Hate Crimes

[emt1]

What is your opinion on hate crime laws?

I think that they should be eliminated. They insinuate that it's worse to kill someone because they are black or gay than it is to kill someone for no reason. I think that all murders are equally bad and the reason doesn't really matter.

Beat up a homosexual? Go to jail for 10 years.
Beat up someone for giving you a dirty look? Go to jail for 10 years.

P.S. You can't accuse me of being anti-minority. I'm bisexual. I don't think someone should get "additional" jail time for beating me up just because I'm bisexual.

[CalBoy]

On the surface, hate crime laws are wrong, since they seem to imply that one group is somehow more "deserving of justice" than another.

However, that would ignore the realities on the ground. Hate crime laws aren't so much about giving more justice to one group, but rather they are about providing justice to groups that in some locales have no equal protection.

Take the South during the 1960s. Do you honestly think a Georgian jury would find a white man guilty of killing a black person? Such verdicts were few and far between. By passing hate crime legislation, the Federal government can prosecute such crimes when it knows that local governments won't. In fact, generally speaking the Federal government rarely makes use of hate crime statutes; it's most frequent use is when the Justice Department (usually with the help of local DAs) feels that justice was not done.

[iParis]

I'm bi too and if someone beat me up because I'm by then I would want them to serve a longer sentence.

[emt1]

I'm bi too and if someone beat me up because I'm by then I would want them to serve a longer sentence.

So you're saying that it would be more forgivable if they were beating you up to steal your money?

[emt1]

On the surface, hate crime laws are wrong, since they seem to imply that one group is somehow more "deserving of justice" than another.

However, that would ignore the realities on the ground. Hate crime laws aren't so much about giving more justice to one group, but rather they are about providing justice to groups that in some locales have no equal protection.

Take the South during the 1960s. Do you honestly think a Georgian jury would find a white man guilty of killing a black person? Such verdicts were few and far between. By passing hate crime legislation, the Federal government can prosecute such crimes when it knows that local governments won't. In fact, generally speaking the Federal government rarely makes use of hate crime statutes; it's most frequent use is when the Justice Department (usually with the help of local DAs) feels that justice was not done.

Is it right to create a means for the federal government to circumvent injustices done by local justice systems? Is that the federal government's place?

[EricNau]

I believe crimes committed with bias towards a specific social group are worthy of receiving harsher punishments because they have extremely detrimental effects on society as a whole.

That being said, I can definitely understand the contrary opinion where 'murder is murder' and all crimes are equal regardless of motivation.

However, if bias motivated crimes are included in the law, it needs to be extended to all social groups, including gender, sexual orientation, and disability (none of which are currently included in Federal hate crime legislation). Failure you to so is a bias within itself.

[iParis]

So you're saying that it would be more forgivable if they were beating you up to steal your money?

Well, not forgivable.
But if the sole reason they beat ME up and stole MY money as oppose to somebody else's because I'm bi then I would definitely want then to serve a longer sentence..
By longer I don't mean a drastically longer, just an extension based from the crime committed and/or original sentence.

[Chaszmyr]

I think there's a sense in which hate crimes are actually worse. Generally speaking when someone is murdered, terrible as it may be, the person who was killed was probably somehow involved in a conflict that ultimately led to the murder. Sure, their part almost certainly didn't justify their death, but they did have a part. In a hate crime, however, the victim will generally have done absolutely nothing to the murderer, and may have never seen it coming.

[emt1]

I believe crimes committed with bias towards a specific social group are worthy of receiving harsher punishments because they have extremely detrimental effects on society as a whole.

That being said, I can definitely understand the contrary opinion where 'murder is murder' and all crimes are equal.

However, if bias motivated crimes are included in the law, it needs to be extended to all social groups, including gender, sexual orientation, and disability (none of which are currently included in Federal hate crime legislation). Failure you to so is a bias within itself.

Where does the list of variables end?
-Sexual orientation
-Religion
-Age
-Socio-economic status
-Gender
-Weight
-Color of hair

The list could go on forever. Why not just make all murders/assaults/crimes equal. They are all very bad.

[emt1]

I think there's a sense in which hate crimes are actually worse. Generally speaking when someone is murdered, terrible as it may be, the person who was killed was probably somehow involved in a conflict that ultimately led to the murder. Sure, their part almost certainly didn't justify their death, but they did have a part. In a hate crime, however, the victim will generally have done absolutely nothing to the murderer, and may have never seen it coming.

You can't just say that. This isn't even an argument. There are non-hate crimes where the victim was 100% innocent and there are "hate" crimes where the victim may have provoked it.

[CalBoy]

So you're saying that it would be more forgivable if they were beating you up to steal your money?

I certainly would.

If they were simple thugs, I would know that they harbor no specific feelings of malice towards my kind; they're just douches.

If they target me because I belong to a particular minority, then that makes them bigots and douches.
Is it right to create a means for the federal government to circumvent injustices done by local justice systems? Is that the federal government's place?

Is it right for the criminal justice system to only provide justice to the majority?

Seeing as how the 14th Amendment specifically forbids this, I'd say it's definitely within the purview of the Federal government to do this.

[emt1]

I certainly would.

If they were simple thugs, I would know that they harbor no specific feelings of malice towards my kind; they're just douches.

If they target me because I belong to a particular minority, then that makes them bigots and douches.

Being a bigot is not a crime. Welcome to America.

Is it right for the criminal justice system to only provide justice to the majority?

Seeing as how the 14th Amendment specifically forbids this, I'd say it's definitely within the purview of the Federal government to do this.

But it doesn't only provide justice for the majority. Is it right for the justice system to provide extra protection for minorities?

[emt1]

Well, not forgivable.
But if the sole reason they beat ME up and stole MY money as oppose to somebody else's because I'm bi then I would definitely want then to serve a longer sentence..
By longer I don't mean a drastically longer, just an extension based from the crime committed and/or original sentence.

You just contradicted yourself. Based on your second statement, it is more forgivable if they beat you up for your money rather than your sexual orientation.

I would like to propose a question for everybody.

Imagine that you were severely injured after being assaulted by someone who's intent was to rob you. They were sentenced to 2 years in prison.

You hear on the news that someone received similar injuries to yours, but they were assaulted because they were gay. That criminal received 7 years due to hate crime laws.

How would you feel about that?

[EricNau]

Where does the list of variables end?
-Sexual orientation
-Religion
-Age
-Socio-economic status
-Gender
-Weight
-Color of hair

The list could go on forever. Why not just make all murders/assaults/crimes equal. They are all very bad.
Does the list necessarily need to end? All crimes motivated based on the victim's physical characteristics or social affiliations should be treated with extra scrutiny.

You need to think of the ramifications hate crimes have on society as a whole. Hate crimes are more likely to result in retaliation, inflict emotional harm on entire groups of people, and incite community unrest.

Which would trouble you more, reading in the paper about a random murder in your community, or reading that a social group of which you are associated was specifically targeted in a string of related killings?

[CalBoy]

Where does the list of variables end?
-Sexual orientation
-Religion
-Age
-Socio-economic status
-Gender
-Weight
-Color of hair

The list could go on forever. Why not just make all murders/assaults/crimes equal. They are all very bad.

The standard used is really very simple and intelligible: a group that has previously been persecuted and denied access to equality.

I'm pretty sure that hair color hasn't been the basis of persecution for most Americans, while sexual orientation, gender, and race have been.

Being a bigot is not a crime. Welcome to America.

We're not talking about idle bigots, we're talking about bigots who break the law.

If you honestly believe that everyone has access to equal justice in America, then maybe I ought to tell you, "welcome to America."

But it doesn't only provide justice for the majority.

:confused:

Have you not learned anything from history? Look at the South from the 1870s all the way through to today.

Heck, look at LA circa 1992.

Is it right for the justice system to provide extra protection for minorities?

It doesn't provide any meaningful "extra" protection, merely protection that will actually let the minority have access to protection that the majority enjoys.

