Hate crime laws do what?

[Futuramatic]

Nah, it didn't go south. IT jsut went out behind the woodshed for a few rounds.

In all of your murder examples, there is premeditation. "Die beloved patriot," believe it or not, can be used to show premeditation. OJ... well, that is obvious. The straight guy running into a gay bar obviously shows premeditation... what other reason did he have for going in there?

My gut reaction is that people are so offended by these types of crimes that they want an official designation. They want to label this crime to make it obvious that it was an exceptionally horrid thing. I do not blame them for this.

In the most violent crimes, the maximum penalty will most often be levied. In the lesser crimes (battery), it (additional jail time) may prove as a deterent, but not likely.

 

[ForeverSilky]

ALL crimes committed are hate crimes, period.

 

[Shuxclams]

<< In all of your murder examples, there is premeditation. >>



Exactly what I am trying to point out. That having a prejaduce that would cause someone to attack a person(s) based on thier religion, race sexuality etc.. is almost like premeditation, why not add that to the list of special circumstances?

Triple brings up the other points about &quot;hate crimes&quot;. Those types of acts are included in the whole idea as well. The first response is almost always about race then gays and maybe religion, the laws would encompass all hate crimes. or crimes motivated by dislike if some people would rather have a P.C. version. I never called one person a racist yet 3 folks ass-u-me'd I called them racists wierd ain't it?


SHUX

 

[Futuramatic]

Shux

What I was trying to say was, independent of any hate crime motivations, each of the examples was premeditated. Current law takes care of that.

What you want is another category that makes murders that are NOT premeditated (drunk yahoos go kill a gay guy because he is gay) the same status. That is an interesting concept. This changes everything. It now brings into the equation for murder another element that was usually only examined in sentencing: motive. I think you could be on to something here. From a law standpoint, it could very well rewrite the current laws (as always correct me if I mispeak).

 

[Shuxclams]

How about this, If my Jewish neighbors house was vandalized with grafitti that would be vandalism, if my Jewish neighbors house was vandalized with swaztikas that means that somebody noticed that they were jewish and went out of their way to vandalize their house because they were Jewish. The first example could have been absoloutly random, the second would be very unlikely random. Should that be vandalism with special circumstances? I think so, that was an attack on someone because of hate.


SHUX

 

[Shuxclams]

<< What you want is another category that makes murders that are NOT premeditated (drunk yahoos go kill a gay guy because he is gay) the same status >>



No and Yes, I am suggesting that to kill, attack, vandalize etc.. because of a predisposition to disregard another persons life or propety based on something like race, sexuality or religion should be included as a special circumstance. In essence it is already premeditated in the simple fact that commiting a crime against another person based on a belief, real or percieved, that makes that person &quot;less valuable&quot; or somehow &quot;less human&quot; and therefore subject to such treatment is indeed premeditated.


SHUX

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Why not just make it illegal to think negative thoughts?

Last time I checked, this was a free country, where people are free to believe whatever they want, and that includes racist beliefs.

As has been said many times already, any crime is a hate crime.

 

[DirkBelig]

Shux: What the hell did I say to warrant your attack?!? Nothing, other than plainly pointing out the racism of your thinking.

&quot;Special circumstances&quot; is just an euphamism for &quot;more valuable people&quot;. Prosecutors have to prove &quot;intent&quot; in any criminal action. BUT, in hate crimes, they also have to guess what was going on inside the defendant's mind at the time also. It's THOUGHT crime, pure and simple.

Say I beat the sh*t out of you in a bar because you're annoying my with your very nefness. I get charged for that assault. Now, the DA charges me with hate crime because you're gay. I didn't know that you're gay. I didn't see your &quot;Honk if you want to rear-end me!&quot; bumper sticker. You just earned a whoopin' due to your charming personality. So, according to your &quot;special circumstances&quot; bullchit, I'm facing extensive extra time because the DA GUESSES that I clobbered you for being a butt-pirate. How is that fair?

If I beat you up, I should be charged the same if you gay or straight: For littering.

When the black mobs dragged Reginald Denny out of his truck and smashed his skull in with bricks during the LA riots, would that be a hate crime? Of course not, because blacks are a protected group and whites are the oppressor. Seriously though, NO ONE should get clonked with a brick and making certain people's heads more &quot;protected&quot; than other's only invites more resentment.

To many liberals like you attempt to buy the love of minorities by telling them that they'll punish Whitey for them. They WON'T lift them out of poverty. They'll keep 'em dependent on them for their crumbs and make them vote over and over for the same thing: Nuthin'. Nice deal.

An example of this is the outcry over the disparity between crack and powder cocaine. Since blacks were the major dealers and users of crack, they felt that it wasn't fair that the penalties were harsher than for the White Man's powdered coke. They demanded that crack sentences bt shortened. I say, INCREASE the power coke sentences to match the crack ones. (Actually, I'd decriminalize drugs and stop the charade.)

Whenever you hear about some law that supposed to protect a certain class, try flipping it around and substituting &quot;white/male/Christian/straight/whatever&quot; instead of the &quot;protected&quot; group. If it sounds stupid then, it's for a simple reason...

It's wrong.

We'll never get along as people as long as certain groups get special breaks.

 

[Shuxclams]

EngineNr9,


<< Why not just make it illegal to think negative thoughts? >>


It already is. If you commit a crime, and you planned it, you were thinking &quot;negative thoughts&quot; therefore pre-meditated which carries a extra penalty. Can you be put in jail for thinking about doing the crime if you didnt commit the crime? no and I and every single american should fight to the death against something so big brotherish. BTW; only newbies and the un-initiated call me a &quot;Liberal&quot;, there used to be a picture of me at the anandtech members gallery carrying a .30 carbine with 2 35 round clips attached combat style.....and I have never been in the military.


