Hate Crimes

[Zhavric]

Legislation that carries increased penalties for so-called "hate crimes". Are you for these or against these?

I have a very specific opinion on the subject, but I'd like to hear what others have to say.

[Milton Bradley]

Bad, bad, bad.


Hate crime legislation is another step down that slippery slope of making a crime out of peoples intent.


Any "crime" that will be labeled a "hate crime" is already punishable under the current laws, and there is no need for additional legislation.

[Zhavric]

Well, that didn't take long.

You, sir, are incorrect. Allow me to demonstrate why. Consider the following three scenarios:

Scenario One) Joe is upset that Steve is with his (Joe's) now ex-girlfriend. Joe observes Steve for two weeks, sneaks into his apartment, waits for him, kills him, and then hides the body.

Scenario Two) Joe comes home and finds Steve in bed with his (Joe's) girlfriend. Joe is outraged and attacks Steve. The two wrestle around fighting each other. Joe eventually breaks Steve's neck, killing him.

Scenario Three) Joe is walking home one night. He sees something going on in an alley. He walks down to investigate and finds Steve raping a woman at gunpoint. Steve sees Joe and fires the gun at Joe, grazing his shoulder near his neck. Joe (carrying a legally liscensed firearm because he's a security guard) returns fire and shoots Steve in the brain, killing him.

In all three scenarios, Joe has taken the life of Steve.

All three scenarios are different crimes and carry different punishments. The first is pre-meditated murder, the second is a crime of pashion / manslaughter, and the third is self-defense (may not even be a crime).

Thus, we have established that how victims are targeted matters.

The law does not exist in a vacuum. Many of you may feel that the justice system is broken and that details are irrelevant. This is absolutely not the case. The law cares about intent. The law cares about why a crime took place. Proving intent can be the difference between manslaughter and murder... or even more. Consider scenario 3. Imagine if it were discovered that the situation were pre-arranged by Joe to make an excuse for killing Steve? Joe would be treated as a pre-meditated murdered, not a self-defender.

So, when it comes to hate crimes, we as a society have deemed it a more heinous crime when a victim is targeted exclusively by their status as a minority.

Hate crime legislation is valid and should be enacted. It's a helluva thing to harm another person not because they stole your woman or because they have money and you're desperate, but only because they happen to be a different color (etc.).

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Zhavric So, when it comes to hate crimes, we as a society have deemed it a more heinous crime when a victim is targeted exclusively by their status as a minority.

"We as a society"??? With all due respect, I don't think so. I certainly don't remember ever being asked whether hate-crime legislation should be enacted.

- Rob

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Autolykos "We as a society"??? With all due respect, I don't think so. I certainly don't remember ever being asked whether hate-crime legislation should be enacted. - Rob

"We as a society" = "The people we all elected decided on..."

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Zhavric "We as a society" = "The people we all elected decided on..."

That, to me, is a non-sequitur. Really, I think you can do better than that.

- Rob

[Samildanach]

Crime of aggravated assault, arson, burglary, criminal homicide, motor vehicle theft, robbery, sex offenses, and/or crime involving bodily injury in which the victim was intentionally selected because of the victims' actual or perceived race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability.

I got this definition among many other similar definitions about hate crime on the web. You could expand this definition to include rich people being targeted because a poor person who hated them for being rich. In fact just about any kind of assault I can think of could be turned into a hate crime. I am anti the legislation myself.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Autolykos That, to me, is a non-sequitur. Really, I think you can do better than that. - Rob

This is where I smack you upside the head with the clue-by-four and point you towards post 3.

I'm not going to go off on some tangent red herring about whether or not laws passed by legislatures are actually the will of the people. That's beyond the universe of discourse. If you think the laws are unjust, great. Give me your argument.

Don't pull a Dirty Name.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Zhavric This is where I smack you upside the head with the clue-by-four and point you towards post 3.

Yawn... I'm still not impressed. Been there, done that. :rolleyes:

Quote by: Zhavric I'm not going to go off on some tangent red herring about whether or not laws passed by legislatures are actually the will of the people. That's beyond the universe of discourse. If you think the laws are unjust, great. Give me your argument. Don't pull a Dirty Name.

It's not a red herring because I'm not using it to prove anything about hate crimes. My dispute is with your invocation of "we as a society...". So you're right, it is a separate topic, but hardly "beyond the universe of discourse". Perhaps, however, we should take this to another thread.