If you commit a hate crime and the local jury convicts you, then Federal legislation won't go into effect.

If the local DA doesn't charge you because of local animosity towards that minority, then at least the victim still has a path to justice.

[EricNau]

Being a bigot is not a crime. Welcome to America.
Acting on those feelings, however, is.

[CalBoy]

How would you feel about that?


Which would trouble you more, reading in the paper about a random murder in your community, or reading that a social group of which you are associated was specifically targeted in a string of related killings?

Exactly.

In many cases, minorities in some areas can't expect local DAs to do anything to protect them. What's your answer to them? "Sucks to be you"?

[FreeState]

Why not just make all murders/assaults/crimes equal. They are all very bad.

Maybe because the are not all equal. I served jury duty on a murder case and we had to decide if it was 1st or 2nd degree murder - because motivation and intent are important in accessing a crime and its punishment.

One thing people seem to overlook is when your talking about hate crime law, for example with sexual orientation is that it covers everyone. If a straight person is a victim of a crime because that person is straight it is an additional time in sentencing (for states that have such laws). Hate crime laws cover everyone equally - they do not give special protection to one group over the other but rather say that bias against a group - no matter what group- is wrong.

[itcheroni]

I think everyone here has made very well thought out responses. Good job. :)


P.S. You can't accuse me of being anti-minority. I'm bisexual. I don't think someone should get "additional" jail time for beating me up just because I'm bisexual.

Being part of a minority group doesn't absolve you from any and all bigotry. A black man can indeed be racist against other black men. Larry Craig can be against gay rights. It's a lame deflection.

It especially irks me when people use their minority status as a license to say whatever they want with impunity. But I do find it hilarious when people try to do the same thing with "a friend." Like Palin's gay friend, whoever he or she is, allows her to say anything she wants about gays.

[emt1]

I think everyone here has made very well thought out responses. Good job. :)



Being part of a minority group doesn't absolve you from any and all bigotry. A black man can indeed be racist against other black men. Larry Craig can be against gay rights. It's a lame deflection.

It especially irks me when people use their minority status as a license to say whatever they want with impunity. But I do find it hilarious when people try to do the same thing with "a friend." Like Palin's gay friend, whoever he or she is, allows her to say anything she wants about gays.

You've got me pegged. I'm a racist bisexual.

[CalBoy]

You've got me pegged. I'm a racist bisexual.

I know you're being sarcastic, but there really isn't much relevance to the fact that you're bi.

You shouldn't need to qualify your arguments on the basis of who you are.

[Chaszmyr]

You can't just say that. This isn't even an argument. There are non-hate crimes where the victim was 100% innocent and there are "hate" crimes where the victim may have provoked it.

If the victim did something, then it's more than just a hate crime, so that argument doesn't hold up. The other one does, but I'd bet that it's extremely rare for there to be particularly serious crimes where the victim had no previous contact with the criminal.

[Iscariot]

Poorly implemented hate crime laws in Canada can be a source of frustration and censorship of individuals at the behest of special interest groups. While I can see the impetus for laws regarding hate crimes, they have to be implemented with extreme caution, especially if they have any effect on any of the fundamental rights or freedoms of individuals.

[63dot]

Today, I will be gearing up for my midterm in Criminal Law in law school.

The five elements of a crime are the intent, act, concurrence, causation, and harm that results.

Special circumstances to battery, aggravated battery, and homicide (muder 1, murder 2, felony manslaughter, and misdemeanor manslaughter) can range from additional factors such as hate crimes, treason, and number of victims as key additional elements to lengthen the sentence.

Traditionally, if it's a certain class of felony being committed, and a hate crime is one of them as being battery, and more likely aggravated battery, and the victim dies, even without the intent to kill the victim, then we are talking possible death penalty, murder 1 case.

Covering most states, in addition to assault and battery, a felony that can be bumped up to murder 1 if the victim dies are the additional felonies of burglary, arson, rape, robbery, and kidnapping.

If you are committing other felonies, and the intent to kill is not there, then there will likely not be a murder 1 charge. In the felony of receiving stolen goods, if the defendant is in the process of let's say receiving a large piece of stolen machinery that is dangerous, and it blows up and kills somebody, then murder 1 is off the books. However, if you are stealing that piece of machinery in a burglary and it blows up and kills somebody in the other room, and the defendant didn't know there was somebody there, it's still potentially murder 1. Cherry picking certain felonies is called the Felony Murder Rule and though the commission of felonies not intentionally murder that can go wrong in its commission and lead to a murder 1 charge if somebody dies absolutely includes hate crimes.

So among the scores of felonies out there, hate crimes do elevate the potential sentence. In most courts, a battery leading to a death will likely result in a murder 2 sentence, but maybe murder 1. If that battery is a hate crime, then we are talking murder 1/death penalty in most states.

However, California is not a Model Penal Code state and a little more lenient on battery as a felony murder rule element and if the defendant is found guilty of murder 1 in commission of a hate crime, it's more like a life sentence and not the death penalty. 34 states say otherwise and most of those 34 will more likely put the defendant on death row if the felony was an aggravated battery resulting in an unintentional homicide.

We may all have our personal or moral considerations to how we feel about hate crimes, but what is proximate (legal) is what statutes and codes of each particular state say, and that does not recognize moral consideration or point of view. Right now, in America, hate crimes are an extra element that can elevate a sentence. If you like that hate crimes can add sentence time to a felony, then fine. If not, then find a candidate for Congress who thinks that hate crimes should not be an elevating factor in a sentence, and vote for them.

[63dot]

Acting on those feelings, however, is.

And if that act is a crime, and the prosecutor shows a link to an intent of a hate crime, then the sentence is increased.

[leekohler]

Is it right to create a means for the federal government to circumvent injustices done by local justice systems? Is that the federal government's place?

Is it right that certain groups of people are less protected by the law or in some cases not at all? I agree with Calboy, having known people who've been ignored and even laughed at by law enforcement, we unfortunately need hate crime laws right now.

[pseudobrit]

What is your opinion on hate crime laws?

I think that they should be eliminated. They insinuate that it's worse to kill someone because they are black or gay than it is to kill someone for no reason.

It is accepted and expected for the state to consider the perpetrator's mindset before, during and after the commission of crimes in determining charges and sentencing.

Judging the level of someone's culpability on the end result of their actions would create absurd injustices within our legal system.

[Dagless]

I'd be for them but they seem to exclude a couple of groups that I belong to. It's okay to call Welsh people "sheep shaggers" and I've seen bias on these very boards against Polish people yet it's all good and okay both online and in society, with a slight slap on the wrist if you're Anne Robinson.
But if I go out onto the street and call someone a derogatary name about their race, religion or sexual preference I can be in a whole load of trouble.

So I support abolishing them. I've managed to cope with "hate crimes" not being on my side for 22 years.

[leekohler]

I'd be for them but they seem to exclude a couple of groups that I belong to. It's okay to call Welsh people "sheep shaggers" and I've seen bias on these very boards against Polish people yet it's all good and okay both online and in society, with a slight slap on the wrist if you're Anne Robinson.
But if I go out onto the street and call someone a derogatary name about their race, religion or sexual preference I can be in a whole load of trouble.

So I support abolishing them. I've managed to cope with "hate crimes" not being on my side for 22 years.

Jimmi- hate crimes laws here differ greatly from hate crimes laws in the UK. We don't prosecute people for what hey say in this country, we prosecute them for what they do.

[63dot]

Is it right that certain groups of people are less protected by the law or in some cases not at all? I agree with Calboy, having known people who've been ignored and even laughed at by law enforcement, we unfortunately need hate crime laws right now.

Hey Lee,

I don't know if it's even valid to be trying to answer this troll. He/she is probably an Ann Coulter/Rush wannabe. I sometimes feel terrible that I started these forums under another, former user name. It was OK at first, but then the haters started coming in here via Google political searches and from ultra-right wing organization groups. And yes, there were haters that came in from the extreme left, but the mods here have mostly banned the biggest offenders pulling for the Reich or a Communist overthrow of all us evil capitalists, etc.

