Hate Crimes

[brien]

Quote by: Zhavric The American legal system is not computer programming. "If Murder then goto 25-life" is a gross oversimplification. You've somewhat defeated your own argument by pointing that juries award sentences in certain cases. How do you think they come to those sorts of decisions? They look at the details of the case. If the case is robbery and the penalty is 5 to 10 years, how do you think a jury makes that decision? Was their a starving baby involved? Five years. A drug habit that needed another hit? Ten years. Point being that these sorts of details matter. They have an impact on the legal system. And they should. We should look at exactly what happened, why it happened, what the motivations were, etc. Hate crimes are a result of individuals choosing their targets based on nothing more than the victim's minority status. That's a far worse crime than targeting them because your kid is starving. And please give the post-modernist drivel a rest. We can make comparisons. We do know what's worse than what. We do have laws for different motives that bring about the same result (see post 3 regarding murder/ manslaughter / self-defense).

Yes I have pointed out that juries in some cases sentence the convicted. It doesn't defeat my point but rather reinforces it because if juries are doing what already needs to be done then why do we need more legislation?

And please, stop making your own conclusions and them blaming them on my statements. I never wrote:

The American legal system is not computer programming. "If Murder then goto 25-life" is a gross oversimplification.


You wrote this not me.

You wrote:They look at the details of the case. If the case is robbery and the penalty is 5 to 10 years, how do you think a jury makes that decision? Was their a starving baby involved? Five years. A drug habit that needed another hit? Ten years.

I explain: This is what known in legal circles as "mitigating circumstances." You can only have this when someone is found guilty. No need for the further burden of hate crime designation.

I have to go for today. I will return to finish tomorrow. Sorry.

As the terminator said: I will be back... :)

[CliveStaples]

What constitutes a "Hate" crime, exactly? Actual hatred? Or race? Is it a hate crime for a black man 1 to kill black man 2 because 2 dates a white woman? Is that a hate crime?

Is a hate crime substantively different than the underlying offense? That is, to use the previous example, would black man 1 commit a different crime if he kills black man 2 because 2 dates a girl 1 likes?

Now, I do think that motive can and should be taken into account. A man who poisons his wife to put her out of her misery is different than a man who poisons his wife to get her life insurance. But I don't think that we need to treat "hate" crimes any differently than their underlying criminal acts--the motives for which, as I said before, can be taken into account in sentencing. In my opinion, hate crime legislation is just an attempt to pay lip service to people with concerns about racism.

P.S.

Why can't we choose more than one option? Because Emma Watson is hotter than Johnny Cash in the middle of the Sahara.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Zhavric Do you believe we should draw a distinction between a murderer and a person who kills in self-defense? Yes? Well, I guess you're being "all touchey, feely" too...

I do believe there is a distinction between murder, and self defense. I don't see as that classifies me as portayed, but I suppose there ary many varying degrees of pussyfied.

Quote by: Zhavric See post 3. I have rendered this line of argumentation impotent by demonstrating how the very same act (Joe ends the life of Steve) can have three different criminal definitions.

Regardless of your personal verdict, the law broken remains the same, any any additional punishment implemnted could very well bring about a reverse lawsuit claiming cruel, and unusual punishment.

Quote by: Zhavric This is a red herring. Emotional detachment isn't at issue. We are not lost in some post-modernist void. We know that black people don't like to be called "nigger" and people who carve the word into the flesh of blacks generally don't like blacks.

Emotional detachment does seem to be an issue in the current perverted system of justice we have today. When attempting to act as your own council, the very first move by the Judge is repremand the person for attempting to act as their own council because they cannot remain emotional detached, potentially huirting their chances at a favorable vcerdict.

Quote by: Zhavric This is another red herring. Hate crime legislation =/= bias. We're not asking judges & juries to convict / sentence people because we think the accused hated the victim. We're asking judges & juries to convict / sentence people because we've PROVEN that the accused acted solely upon his/her hatred.

I think this line of reasoning crosses constitutional bounderies, and is the slippery slope mentioned in my first post. Again, the crime remains the same, and only the intent changes, but again, there are already provisions in the law to deal with what is contrued as a premeditated crime.

Quote by: Zhavric Red herring number 3. Prior behavior's relevency is too specific to a case to comment on here. We are speaking far too generally. It's beyond the universe of discourse.

As much as I hate to cite precedent, it exists in the system as we now know it, and therefore should be relavent to the discussion.

Quote by: Zhavric Please explain to me how corporations and governments are protected minorities.

I never said any such thing.