- Rob

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Zhavric The law cares about why a crime took place. Proving intent can be the difference between manslaughter and murder

Hate crime legislation only seeks to impose redundant penalties on crimes that are already crimes. As you said yourself, the intent was already addressed in that the crime was considered to be premedidtated.


So, if the premeditated charge applies, what do we need the redundant Hate Crime classification for, other than to make the penalty redundant?


I feel this is just another attempt by the powers that be to focus on Blue Collar crime while corporate executives make off with your life savings.

[brien]

Quote by: Zhavric Legislation that carries increased penalties for so-called "hate crimes". Are you for these or against these? I have a very specific opinion on the subject, but I'd like to hear what others have to say.

I have some questions.

Logic: If there are crimes that are "hate" crimes, then is the conclusion that some crimes are NOT hate crimes?

Conclusion: Not all crimes are committed out of hate, therefore, not all crimes are "hate" crimes. Well then are some committed out of love? Maybe some are committed out of desperation, so should we call them desperation crimes?

Example of crimes committed out of hate:

Murder in the 1st degree....Hate for another
Rape Hate for women
Assualt Hate for another
Treason Hate for a country.
And on and on.

My position is all crimes seem to be committed out of hate. Hate for another, hate for oneself, hate for religion, hate for country, and on and on....

That said, maybe I am missing something here so I am open for the logic.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Hate crime legislation only seeks to impose redundant penalties on crimes that are already crimes. As you said yourself, the intent was already addressed in that the crime was considered to be premedidtated.

We're not criminalizing issues that are already crimes. We're addressing issues in our society that need to be addressed.

You tell me: are these two acts the same crime:

A man assaults you and takes your wallet because he's desperate to feed his family.

A man assaults you and takes your wallet because you looked at him funny.

They're both crimes. They're both punishable, but the second one will get you a couple more years in prison over the first.

So, what we're doing is taking things a necessary step further. We're saying if you're targeting your victims by virtue of their minority status, that is a worse crime than just robbing them because you needed money.

So, if the premeditated charge applies, what do we need the redundant Hate Crime classification for, other than to make the penalty redundant?

You're still trying to look at the law in a vacuum. We're not interested in proving intent and stopping. We want to know why the crime was committed. Why was it pre-meditated? What was the motivation? Motive matters in any criminal case.

I feel this is just another attempt by the powers that be to focus on Blue Collar crime while corporate executives make off with your life savings.

I work in corporate America. Trust me when I say that there is plenty of legislation going around to crack down on white-collar crime. Going off-topic for a moment, white-collar crime is always going to be harder to deal with. It's a series of situations in which a few people are dealing with critical resources and information... and they're expected to do so.

[PatrickHenry]

Criminal indifference is hate, too.

Poisoning the air and water that people are subjected to should be a hate crime if there are to be such distinctions.

I agree with Milton. Hate Crimes legislation is pandering to minorities.

[another day]

I think hate crime legislation is a joke...every violent crime is a "hate crime"..you likely hate the person you are attacking. Doesn't matter what motivates it.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Criminal indifference is hate, too. Poisoning the air and water that people are subjected to should be a hate crime if there are to be such distinctions. I agree with Milton. Hate Crimes legislation is pandering to minorities.

No. Criminal indifference is indifference.

"I don't care who I take a wallet from, so long as it has cash in it" is bad, but not as bad as "I'm going to CENSORED up some ni**er and take his sh*t because I CENSORED hate ni**ers." That's absolutely NOT criminal indiference. That's a heinous crime motived solely by hatred.

When you can show me that air and water are protected classes in our society, then you'll have a solid argument. And no one is "pandering". We're recognizing that there are crimes motived ONLY by harmful discrimination and the laws we have to not adequately cover them.

[brien]

Quote by: Zhavric We're not criminalizing issues that are already crimes. We're addressing issues in our society that need to be addressed. You tell me: are these two acts the same crime: A man assaults you and takes your wallet because he's desperate to feed his family. A man assaults you and takes your wallet because you looked at him funny. They're both crimes. They're both punishable, but the second one will get you a couple more years in prison over the first. .

How can you say that one crime above will result in a longer prison sentence? This simply may not be true. In some states juries decide penalties. In others, judges decide penalties, all according to the law. Then there is the three strikes law, another brilliant legislative wonder. Judges are FORCED to sentence criminals to mandatory sentences even though the crime may be petty in nature but the criminal is a recidivist.

So you are saying the law says you get less time for robbery because in your defense you say you did it for your family? What if your family is "The Family"? You know "Our Thing" this Cosa Nostra.