But due to freedom of speech, I tolerate the Nazis, often disguised as "independents" or "libertarians" who come here to score points on this thread. I also tolerate those who think that they want to make the USA into a North Korea type of "utopia". My personal belief being in the middle is my own and I put my opinions here, but try not and bait, like the person you are responding to. Sometimes during a hot button political issue on the news, especially Fox news, then type in the title of the political story of the day, and Macrumors will come up in the top 100 hits, sometimes the top 10 hits. It's amazing, shocking, and sometimes flattering, but it puts us in a very high profile.

Look up other political only forums, and they are tiny compared to us.

[63dot]

I'd be for them but they seem to exclude a couple of groups that I belong to. It's okay to call Welsh people "sheep shaggers" and I've seen bias on these very boards against Polish people yet it's all good and okay both online and in society, with a slight slap on the wrist if you're Anne Robinson.
But if I go out onto the street and call someone a derogatary name about their race, religion or sexual preference I can be in a whole load of trouble.

So I support abolishing them. I've managed to cope with "hate crimes" not being on my side for 22 years.

Jimmi,

That is terrible that people are small minded and call you names. I don't know what the laws are under common law, but if and when that action turns into a battery (called mayhem in common law), then that's where the hate crime laws in the US apply (Model Penal Code, 2/3 restatement of law, ALI).

I stand with Lee Kohler's reasoning on this. If anybody attacked you physically and I was a barrister in your town, I would take you case pro bono (free) as all humans have a right to be and not get attacked for a belief, orientation, or choice. I don't like neo-Nazis, but you don't see me attacking them with a stick. I don't like people who hate the color red and give me dirty looks because they think the 49ers logo represents their rival street gang, instead of what I really am, a 49ers fan. But you don't see me attacking them, because they threaten me, and I don't go up to them in revenge and assault everybody who wears the rival "blue" color. In California we have two very huge and violent gangs, the Ns and Ss, and they are both hispanic gangs in a fight over lucrative drug turf. I often get mistook for one or the other due to my appearance.

[leekohler]

Hey Lee,

I don't know if it's even valid to be trying to answer this troll. He/she is probably an Ann Coulter/Rush wannabe. I sometimes feel terrible that I started these forums under another, former user name. It was OK at first, but then the haters started coming in here via Google political searches and from ultra-right wing organization groups. And yes, there were haters that came in from the extreme left, but the mods here have mostly banned the biggest offenders pulling for the Reich or a Communist overthrow of all us evil capitalists, etc.

But due to freedom of speech, I tolerate the Nazis, often disguised as "independents" or "libertarians" who come here to score points on this thread. I also tolerate those who think that they want to make the USA into a North Korea type of "utopia". My personal belief being in the middle is my own and I put my opinions here, but try not and bait, like the person you are responding to. Sometimes during a hot button political issue on the news, especially Fox news, then type in the title of the political story of the day, and Macrumors will come up in the top 100 hits, sometimes the top 10 hits. It's amazing, shocking, and sometimes flattering, but it puts us in a very high profile.

Look up other political only forums, and they are tiny compared to us.

Ah- I hadn't read his other posts. You're right, TROLL. Yo know, it would be nice if people could just come in here, present a topic and maybe a comment or two and proceed in a civil manner. But then we get this guy, who seems to just want to get people riled up. As it stands, the only person who got riled was him. :)

I think we do a pretty good job in here.

[kavika411]

Excellent thread.

I am against differential punishment under hate crime laws. Quite simply, if it is believed by society/lawmakers that there is additional punishment still on the table for certain criminal behavior, I want that same additional punishment to available to all victims, not just certain classes of victims. I think all victims should be entitled to see the same amount of punishment available against his/her attacker, regardless of whether attacker had bigoted beliefs.

I believe crimes committed with bias towards a specific social group are worthy of receiving harsher punishments because they have extremely detrimental effects on society as a whole.

This is a strong argument. However, I disagree with it nonetheless because - even though I believe a core tenant of punishment is that it serve as a deterent to others - I do not believe the justice system should try to better deter, or alternately deter, a specific group from engaging in a criminal act any more than all other groups. Again, I want all available punishment levied against the defendant, any defendant, regardless of their class-related intent; I don't want "extra punishment" dolled out only in certain circumstances. Still, that argument gives me pause.

Maybe because they are not all equal. I served jury duty on a murder case and we had to decide if it was 1st or 2nd degree murder - because motivation and intent are important in accessing a crime and its punishment.

Good point, but the intent - I believe - should only concern the intent to commit the crime. I don't think it is the justice system's place to be looking at the morality of someone's thoughts as they commit (or before they commit) the crime. Sure, evidence that the killing took place because he/she was gay may need to come in under intent/mens rea for the prosecutor to prove the elements of the crime, but I believe to then have a mini-trial of sorts on the morality of that one particular part of the person's thoughts and beliefs, is dangerous, and needlessly selective. I don't like it when either side of the political spectrum lets me know what thoughts - and we are indeed talking about thoughts - are ok and not ok.

Hate crime laws cover everyone equally - they do not give special protection to one group over the other but rather say that bias against a group - no matter what group- is wrong.

Another good point, but I have to disagree. I believe that hate crime laws - which often seek to redress disparate justice amongst groups (as some have noted here) - are themselves disparately used. A few years ago here in Alabama, three well-educated, white, 19-ish year old males burned six different small town Baptist churches to the ground over the course of three or so days. They went out of their way (as in driving all around the state) to locate Christian, specifically Baptist, churches to burn. As I recall, not a mention was made of charging them under hate crime laws.

( http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/10/nation/na-churchfires10 )

I'm no defender of Christian churches, much less rural Baptist churches, but I think the dis-interest in pursuing hate crime-level punishments stemmed from a lack of interest in this particular class of victims, although they were quite specifically targeted by religion - even denomination. And I don't think that this was a singular incident of selective use of hate crime law implementation.

Again, excellent thread.

[63dot]

Ah- I hadn't read his other posts. You're right, TROLL. Yo know, it would be nice if people could just come in here, present a topic and maybe a comment or two and proceed in a civil manner. But then we get this guy, who seems to just want to get people riled up. As it stands, the only person who got riled was him. :)

I think we do a pretty good job in here.

In 2000-2001, when I, a democrat, this one unnamed person (a far leftist from the left end of Labour Party), and a right wing (Thatcher is God person) started a friendly discussion here. None of us agreed on much except Macs.

We all lived in London or had lived in London and got all Parliamentary here, but mostly on emails. We got to know each other and email each other personally on other matters, too. Sometimes, for fun we would troll each other here, for fun. But then the forums grew, and it got ugly and mods stepped in, thankfully.

We had the Ruby Ridge and Waco supporters come in with showing off their gun collections, we had a few of Rev. Phelps' people taunt the site, etc. Thank God a lot of the PMs and posts have been wastelanded.

[63dot]

Again, a crime has 5 basic elements. Sentencing is furthered by additional elements such as treason, hate crimes, multiple victims. (Restatement of Law - 2nd/3rd, and Model Penal Code)

That's the core topic here, not preferential treatment as that belongs in an affirmative action thread.

[leekohler]

Another good point, but I have to disagree. I believe that hate crime laws - which often seek to redress disparate justice amongst groups (as some have noted here) - are themselves disparately used. A few years ago here in Alabama, three well-educated, white, 19-ish year old males burned six different small town Baptist churches to the ground over the course of three or so days. They went out of their way (as in driving all around the state) to locate Christian, specifically Baptist, churches to burn. As I recall, not a mention was made of charging them under hate crime laws.

( http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/10/nation/na-churchfires10 )

I'm no defender of Christian churches, much less rural Baptist churches, but I think the dis-interest in pursuing hate crime-level punishments stemmed from a lack of interest in this particular class of victims, although they were quite specifically targeted by religion - even denomination. And I don't think that this was a singular incident of selective use of hate crime law implementation.