Quote by: Zhavric Wait, don't bother. I can dispell your argument by pointing out that hatred can be justified or unjustified. We're not criminalizing opinions. We're criminalizing targeting victims based solely on a specific minority.

You are attempting to do precisely that. A double standard that you are advocating has been turned against you, and now you don't like the potential implications.

Quote by: Zhavric You could have lost your job to Mexicans. Blacks could have raped your mother. Asians could have beaten you every day of your life. You could hate all three groups till you're blue in the face. You can go to websites and express your opnions there. You can gather lawfully and demonstrate against such individuals. You can say anything you want. As soon as you lift a hand against a black for no other reason than the color of their skin, you're guilty of a hate crime. You didn't target your victim because they were in bed with your spouse or had a lot of cash on them... you targeted them for no reason whatsoever... except the color of their skin.

I believe all these contentions are irrelavent to the discussion since I believe that the statutes to prosecute all of the above mentioned crimes already exist, and you only seek to add redundant charges to groups you are particularly intolerant of. Hater.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: CliveStaples What constitutes a "Hate" crime, exactly? Actual hatred? Or race? Is it a hate crime for a black man 1 to kill black man 2 because 2 dates a white woman? Is that a hate crime?

Hate crimes are predicated on perp's targeting their victims based solely on the victim's minority status.

The answer is that yes, it could be a hate crime.

Is a hate crime substantively different than the underlying offense? That is, to use the previous example, would black man 1 commit a different crime if he kills black man 2 because 2 dates a girl 1 likes?

In post three I already established that motive and minor circumstances can be the difference between self-defense and pre-mediditated murder. You tell me, Clive: which is worse? A man who kills because he's upset over his girlfriend leaving him or a man who kills because he thinks his race is superior (or inferior in the instance you give). We're not so much interested in the act as in the motivation for the act.

If the motivation for the act was ONLY hatred of a minority, that's a worse crime.

Now, I do think that motive can and should be taken into account. A man who poisons his wife to put her out of her misery is different than a man who poisons his wife to get her life insurance. But I don't think that we need to treat "hate" crimes any differently than their underlying criminal acts--the motives for which, as I said before, can be taken into account in sentencing. In my opinion, hate crime legislation is just an attempt to pay lip service to people with concerns about racism.

Racism is a concern, Clive. We give bigger penalties to things we don't approve of.

P.S. Why can't we choose more than one option? Because Emma Watson is hotter than Johnny Cash in the middle of the Sahara.

Don't know what you're talking about...

[Short Round]

What the game publisher said.

[Short Round]

When a jury is in place the judge and prosecuting attorney give them the charges they are being held against and the sentencing limits. Depending on what the DA charges them with is what the jury has to deal with. IE Sam killed John so after the DA looked at the police reports, witness interviews, photos etc they allow the jury to rule on 1st Degree Murder (death), 1st Degree Manslaughter(15 to 20), 2nd Degreee Manslaughter (8-10).

Now if Sam really truely deserved 2nd Degree Murder (life with out parole) but the DA didn't give them that option then they would most likely choose 1st Degree Manslaughter and if they can issue sentence they would give him 20 years.

So to say that a crime gets more because it's a hate crime doesn't wash as the penalties the defendant faces are determined by the DA after looking at all the evidence and not some machine that drops out a single sentence to choose from after you fill in a blank.

[brien]

Quote by: brien Yes I have pointed out that juries in some cases sentence the convicted. It doesn't defeat my point but rather reinforces it because if juries are doing what already needs to be done then why do we need more legislation? And please, stop making your own conclusions and them blaming them on my statements. I never wrote: The American legal system is not computer programming. "If Murder then goto 25-life" is a gross oversimplification. You wrote this not me. You wrote:They look at the details of the case. If the case is robbery and the penalty is 5 to 10 years, how do you think a jury makes that decision? Was their a starving baby involved? Five years. A drug habit that needed another hit? Ten years. I explain: This is what known in legal circles as "mitigating circumstances." You can only have this when someone is found guilty. No need for the further burden of hate crime designation. I have to go for today. I will return to finish tomorrow. Sorry. As the terminator said: I will be back... :)

Continued from yesterday.

Post modernist Drivel??? My my, aren't we sensitive. Excuse me but I don't insult your writing so I expect the same courtesy. I wrote that to make a point but it obviously went over your head. Sorry you missed the point.

My main point is that we don't require any more legislation for what juries and judges are already doing. Mitigating and aggravated cicumstances cover the guilty in criminal cases and punitive damages cover civil cases. I just don't see the need for more laws. We have so many laws now, it is enough to make me puke.