Nope... Robbery is robbery and to appeal to a jury or a judge because a guy's family needs my money through robbery, is not very good law. It is a two tiered system which we seem to have already, one for the rich and one for the poor. So now we should have one system for the desperate and one for the goon. I yi yi.. Where does it stop?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Zhavric We're not criminalizing issues that are already crimes. We're addressing issues in our society that need to be addressed.

Well, thats all touchey, feely of you. I believe that is a matter of opinion, and I don't share your view here.

Quote by: Zhavric You tell me: are these two acts the same crime: A man assaults you and takes your wallet because he's desperate to feed his family. A man assaults you and takes your wallet because you looked at him funny. They're both crimes. They're both punishable, but the second one will get you a couple more years in prison over the first.

The crime is the same. the very same act was commited.


I ask, how will the jury, or the Judge remain emotionally detatched while considering what is, or is not "hate"? I'm not sure it is a good idea to drag emotions like "hate" into the courtroom intentionally.

Quote by: Zhavric So, what we're doing is taking things a necessary step further. We're saying if you're targeting your victims by virtue of their minority status, that is a worse crime than just robbing them because you needed money. You're still trying to look at the law in a vacuum. We're not interested in proving intent and stopping. We want to know why the crime was committed. Why was it pre-meditated? What was the motivation? Motive matters in any criminal case.

The law should opewrate in a vacuum, the vacuum of unbiased consideration of the facts.


I many instances, the defendants prior behavior is not permissable in a court of law just to prevent the type of scenario you are advocating.


So perhaps you would be willing to reduce sentences for cases when the hate is justified, as in corporate theft of public monies, or government fraud?


I thought not.


So really, I see this as just a one way street on the road to political correctness.

Quote by: Zhavric I work in corporate America. Trust me when I say that there is plenty of legislation going around to crack down on white-collar crime. Going off-topic for a moment, white-collar crime is always going to be harder to deal with. It's a series of situations in which a few people are dealing with critical resources and information... and they're expected to do so.

Sure, sure, I have heard this before, the "crackdown" on corporate crime. All that really means is that it's time to lobby for a new set of loopholes to exploit because people are catching on the current ones, and shutting them down.


They talk a good game of "crackdown", but I never really see them prosecuting the bulk of the fraudsters, and when they do it is an example case, and the exception to the game, and not the rule.


Need proof, look who is printing your money. Fraudsters. With goverment license no less.


Sorry, but anybody who cannot see the bias in the criminal code is looking through a lense of their own bias.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: brien How can you say that one crime above will result in a longer prison sentence? This simply may not be true. In some states juries decide penalties. In others, judges decide penalties, all according to the law. Then there is the three strikes law, another brilliant legislative wonder. Judges are FORCED to sentence criminals to mandatory sentences even though the crime may be petty in nature but the criminal is a recidivist. So you are saying the law says you get less time for robbery because in your defense you say you did it for your family? What if your family is "The Family"? You know "Our Thing" this Cosa Nostra. Nope... Robbery is robbery and to appeal to a jury or a judge because a guy's family needs my money through robbery, is not very good law. It is a two tiered system which we seem to have already, one for the rich and one for the poor. So now we should have one system for the desperate and one for the goon. I yi yi.. Where does it stop?

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).

[puellamore]

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I feel that people who are so small-mindedly intolerant of people who have different beliefs or ideas or skin color that they would intentionally bring harm to them should be eliminated from society.

However, that being said, we have a long history of laws passed with good intentions having serious unintended consequences. And, too, history has repeatedly shown that any power given to the government will be abused - it's not a question of "if" but merely of "when". And finally, it would put us even further along the path to punishing "thought crimes" than we are already.

So on balance, I am against such legislation.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Well, thats all touchey, feely of you. I believe that is a matter of opinion, and I don't share your view here.

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...

The crime is the same. the very same act was commited.

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.

I ask, how will the jury, or the Judge remain emotionally detatched while considering what is, or is not "hate"? I'm not sure it is a good idea to drag emotions like "hate" into the courtroom intentionally.

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.

The law should opewrate in a vacuum, the vacuum of unbiased consideration of the facts.

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 many instances, the defendants prior behavior is not permissable in a court of law just to prevent the type of scenario you are advocating.

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.

So perhaps you would be willing to reduce sentences for cases when the hate is justified, as in corporate theft of public monies, or government fraud?

Please explain to me how corporations and governments are protected minorities.

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 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.