Again, excellent thread.

It should absolutely be pursued as a hate crime. The plaintiffs should push for that.

Like I mentioned before, these laws came about because the law wasn't being enforced. In some cases, people used defenses such as the "gay panic" defense. These people would many times murder someone and serve hardly any time or in some cases actually walk away. These laws get rid of such defenses. It's sad that it has to be this way, but it's what is needed for now.

[fivepoint]

I think mindset should always be considered at sentencing. However, hate crime laws are one of the worst forms of political correctness there is. Sort of like affirmative action for the legal system. Should a rich white person who murders a poor black person be punished more than a poor black person who kills a rich white person? Does being a minority give you the right to a higher degree of justice?

In my humble opinion, millions of people do millions of horrible things every day. Whether they do it because they 'hate gays' or they were robbing a bank, I don't think it really matters. I do not support hate crime laws, but I strongly favor education programs to reduce them. I support tolerance, individuality, and general simplification of the legal system.

[kavika411]

Like I mentioned before, these laws came about because the law wasn't being enforced. In some cases, people used defenses such as the "gay panic" defense. These people would many times murder someone and serve hardly any time or in some cases actually walk away. These laws get rid of such defenses. It's sad that it has to be this way, but it's what is needed for now.

Good point, and I think I have a fair question to raise in this regard; when will we know we no longer need them? In a separate thread I mentioned that I reluctantly support affirmative action. One part of my reluctance with affirmative action laws - again, even though I support them generally - is that I don't understand what litmus (sp?) test we use eventually to say they are no longer needed.

The argument that normal criminal laws have failed certain groups/classes in the past may be the most persuasive in support of hate crime statues. However, bigots will always exist, and bigotry-provoked crimes will always occur. So, we have to ask ourselves if trying to remedy prior flaws should go on forever, so to speak.

I don't have an answer.

[synth3tik]

The hardest thing when it comes to hate crimes is showing that a crime was carried out because of someones gender, race, religion, or orientation.

At my last job there was a guy that came in with a gun (former temp employee). Even though he was able to sneak by security for some reason he decided to hi tail it out of there. He followed this lady Stephanie out and tried to car jack her. Just a few months before Stephanie was known as Steven. This former employee had no knowledge of this, and had no idea who this person was and just wanted the car.

When the police came Stephanie was all up in arms demanding that the police charge him with a hate crime, because in her mind he only tried to car jack her because she was transgender.

Regardless of my view of Stephanie I am in total support of people who want or have become transgender. However, this was totally ridiculous. It just happened to be that he followed her out the door and that is why he picked her. My boss was right behind him, and could have easily been the target. In the end another person came to Stephanie's aid and handed their keys to this guy who ended up crashing that car in the parking lot and fled on foot. So besides having the even loving s*** scared out of her, Stephanie made it though unharmed.

[mactastic]

So is rape (man raping a woman) a hate crime, while forcible sodomy (perp and victim of the same sex) is not, sexual orientation of all involved aside?

I understand the arguments for hate crime legislation, but I think it's a band-aid on a much more serious problem. If local DAs aren't prosecuting people for crimes that are provable, then the local DA needs to be subject to censure or worse.

In my view, hate crime legislation criminalizes thought, not deed. As odious as it is, it's not illegal to hate homosexuals. It is, however; illegal to kill a homosexual for any reason, be it robbery, jealous rage, or hatred.

My feeling is that people who target victims for the larger political impact (ie. killing a homosexual or a black person "to send a message to the community") is treading more into terrorism charges than hate crimes.

[fivepoint]

So is rape (man raping a woman) a hate crime, while forcible sodomy (perp and victim of the same sex) is not, sexual orientation of all involved aside?

I understand the arguments for hate crime legislation, but I think it's a band-aid on a much more serious problem. If local DAs aren't prosecuting people for crimes that are provable, then the local DA needs to be subject to censure or worse.

In my view, hate crime legislation criminalizes thought, not deed. As odious as it is, it's not illegal to hate homosexuals. It is, however; illegal to kill a homosexual for any reason, be it robbery, jealous rage, or hatred.

My feeling is that people who target victims for the larger political impact (ie. killing a homosexual or a black person "to send a message to the community") is treading more into terrorism charges than hate crimes.

+1

[Chaszmyr]

So is rape (man raping a woman) a hate crime, while forcible sodomy (perp and victim of the same sex) is not, sexual orientation of all involved aside?

Generally speaking, rape is classified as a sex crime, not a hate crime. Sex crimes often has their own sets of laws governing them. There are actually a lot of feminists that think it ought to be classified as a hate crime, and on one hand I understand, but the motivation is that of a sex crime not a hate crime. I doubt that men rape women because they hate women. They may not respect women, but presumably they commit rape because of their desire to have sex with the woman, not because of their hate of the woman.

[CalBoy]

Poorly implemented hate crime laws in Canada can be a source of frustration and censorship of individuals at the behest of special interest groups. While I can see the impetus for laws regarding hate crimes, they have to be implemented with extreme caution, especially if they have any effect on any of the fundamental rights or freedoms of individuals.

This is actually one of the few areas I think the US has a clear lead over other nations.

Speech is rarely restricted here.

Even when Neo Nazis wanted to march through a neighborhood full of Holocaust survivors, they were allowed to do so. I don't think we would see that in other nations.

I am against differential punishment under hate crime laws. Quite simply, if it is believed by society/lawmakers that there is additional punishment still on the table for certain criminal behavior, I want that same additional punishment to available to all victims, not just certain classes of victims. I think all victims should be entitled to see the same amount of punishment available against his/her attacker, regardless of whether attacker had bigoted beliefs.

This still doesn't address the problems of DAs who don't prosecute.

If someone can come up with a good way to get around that problem, then I'd agree; hate crime laws wouldn't be useful.

As I recall, not a mention was made of charging them under hate crime laws.

Have Baptist churches had repeated trouble with under prosecution in the past? Have they gone through a period of systematic targeting and violence aside from this one instance? Has their been a durable conflict in society involving Baptist churches and their civil rights?

No?

Then there's no comparison.

I support tolerance, individuality, and general simplification of the legal system.

Then you'd agree that we need to give the Justice Department an avenue to pick up the slack when local prosecutors don't want to prosecute crimes against minorities.

That's what this is about. If you can come up with a system that accomplishes that without using hate crime laws, I'll be with you. Until then, I think hate crime laws are the best we can hope for.

[ucfgrad93]

So is rape (man raping a woman) a hate crime, while forcible sodomy (perp and victim of the same sex) is not, sexual orientation of all involved aside?

I understand the arguments for hate crime legislation, but I think it's a band-aid on a much more serious problem. If local DAs aren't prosecuting people for crimes that are provable, then the local DA needs to be subject to censure or worse.

In my view, hate crime legislation criminalizes thought, not deed. As odious as it is, it's not illegal to hate homosexuals. It is, however; illegal to kill a homosexual for any reason, be it robbery, jealous rage, or hatred.

My feeling is that people who target victims for the larger political impact (ie. killing a homosexual or a black person "to send a message to the community") is treading more into terrorism charges than hate crimes.

Agreed. I don't support hate crime legislation and if DAs aren't prosecuting people then they should be removed from office.

[63dot]

I think mindset should always be considered at sentencing.

1) It is.

Quote: Barron's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition

hate crime: page 231, see bias crime

bias crime: page 51

commission of an offense where the person acted, at least in part, with ill will, hatred, or bias (emphasized) toward, and with a purpose to intimidate, an individual or group because of race, color, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.

ADDITIONALLY:

res ipsa loquitur, and in addition, to clarify:

2) This is the law of the United States of America

3) The United States resides in North America

4) North America is on planet earth

These are the laws, and some think they stink. Many laws stink. Right now, in the United States of America, on planet earth, this is the law, memorialized, in writing.