[talinh]

oh my god this is so sad how could you all beleave this thare is too much hate in the world

[Zhavric]

Brien, your point was negated before you posted it. We've already established that the law seeks to be as specific as possible. It's why we have different degrees of murder (manslaughter, self defense, etc.) and not just one catch-all for "murder". We want to know why crimes are committed and we want the punishments to fit those crimes.

We do need this legislation because it's completely untenable to argue that beating someone for the color of their skin is on par with beating someone because they stole your girlfriend.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: talinh oh my god this is so sad how could you all beleave this thare is too much hate in the world

Hello. I'm a period. I denote where sentences end. Have we met?

Seriously, though, there can be all kinds of hate in the world. You can think whatever you want and express your opinion in whatever lawful way you choose. As soon as you commmitt a crime motivated solely by hatred, you deserve a heft punishment.

[brien]

Quote by: Zhavric Brien, your point was negated before you posted it. We've already established that the law seeks to be as specific as possible. It's why we have different degrees of murder (manslaughter, self defense, etc.) and not just one catch-all for "murder". We want to know why crimes are committed and we want the punishments to fit those crimes. We do need this legislation because it's completely untenable to argue that beating someone for the color of their skin is on par with beating someone because they stole your girlfriend.

Zhavric: You fail to address the issue in terms of mitigating circumstances or punative damages. Judges and juries already have the discretion in what you want legislation to codify. That said.

So you want to prosecute blacks on a "hate crime" basis for beating up a white guy like they did during the LA riots? You want to prosecute blacks for beating up a guy because he is white? Good luck. The ACLU, the NAACP and athe Black Panthers may have something to say to you about that line of thinking. Some irresponsible blacks in Durham NC already are saying it doesn't matter if the Duke kids are innocent. They deserve to be found guilty because they are white and the alleged victim is black. PAYBACK. Of course you can legislate a "hate crime" law but you will have to apply it to white on black crime as well. You think this would fly? I don't, and this would certainly violate the Constitution under the equal protection under the law clause if it wasn't enforced uniformly.

No Zhavric, once you strat down this road of codifying "hate crimes", where does it stop?

Some examples:

Adult beats kid under 18........hate crime because the kid is underage.

16 year old beats/robs old lady......hate crime because the kid hates old ladies or wants $.

Man beats woman.....Hate crime because the man is stronger than the woman.

Woman beats little man....Hate crime because woman is bigger and stronger than man.

Black man beats white guy over racism....hate crime because black man hates white guy

White man beats black guy over racism.....hate crime because white guy hates black guy

Straight beats gay. Hate crime because straight hates gay

Gays beat straight guy... Hate crime because gays hate straights.

These are all assumptions. Charging and convicting someone of a hate crime when it is nothing of the kind is unjust. Like the kid who robs grandma for the money but is also charged with a "hate crime" because she is an old lady and he is a young thug. As guilty as the kid may be for robbing her, he may not hate her for being old and helpless. Only a trial can bring out the facts. When the facts are known, and hate is part of motivation, then let the judge and juries decide to apply the appropriate punishment through thoughtful deliberations, not through laws that tie their hands like the three strikes debacle.

We already have laws on the books that cover each and everyone of these crimes. If the prosecutor proves at trial, aggravated circumstances through testimony or evidence, then judges and juries already have the power to punish to the fullest extent of the law. Conversely, judges and juries have the power of leniency through mitigating circumstances as well. We already have the laws, they merely need to be implemented in the proper manner that fits the crime.

We don't need to codify what we already acomplish in the justice system. Please keep in mind that the symbol of our judicial system has a blindfold over her eyes. It is there for a reason.

[talinh]

Seriously, though, there can be all kinds of hate in the world. You can think whatever you want and express your opinion in whatever lawful way you choose. As soon as you commmitt a crime motivated solely by hatred, you deserve a heft punishment.

yes i agree with this.
i read the post rong last night lol...

[puellamore]

Brien's point is quite right. And to carry it a step farther, history has shown that any law or power that is given to the government WILL be abused. Several years ago, there was talk of using the RICO laws against the tobacco companies. And the Patriot Act was used to close down a topless bar in San Diego.

So if you were to enact such a sweeping law, the unintended consequences could be pretty detrimental to our society. And while there is no doubt that hatred and intolerance are a growing problem in the US, this kind of legislation is not the solution.

[Jack]

We've already established that the law seeks to be as specific as possible.

This specificity is what makes trying a person so tedious and often results in overturned judgments. The more specific the charge, the more specific the proof of guilt needs to be. Any small point of motive that's missed is a reason for appeal.

