes reflects our outrage as a society. A particular simple assault may cause considerably more injury, physically, psychologically, and financially, than a particular rape, yet we punish the rape more severely - because rape offends us more. We send the armed robber who steals $50 (and doesn’t hurt anyone) to jail for a lot longer than the executive who embezzles $50,000 - because we are outraged at the idea of a man sticking a gun in another man’s face.
And so it is with crimes committed because of what the victim is. It is right and proper for a society to say that we are sickened and outraged that crimes like this still happen today, and we want to lock up these scum and throw away the key.
We do it with a whole mess of crimes, and hate crimes are no different. Punishment reflects society’s values.