The rest of the opinions on this forum are opinions and do not reflect the Model Penal Code or Restatements of the Law, United States of America. What we think of these current laws does not matter. Period.

If you want to change them, then as any law professor will tell you, get the ******* out and vote.

I have a question for any non-lawyers or law students here, your opinion is fine and if you don't like homosexuals, and a perceived protection they have, aggravating your ignorance of law, then either:

1) Go the ******* to law school

or

2) Vote

and sorry, for those of you who hate homosexuals, that you have not found your local Klan rally.

America: Love it or leave it.

and

Sorry, that it's too liberal for you.

[CalBoy]

Agreed. I don't support hate crime legislation and if DAs aren't prosecuting people then they should be removed from office.

How do you remove a DA if the public likes the fact that s/he won't prosecute crimes against blacks/jews/hispanics/gays/whoever?

The DA's power is derived directly from the people; it would violate the separation of powers if we allowed the Federal government to remove that officer.

[mactastic]

They may not respect women, but presumably they commit rape because of their desire to have sex with the woman, not because of their hate of the woman.
More often than not, the desire to have sex plays a backseat role to the desire to have complete power over someone.

IOW, rape is generally about power, not about sex.

But by that same logic, one could argue that it's simply a lack of respect for homosexuals, not hatred of them, that motivates one to commit anti-gay crimes. In which case, there would be no need for hate crime legislation.

[mactastic]

How do you remove a DA if the public likes the fact that s/he won't prosecute crimes against blacks/jews/hispanics/gays/whoever?

The DA's power is derived directly from the people; it would violate the separation of powers if we allowed the Federal government to remove that officer.
Well, you could make it a federal crime to selectively prosecute based upon discriminatory factors, for one.

[EricNau]

Should a rich white person who murders a poor black person be punished more than a poor black person who kills a rich white person? Does being a minority give you the right to a higher degree of justice?
That's a straw man; you're completely misrepresenting the meaning of a hate crime.

Using your example, the poor black person could equally be charged with a hate crime if his/her motive was racially biased against the rich white man, just like the rich white man who killed the poor black person might not be charged with a hate crime if his/her motive was not racially biased.

The definition of hate crime: "a crime motivated by a prejudice, typically one involving violence."

...Motivated being the key word.

[CalBoy]

Well, you could make it a federal crime to selectively prosecute based upon discriminatory factors, for one.

That would be incredibly difficult to implement.

The Law is not a straight forward beast; there are minutia that any respectful DA could marshall to his defense to say, "that's why I didn't prosecute."

Plus, it doesn't always address the issue of biased juries. By letting the Justice Department prosecute, you kill two birds with one stone.

[mactastic]

That would be incredibly difficult to implement.

The Law is not a straight forward beast; there are minutia that any respectful DA could marshall to his defense to say, "that's why I didn't prosecute."

Plus, it doesn't always address the issue of biased juries. By letting the Justice Department prosecute, you kill two birds with one stone.
And you don't see minutia in hate crime legislation? And half-decent defense attorney should be able to "prove" that his client wasn't thinking hateful thoughts at the time.

Biased juries can be dealt with through attorney challenges to prospective jurors.

[63dot]

How do you remove a DA if the public likes the fact that s/he won't prosecute crimes against blacks/jews/hispanics/gays/whoever?

The DA's power is derived directly from the people; it would violate the separation of powers if we allowed the Federal government to remove that officer.

As a registered member of the California State Bar (Howard Street, San Francisco, California), any DA or public defender in said state who fails to carry out the Constitution of the United States, and/or the Constitution of the State of California, in which may differ at times, may be disbarred.

Basically, keep on your toes with both Constitutions!

California requires you to join them within 90 days of entering law school. From then on, you are on their rules, or else. It seems harsh, kind of like Mactastic's hoops he has to jump through to be a licensed architect, but unless things change, rules are rules.

I still think becoming a lawyer is far easier than being an architect. One of my buddies in law school is an architect and she told me the hoops she had to endure in her state. Insane stuff, really.

Personally, do I like all licensing rules? Hell no. Do I have to follow them? Yes, especially after 90 days as any California law student has to. If they tell you to bring them the moon, you do.

[EricNau]

In my view, hate crime legislation criminalizes thought, not deed.
Only when those thoughts become the motive for a illegal deed, however.

You can hate whomever you want for any reason you choose, but when you start killing others based on those feelings you're injecting fear and terror into society.

My feeling is that people who target victims for the larger political impact (ie. killing a homosexual or a black person "to send a message to the community") is treading more into terrorism charges than hate crimes.
Meaning they're brought against higher charges? How is that any different than being charged with a hate crime, except the difference in phrasing?

[CalBoy]

And you don't see minutia in hate crime legislation? And half-decent defense attorney should be able to "prove" that his client wasn't thinking hateful thoughts at the time.

You have to realize that most of these cases don't actually go to trial. Any respectful defense attorney will tell his client to plead guilty because going up against the Justice Department is not a friendly fight.

Hate crime laws really provide leverage.

Biased juries can be dealt with through attorney challenges to prospective jurors.

When you only get 3 uncontested challenges for a 12-person jury, it's quite easy to see how a local defense attorney could easily get one or more racist/bigoted jurors.

[63dot]

Biased juries can be dealt with through attorney challenges to prospective jurors.


That is why, on average, 360 to 440 potential jurors are called to seat 12 jurors and 12 alternates in my county on any case.

Other counties differ.

Fairness is aimed for, but never perfectly achieved.

[Chaszmyr]

More often than not, the desire to have sex plays a backseat role to the desire to have complete power over someone.

IOW, rape is generally about power, not about sex.

But by that same logic, one could argue that it's simply a lack of respect for homosexuals, not hatred of them, that motivates one to commit anti-gay crimes. In which case, there would be no need for hate crime legislation.

On your first point, granted. I don't think it undermines what I said, and moreover consensual sex is also often about power (hence BDSM being fairly common). In other words, it is not a stretch to connect the concepts, and it does not happen only in cases of rape.

As for your second point, a lack of respect can facilitate crimes (you're more likely to commit a crime against someone you don't respect), but a mere lack of respect will never cause a crime. What is it about lack of respect that would motivate you to hostile action, unless it was really an issue of hate, or an independent catalyst.

[63dot]

You have to realize that most of these cases don't actually go to trial.

In California, historically, that percentage is between 96% to 99% percent of all potential cases. (cf: Palsgraf v. Long Island RR for background/justification).

[mactastic]

Only when those thoughts become the motive for a illegal deed, however.
My view is that all violent crimes are hate crimes. It's just that some hate is "acceptable" and some isn't. If you are a Crip, and you are motivated by your hatred of Bloods to kill one of them, no one calls that a hate crime. But if you're a neo-nazi and you are motivated by your hatred of immigrants to kill one of them, it is. That makes little sense to me.

You can hate whomever you want for any reason you choose, but when you start killing others based on those feelings you're injecting fear and terror into society.
Which is exactly why I would rather punish the act of injecting fear and terror into society (via anti-terror laws) than punish the hateful thoughts that led you to do the injecting.

Meaning they're brought against higher charges? How is that any different than being charged with a hate crime, except the difference in phrasing?
Because you're punishing an act (terrorizing someone or some group) rather than punishing a constitutionally protected thought. If that accomplishes the same goal as the pro-hate-crimes legislation folks, great.

And just to be clear, I have no problem with judges taking mindset into consideration at sentencing time, and to push for sentences at the higher end of the spectrum for those who commit bias-based crimes. I just don't think that criminalizing the bias itself is acceptable.

[63dot]

...motivate you to hostile action, unless it was really an issue of hate, or an independent catalyst.

Motivation, as moral consideration or past consideration, are not legally admissible in any state, in any court in the United States of America.

Intent, not motivation, has to be proven.