In other words, we may be able to show that you killed another person but not prove what your motive was. Do we then find you not guilty? I'm for more general laws. No need to determine if you killed someone because you were mad that you lost your job or because your victim was black, gay, whatever. If you stalk someone, break into their house, lie in wait and harm them, we can send you to prison for stalking, burglary and assault. Trying to determine if this was a hate crime or not just makes prosecutor's jobs more difficult and raises the chances of a mistrial or later appeal.

[Technosoul]

I though a hate crime would be any violent or distructive action taken because you hate a whole race of people because of their religion or because you stereotyped them into some classifcation that you resent for some reason.

Example: Burning down a church because you hate the religion or the people that belong to that religion. Attacking gays because you think they are yucky. Attacking homeless people because you strongly resent their dirty appearences. Attacking black people because you agree with some KKK philosophy. Violent abuse of old people or children out of hatred of them. Blowing up Iraq because you hate Saddam and his supporters.

But all those are crimes anyway, before they added on the new "hate crime" law. So the only reason for having a hate crime law is so that you can charge of criminal with more stuff, so they must stay in jail for a longer time. To make the punishment stronger in hopes that people would be less likely to express their resentments in a physical manner.

In my opinion, a "hate crime" is one where hating someone is the only motivation for the crime. If they conducted the crime for another reason and also because they resented the individual then it would not be a hate crime in the true meaning of the law as intended.

Example: If you honestly thought that abortion doctors where killing humans and you burned down a abortion building, that would be "arson and property distruction" as the crime, but not a hate crime towards all doctors simply because you hate doctors. The motive would be more then just hating someone because of who they are. All violence is an expression of hatred, but not all crimes of violence can be classified as hate crimes - if hatred is not the main motive.

[jd420]

I voted "emma watson is kinda hot" - and it actually relates somewhat to my reply.

In theory, hate crime laws are good. Throughout history, a silent majority has been ruled by a violent minority... whether the klan, the contemporaries of McCarthy, the national socialism of germany, what have one, a - pardon my bluntess, here - a degenerate few have used violence and intimidation to secure that, in the words of MLK jr, the overwelming majority of good people did... nothing.

Theoretically, something to break the stranglehold of violence and intimidation is a good thing. However, these laws can be twisted to *enforce* disparity on the basis of violence. Kill a white person? Must've been hate. Kill someone else? Give 'em probation.

It is vitally important that any hate-crime laws that exist DO NOT CREATE A PROTECTED CLASS... nor the "subservient" class by exclusion. Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals were not targeted by the third reich because they were "trendy." They were targeted because they were not...

So, yes. I'm all for hate-crime legislation, but we need to be truly cautious in their engineering to ensure that they do not simply become a tool of bias.

[Short Round]

Quote by: brien We already have laws on the books that cover each and everyone of these crimes. If the prosecutor proves at trial, aggravated circumstances through testimony or evidence, then judges and juries already have the power to punish to the fullest extent of the law. Conversely, judges and juries have the power of leniency through mitigating circumstances as well. We already have the laws, they merely need to be implemented in the proper manner that fits the crime. We don't need to codify what we already acomplish in the justice system. Please keep in mind that the symbol of our judicial system has a blindfold over her eyes. It is there for a reason.

QFT

Brien wins this thread.

[persephone]

Someone kills another person. In one case its a robbery in another its a racial crime. What is the ultimate benefit of adding additional time to the latter? The crime has already been committed. Unless it is believed that the addition of a couple extra years acts as a deterrent, but I find that difficult to accept as most criminals either act rashly or with the belief they will never be caught.

[gallo]

In my city there was recently a case in which two skin heads beat and sodomized an Hispanic teen with a rake handle. The victim died two days later. The motivation for the attack was that the victim had been observed kissing (it was consensual) an Anglo girl. The perps were charged with capital murder. There has been some outcry that they were not charged with a hate crime. The DA has responded that the penalty for the hate crime would be that same in that you can only execute someone once.

[Jack]

The DA has responded that the penalty for the hate crime would be that same in that you can only execute someone once.

In the "good old days" they might draw-and-quarter you, then hang your body on display for a while, after which they'd burn your remains while putting your head on a pike until the birds ate all the flesh. I guess it depended on how much they hated you. So we could kill a person several times for their crimes, but it's economically impractical these days. Executions are so expensive.

I agree with the point the prosecutor makes. As I've said before, we already have laws in place to penalize all these crimes. Attempting to criminalize the motive can only lead to more difficult prosecutions and eventual appeals.