Motivation/motive is a term of "TV" law the same way as "crazy" is vs. the legal term which is properly called "insanity".

[mactastic]

You have to realize that most of these cases don't actually go to trial. Any respectful defense attorney will tell his client to plead guilty because going up against the Justice Department is not a friendly fight.

Hate crime laws really provide leverage.
Well, that's just legalized extortion then, isn't it?

When you only get 3 uncontested challenges for a 12-person jury, it's quite easy to see how a local defense attorney could easily get one or more racist/bigoted jurors.
Well then... change that rule!

And I believe that rule varies from location to location. IIRC, I've seen some cases where many more than 3 potential jurors were sent packing by each side.

Look, my opposition to hate crime laws is mostly philosophical. I can live with them in practice, for the same reason I can live with affirmative action laws. Sure, it's imperfect, but it's a recognition that the playing field isn't level for everyone.

I'd just like to see a better way of addressing the underlying problem, rather that slapping a band-aid on the symptom.

[leekohler]

I'd just like to see a better way of addressing the underlying problem, rather that slapping a band-aid on the symptom.

I'm certainly open to suggestions. I wish we didn't need hate crime laws. I've just seen to many instances of why we do. If you can find a way to get crimes prosecuted in the proper manner when these issues are involved, I'm all for it. But as it stands, we don't have a better way at the moment. And I'm not willing to see anymore friends of mine who've been victimized brutally, laughed out of a police station or disrespected and denied justice in a court room.

[63dot]

I'd just like to see a better way of addressing the underlying problem, rather that slapping a band-aid on the symptom.

Unfortunately, it's a slow evolutionary process from Religious Law to Common Law to Modern Law. There are a lot of loopholes and injustices, but as time goes on, the law moves forward and becomes more progressive.

One day, long after we are all gone, the term "hate crime" will be a term of the past. Gay marriage won't be an issue to be fought over, but a reality. People attacking each other based on differences won't be headlines in the news as much as it is today.

But from a legal perspective, how far we have come in the last 150 years is really quite amazing.

[mactastic]

I'm certainly open to suggestions. I wish we didn't need hate crime laws. I've just seen to many instances of why we do. If you can find a way to get crimes prosecuted in the proper manner when these issues are involved, I'm all for it. But as it stands, we don't have a better way at the moment. And I'm not willing to see anymore friends of mine who've been victimized brutally, laughed out of a police station or disrespected and denied justice in a court room.
Like I said, I can live with these laws because of experiences like yours. I just don't think it's the best solution, but I will be the first to admit that the best solution involves a lot of groundwork that I don't think people are ready for yet.

[63dot]

I think mindset should always be considered at sentencing. However, hate crime laws are one of the worst forms of political correctness there is. Sort of like affirmative action for the legal system. Should a rich white person who murders a poor black person be punished more than a poor black person who kills a rich white person? Does being a minority give you the right to a higher degree of justice?

In my humble opinion, millions of people do millions of horrible things every day. Whether they do it because they 'hate gays' or they were robbing a bank, I don't think it really matters. I do not support hate crime laws, but I strongly favor education programs to reduce them. I support tolerance, individuality, and general simplification of the legal system.

A hate crime can happen when minorities attack a white person based on race.

There is no causal link between hate crime legislation and affirmative action. It's a distinction that I did not really understand for a long time, either. Anyway, look up the legal definition in any legal dictionary of "hate crime". I provided a definition in a previous post from a law dictionary. It can be done by member(s) of any group against another. There is no move to make it give the minority a higher degree of justice.

Justice is based on a criminal system where the moving party, the prosecution, has to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a crime has been committed against the plaintiff (victim). It's not a justice system that gives preferential treatment to minorities. Just look who is in prison and a strong case could be made for the opposite.

Affirmative action, now that's a totally different topic, but this thread is about hate crimes, or bias crimes, as it is legally called in court.

[kavika411]

Have Baptist churches had repeated trouble with under prosecution in the past? Have they gone through a period of systematic targeting and violence aside from this one instance? Has their been a durable conflict in society involving Baptist churches and their civil rights?

No?

Then there's no comparison.

You ask a question, but your tone is rhetorical. Last time I checked, there are no hate crime statutes requiring "a period of systematic targeting and violence aside from one instance," nor "a durable conflict in society involving [the victim] and their civil rights." Do you know of any hate crime statutes requiring "a period of systematic targeting and violence aside from one instance," or "a durable conflict in society involving [the victim] and their civil rights"?

I am being rhetorical, because you appear to prefer that method of discourse.

[CalBoy]

Well, that's just legalized extortion then, isn't it?

Welcome to the legal system! ;)

It's all about leverage and positioning. That's why nearly all cases are settled and never heard by a jury.

Well then... change that rule!

And I believe that rule varies from location to location. IIRC, I've seen some cases where many more than 3 potential jurors were sent packing by each side.

IIRC, each side can dismiss 3 jurors without cause during voir dire and an unlimited number with cause (the judge must agree to the cause though).

Even if you could change that rule, there's no reason to believe that a jury pool in a certain area wouldn't be tainted from the onset. Even if a prosector was able to hypothetically get "most" of the racist jurors off the case, all it takes is one to cause a hung jury.

Look, my opposition to hate crime laws is mostly philosophical. I can live with them in practice, for the same reason I can live with affirmative action laws. Sure, it's imperfect, but it's a recognition that the playing field isn't level for everyone.

I'd just like to see a better way of addressing the underlying problem, rather that slapping a band-aid on the symptom.

I agree with your philosophical objections (and the reasons are the same ones as to why I don't like affirmative action), but I frankly don't see any practical substitute for at least another 20 or 30 years. I think once we move on as a society and it's clear that the injustices in the system have been addressed, we can let hate crime laws lapse.
Last time I checked, there are no hate crime statutes requiring "a period of systematic targeting and violence aside from one instance," nor "a durable conflict in society involving [the victim] and their civil rights." Do you know of any hate crime statutes requiring "a period of systematic targeting and violence aside from one instance," or "a durable conflict in society involving [the victim] and their civil rights"?



That is the rationale most used to justify a specific category for hate crime protection.

For example, race has historically been a very divisive issue that has caused numerous rifts in society. That's why hate crime laws apply to race.

[iShater]

I think they should just add premeditated to the motive when it is driven by a "hate" reason. That would automatically make it a harsher crime/punishment.

[kavika411]

That is the rationale most used to justify a specific category for hate crime protection.

For example, race has historically been a very divisive issue that has caused numerous rifts in society. That's why hate crime laws apply to race.

If I understand you correctly, you are in favor of the rationale behind hate crime statutes but are against the actual statutes themselves as they are worded/enacted. Am I correct? If so, how would you word hate crime statutes differently than they are now?

I am not being rhetorical. I am asking because I am interested.

[Digital Skunk]

Just got here, so I apologize for not adding too much to the topic.

Where does the list of variables end?
-Sexual orientation
-Religion
-Age
-Socio-economic status
-Gender
-Weight
-Color of hair

The list could go on forever. Why not just make all murders/assaults/crimes equal. They are all very bad.

The big problem with this list (as has been mentioned) is that many of these are aspects you can change or keep to yourself.

If someone hates you because of your hair color or weight, loose it. As a fat person, it's hard fitting into certain amusement park rides, and having to get out of one because the bars don't close, doesn't mean I can sue the amusement park (although I wouldn't hold my breath since this is America).

Gender, Race, and economic status are the ones that will be at the forefront, with sexual orientation, religion, and nationality coming in second. All others are splitting hairs.

I'd be for them but they seem to exclude a couple of groups that I belong to. It's okay to call Welsh people "sheep shaggers" and I've seen bias on these very boards against Polish people yet it's all good and okay both online and in society, with a slight slap on the wrist if you're Anne Robinson.
But if I go out onto the street and call someone a derogatary name about their race, religion or sexual preference I can be in a whole load of trouble.

So I support abolishing them. I've managed to cope with "hate crimes" not being on my side for 22 years.

The problem with this analogy, like many made by European descendants, is that 1) no one can tell, and 2) no matter how you slice it your still white and pretty much safe.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports the fact that African American's and even more so African's are subject to more hate crimes than most other nationalities. This is something that can't be hidden, undisclosed, or cut off. It sucks that people would piss off a Polish guy, or knock off the Yamulke of Jewish guy, but to see images of southern whites gathered around the body of an innocent man hanging from a tree and women and children having a jolly ole time around it is just NOT the same thing.

That's why hate crime laws exist. Those acts just aren't blind rages, or muggings or wrong place at wrong time incidents... they are heinous and down right disgusting.

All murder is not the same. Killing is not killing. Murder out of fear, and dragging someone down the road tied to your pickup truck til his head falls off, are not the same thing.

Neither is killing someone because they are different.

Being upset that Polish people or

[CalBoy]

If I understand you correctly, you are in favor of the rationale behind hate crime statutes but are against the actual statutes themselves as they are worded/enacted. Am I correct? If so, how would you word hate crime statutes differently than they are now?

I am not being rhetorical. I am asking because I am interested.

I'm actually against the rationale behind hate crime statutes for the very reason I'm against the rationale behind affirmative action: it implies special treatment.

However, unlike affirmative action (which I think we can replace with more targeted poverty and education programs), I don't see a substitute for hate crime laws in the short to middle term.

Hate crime laws are the easiest way for apathetic local juries/DAs to be side-stepped. Until we can feel assured that local DAs will do their jobs (and juries theirs), we have to retain hate crime legislation in order to allow the Federal government to prosecute where local governments don't.

Other solutions involve violating the separation of powers, or possible Federalism as a whole. I think that hate crime legislation is much more tolerable over those alternatives.

The reason I think we can outgrow them within the next 20 to 30 years is because within that time span, whites will cease to be the majority within the US. With a plurality society, it becomes nearly impossible for DAs and juries to allow blatant violations to go unpunished. While I'm not saying that in 30 years all corrupt DAs and juries will disappear, I do think that minorities will have a much more consistent access to justice than they have in the past and that they do today.

[ucfgrad93]

How do you remove a DA if the public likes the fact that s/he won't prosecute crimes against blacks/jews/hispanics/gays/whoever?

The DA's power is derived directly from the people; it would violate the separation of powers if we allowed the Federal government to remove that officer.

Aren't most DAs elected officials? While it may take some time, you can vote them out of office.

[CalBoy]

Aren't most DAs elected officials? While it may take some time, you can vote them out of office.

Exactly, they are elected: locally.

If that county is full of bigots, who's going to prosecute crimes committed against minorities? The bigoted majority will keep that DA in power since he's serving their political interests.

[Delta608]

Hate crimes are the equivalent of thought crimes..Pretty scary..:o

[CalBoy]

Hate crimes are the equivalent of thought crimes..Pretty scary..:o

You're right...it's pretty scary that people are still targeted because they're <insert race here> or <insert sexuality here> or <insert gender here>.

[Delta608]

You're right...it's pretty scary that people are still targeted because they're <insert race here> or <insert sexuality here> or <insert gender here>.

or how about the guy who is targeted because he is wearing a gold chain, or the pizza delivery man that is robbed..Justice is suppose to be blind and equal for EVERYONE..Hey what if a guy attacks a gay because he thinks he is gay when he is actually not. Or what happens when a closet gay is attacked by someone, still a hate crime..?? or What happens when a gay guy attacks a gay guy, come on this can go on forever with thought crimes..
The law was designed for morons who burn crosses on lawns, paint swastikas on synagogues and should be applied to those who rape women..

[EricNau]

Justice is suppose to be blind and equal for EVERYONE..Hey what if a guy attacks a gay because he thinks he is gay when he is actually not. Or what happens when a closet gay is attacked by someone, still a hate crime..?? or What happens when a gay guy attacks a gay guy, come on this can go on forever with thought crimes.
Again, hate crimes deal with motive. Your examples are not necessarily hate crimes until the prosecution can prove that the offender was influenced by a bias against gays.

[leekohler]

or how about the guy who is targeted because he is wearing a gold chain, or the pizza delivery man that is robbed..Justice is suppose to be blind and equal for EVERYONE..Hey what if a guy attacks a gay because he thinks he is gay when he is actually not. Or what happens when a closet gay is attacked by someone, still a hate crime..?? or What happens when a gay guy attacks a gay guy, come on this can go on forever with thought crimes..
The law was designed for morons who burn crosses on lawns, paint swastikas on synagogues and should be applied to those who rape women..

Go back and read some of my earlier posts. We need these laws right now until we can get justice equally applied to all.

[CalBoy]

or how about the guy who is targeted because he is wearing a gold chain,

We already have a special category of crimes for that; they're called aggravated assault and robbery.

or the pizza delivery man that is robbed
Now was he robbed because the pizza was 2 hours late, or because someone just wanted some pizza?

..Justice is suppose to be blind and equal for EVERYONE
Yes it is, and minorities of the type we're talking about are and have been systematically prevented from having justice in many cases.

..Hey what if a guy attacks a gay because he thinks he is gay when he is actually not.
That would still be a hate crime because the motive was based on a hatred of gay people.

Or what happens when a closet gay is attacked by someone, still a hate crime..??

That is NOT a hate crime by any means, and if you don't know that then maybe your irritation towards hate crime legislation is misplaced.

or What happens when a gay guy attacks a gay guy,

If the attacker's motive was because the other is gay, then it is still a hate crime. If not, then it's not.

come on this can go on forever with thought crimes..

What I'd really like to know is what isn't a thought crime.

Rob a bank, you had to think about depriving the bank of its property.

Get into a bar fight, you had to think the other guy was a moron.

All violent crimes by their nature require thought and hatred. The difference is when your hatred is based on an individual and when it is based on a specific class of people, whether they be black, white, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, gay, straight, etc.

The law was designed for morons who burn crosses on lawns, paint swastikas on synagogues and should be applied to those who rape women..

This is a very arbitrary way to define hate crime laws (which I thought you are ardently against?).

If I burn a cross onto a shrubbery, am I free?

What about if I rape a man?

Can I paint a swastika onto a church or Mosque and be cleared?

[Delta608]

We already have a special category of crimes for that; they're called aggravated assault and robbery.

Now was he robbed because the pizza was 2 hours late, or because someone just wanted some pizza?

Yes it is, and minorities of the type we're talking about are and have been systematically prevented from having justice in many cases.

That would still be a hate crime because the motive was based on a hatred of gay people.


That is NOT a hate crime by any means, and if you don't know that then maybe your irritation towards hate crime legislation is misplaced.


If the attacker's motive was because the other is gay, then it is still a hate crime. If not, then it's not.


What I'd really like to know is what isn't a thought crime.

Rob a bank, you had to think about depriving the bank of its property.

Get into a bar fight, you had to think the other guy was a moron.

All violent crimes by their nature require thought and hatred. The difference is when your hatred is based on an individual and when it is based on a specific class of people, whether they be black, white, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, gay, straight, etc.


This is a very arbitrary way to define hate crime laws (which I thought you are ardently against?).

If I burn a cross onto a shrubbery, am I free?

What about if I rape a man?

Can I paint a swastika onto a church or Mosque and be cleared?


Thank-You ...You illustrated my point better than I could have....

[leekohler]

Thank-You ...You illustrated my point better than I could have....

I'm not seeing it. How?

[CalBoy]

Thank-You ...You illustrated my point better than I could have....

And your point is...?

[.Andy]

And your point is...?
What you illustrated better*.




(*I've no idea either)

[CalBoy]

What you illustrated better*.

So all my fancy book learnin' is paying off then? :p

[skunk]

What I'd really like to know is what isn't a thought crime.A thought crime in general parlance is committed without any physical action. The thought is enough to make you a criminal. "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" is an example of the prosecution of thought crime. A bank robbery is not.

[CalBoy]

A thought crime in general parlance is committed without any physical action. The thought is enough to make you a criminal. "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" is an example of the prosecution of thought crime. A bank robbery is not.

In other words, a thought crime involves the freedom of expression/association, not actual physical contact.

If that's the case, then Delta608's consternation over American hate crime laws is even more misplaced than I imagined.

[EV0LUTION]

Affirmative action needs to go too.

[CalBoy]

Affirmative action needs to go too.

Then start a thread about that.

For now, this thread is about hate crimes.

[skunk]

Then start a thread about that.

For now, this thread is about hate crimes.I expect affirmative action is a hate crime against the status quo.

[.Andy]

I expect affirmative action is a hate crime against the status quo.
Incidentally I think you look a bit like Francis Rossi Skunk :).

[skunk]

Incidentally I think you look a bit like Francis Rossi Skunk :).Oh, very bloody funny.

:p

[63dot]

What I'd really like to know is what isn't a thought crime.



Every crime is a thought crime. It's one of the only absolutes you will find in law school when you get there. ;)

In the United States, anyone being found guilty of a crime has to be:

1) found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a system containing due process of law (case: in re:Winship, NY)

2) found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all five elements of a crime, having the first one being "mens rea" which goes into the intent, or thought, of the defendant that is further divided into general intent or specific intent crimes.

Without the first element of thought/intent, or "mens rea", there can be no way a person can be found guilty of a complete crime in an American court of law. The act of the crime, called "actus reus", alone does not stand strong enough for a guilty verdict. Furthermore, a concurrence has to be present, causation, and a harm. But there is no going into prosecuting a crime unless the first element, the thought, is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is the key component of due process of law, and due process of law is one of the key elements of the Constitution. So there is no way to find a person guilty of a crime without finding that person guilty of a thought crime first, otherwise, the Constitution is a no go.

Anybody, show me the first person that can show the courts a non-thought crime, and that person should have every right to burn the Constitution and rewrite it. It is as possible to show a crime without thought as it is to show a whole number between 4 and 5. :)

[63dot]

Every crime is a thought crime. It's one of the only absolutes you will find in law school.

In the United States, anyone being found guilty of a crime has to be:

1) found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a system containing due process of law (case: in re:Winship, NY)

2) found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all five elements of a crime, having the first one being "mens rea" which goes into the intent, or thought, of the defendant that is further divided into general intent or specific intent crimes.


But before somebody sees a negligence scenario, I will explain this. There is also "tort law" which covers intentional torts, unintentional torts, and strict liability.

If I leave my skateboard in my driveway (and I have many since I have a skateboard business) and the wind blows it out to the sidewalk and a gay man, or woman slips on it and falls and gets injured, that would not be a crime, because there is not an intentional act.

So in that scenario, the injured gay person could not levy a charge of a "hate crime" against me because there was no thought, even though they got injured.

Due to the fact that there was no thought on my part, but negligence, I will likely be found liable for a "TORT", and not lialbe for a "CRIME" which would have to include thought. I don't go to jail, but I would likely have to pay a fine/charges/award and that person may even "own" my business this time next year if such an occurrence happened and the injury was gross enough.

In any crime, I would be liable for jail time, a fine, or both. But in torts, no jail time. This is one key distinction which made the U.S. Constitution so innovative for its time.

[63dot]

...the person/defendant is specifically insane (as it the most well known of defenses).

If a person is truly, criminally insane, they cannot form thought or intent, and may think they are attacking the creature of the black lagoon and not attacking a gay person, white person, black person, or any person of any group.

Let's say the insane person attacks all white men over the age of 60 and in his eyes sees all such men as the creature from the black lagoon. As crazy as this sounds, the defendant will never be found guilty because there was no thought involved due to the defense of insanity. There is no "hate crime" or "crime" here since there is no intent/thought.

In order to form intent or thought, you have to first be sane, which most of us are.

[skunk]

Every crime is a thought crime. It's one of the only absolutes you will find in law school when you get there. ;)This is nonsense. The presence of intent does not make it a thought crime.

[63dot]

This is nonsense. The presence of intent does not make it a thought crime.

It's the law as all crimes finding a guilty verdict have to have intent. I will qualify that I live in America, and I cannot speak of the many posters here who live in common law, or civil law countries.

When did you go to law school? Actually if not law school, if you are in high school or college, they had to have taught that to you in Civics or Poly Sci. I would even think a Civics course may be taught on the junior high school level.

Show me where there is a crime without thought or intent. Show me how you can find a person guilty without the first element of all crime, "mens rea", or commonly referred to as thought or intent.

Intent or thought alone is not a crime, and if that's what you are trying to argue then I agree with you, but thought/intent is just the necessary first element for a guilty verdict. As stated above, you would also need, the criminal act, the concurrence of such and act with intent, causation, and harm. You have all those five, you may have a guilty verdict. If you have four of those five, no possible guilty verdict.

[skunk]

Intent or thought alone is not a crimeThe entire and only meaning of the phrase "thought-crime" is to describe a situation where the crime consists of the thought only. You are not adding anything by introducing specious definitions.

[63dot]

The entire and only meaning of the phrase "thought-crime" is to describe a situation where the crime consists of the thought only. You are not adding anything by introducing specious definitions.

Thought only, then? Then I agree with you. Sorry about the definitions. And those are simplified from Black's Law Dictionary. ;)

I know by now I am not on the topic at hand on this thread which is more "Do you emotionally agree with hate crime laws as you see it" vs. "The actual codes and statutes of hate crime, properly known as "bias crime" which protect "any" group from a bias crime, not just gay people or minorities.

I just thought it might be OK to put in a word for word legal definition in from the Model Penal Code, or the Restatements of the Law since that, not personal beliefs, are what rules in the courtroom.

Is there a lot I don't like about the law? Absolutely. But any practicing trial lawyer is not there to make law, that's for Congress.

[63dot]

The entire and only meaning of the phrase "thought-crime" is to describe a situation where the crime consists of the thought only. You are not adding anything by introducing specious definitions.

Also, if you are in America, what source of law are you citing?

Restatement first, second, or third? Model Penal Code? Statutory Code? ...or your personal belief systems? There can be a huge difference.

Sorry for specious definitions, I will try again in English.

A crime has 5 elements.

They are thought/act/done together/with a cause/and effect(harm).

Hate crime is a crime.

Therefore hate crime has those five elements.

That's it in a nutshell, and I hope this helps.

No latin terms here. :)

[skunk]

Also, if you are in America, what source of law are you citing?

Restatement first, second, or third? Model Penal Code? Statutory Code? ...or your personal belief systems? There can be a huge difference.I am not in America, nor am I using any legal definition, since there is actually no such thing as "thoughtcrime" in law: it is a concept from Orwell's 1984.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime

Using the term to describe something else merely muddies the water.

[63dot]

I am not in America, nor am I using any legal definition, since there is actually no such thing as "thoughtcrime" in law: it is a concept from Orwell's 1984.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime

Using the term to describe something else merely muddies the water.

That's a very interesting link.

All I can say is that I am glad that the Democrats won this election. It was starting to look like freedom of speech was taking a hit under Bush and company.

If ever a person can be found guilty for merely a thought in this country, I am getting the heck out. Without getting into too much detail, there were things about W's presidency that made me think about leaving the US. The Patriot Act certainly was starting the process of punishing people for their thoughts and beliefs and liberals like me and many others stood against the administration. Even quite a few moderate Republicans were not all that happy with W. Fighting terrorism is one thing, but targeting certain ethnic groups and liberal points of view, as W did, is totally unconstitutional. There are cases within Boumediene v. Bush where people were detained for their beliefs, with no due process, with no crimes committed. Detainees were coerced and tortured into giving the US government intents for crimes they didn't commit, and anybody will eventually give into any confession if tortured enough.

It will be interesting to see how this, and other cases like it, will turn up.