SHUX

 

[Shuxclams]

Dirk,
I was trying answer your question, but I cant seem to put it words you might understand.



SHUX

 

[Format C:]

I think EngineNr9 comes the closest to having it right. If I commit a crime upon any person/s the fact that I hate their color/behaviour/beliefs does not cause them to be any more or any less wronged/injured/dead, nor does it make me any more or less guilty.

The only purpose a hate crimes law serves is an attempt to criminalize hatred. Ugly though it may be, hatred by definition is an emotion/belief/thought. Can any one of you seriously contemplate supporting any form of laws/regulations which would make some thoughts/beliefs/emotions legal and permissable and others punishable by imprisonment or death? Can you not see the very short step that would be off a very tall cliff? I for one am more than willing to steer well clear of the edge, thank you very much.

 

[Double Trouble]

Format, you hit the nail on the head. The whole idea behind the 'hate crime' laws is that we wanted to 'do something' to curb violence against certain groups of people. In doing so, we've taken the step of saying &quot;what you did was bad, but if you were thinking politically incorrect thoughts while doing it, that's far far worse&quot;.

Scary, very scary that the politicians are dragging the lemmings along thinking these kinds of laws are good. They are a very dangerous step in the direction of the 'thought police'.

 

[Shuxclams]

I really don't understand this whole &quot;thought police&quot; crap, If I am hateful of Format's or Tagej's and I go out of my way to do harm to them isnt that pre-meditaded? Shouldn't that be enough for an extra amount of punishment? I could really give a rats a$$ about what anyone thinks as long as it wasnt a contributing factor in a crime against another person. I wonder why so many people are afriad of standing up for Jews, Blacks, Women, Hispanics, Gays and even the silly and completly paraniod &quot;angry white male&quot;. Please enlighten me as to how this will become a step towards a &quot;1984&quot;?



SHUX

 

[MrChicken]

<I really don't understand this whole &quot;thought police&quot; crap, If I am hateful of Format's or Tagej's and I go out of my way to do harm to them isnt that pre-meditaded? Shouldn't that be enough for an extra amount of punishment? I could really give a rats a$$ about what anyone thinks as long as it wasnt a contributing factor in a crime against another person. I wonder why so many people are afriad of standing up for Jews, Blacks, Women, Hispanics, Gays and even the silly and completly paraniod &quot;angry white male&quot;. Please enlighten me as to how this will become a step towards a &quot;1984&quot;?>

Warning absurdity follows...

What if you by accident run over a man named Harry Clam? The DA then prosecutes you on a hate crime. Surely your intent was to hurt based on hate. After all you are &quot;Shuxclams&quot;. That proves that you have a ingrained hatred of all Clams, as proven by your propensity to disembowel the defensless shellfish. Worse yet you probably even eat them alive, or are so barbaric as to boil and then eat them. Clearly you have let your prejudice to all things &quot;clam&quot; tranfer itself to poor defensless Harry Clam, and manifested that hate into a willful act of murder borne out of your inate hatred for Clams, et al.

Ok, back to reality, I think the Hate Grafitti is the best example in this argument. I dont know if I can put this into words eloquently enough to get my thoughts across, but I'm going to try anyway.
If hate crime legislation is meant to address the use of a crime to influence an indvidual or group (race, gender, sev-pref) in a negative way, then I do see room for Hate Crime laws. As in the grafitti, grafitti is just grafitti when it says &quot;I luv Janet&quot;, but when it says &quot;Die (targetted group) Die&quot; then that should should carry extra punishment under the law in addition to just vandalism. The same up the ladder, but when you get to serious crimes, such as rape, kidnapping, murder, etc, the punishment should be unilaterally severe regardless of hate crime or not. I'm trying to say that in those crimes the punishment should be severe enough to deter anybody that could be deterred from committing those crimes. I dont like the thought of one person getting getting an extra 5 years for say a &quot;hate rape&quot; than just a &quot;rape&quot; because no victim will ever feel like &quot;just a rape&quot;. IMHO, if the punishment can be upped 5years for the &quot;hate&quot; then so can the &quot;non-hate&quot; crime.

 

[JellyBaby]

Nobody's discussing how we go about reducing hate in the first place. As usual, education and parenting are the big factors. I would rather the politicians drop every &quot;feel good&quot; law they're proposing, get together, and correct (or stop meddling with) our educational system once and for all.

Hate crime laws simply treat the symptoms of societal ills. They appease certain groups while angering/alienating other groups. And is has been pointed out already, they attempt to give lawyers extra ammo simply because an offender thought or felt a certain way (this is anti-freedom, folks). A crime is a crime is a crime; everybody should be treated with equity under the eyes of the law.

 

[Shuxclams]

mrchicken,
Why would you support the vandalism law but not want to extend that to rape, murder etc... That doesnt make sense to me.

Jelly,
What I am trying to point out is that a &quot;special circumstance&quot; inclusion for &quot;hate crimes&quot; would be just as hard to prosicute as the special circumstance penalty as it stands now. Imagine how hard it would be to prove that it was commited becuase of a prejaduce. This isn't about giving anybody special privalages, its about giving due punishment to those that commit such a crime.

I support everyones right to their thoughts as long as they remain a thought and not a justification to commit a crime against someone. I still don't understand why people think this would &quot;give other groups special privilages&quot;, how do people come to that conclusion?




SHUX

 

[MrChicken]

<mrchicken,
Why would you support the vandalism law but not want to extend that to rape, murder etc... That doesnt make sense to me. >

This is where I said I wasnt sure I'd get the thought across, and I didnt. Minor laws such as vandalism cover acts that can be used as a hate issue that threaten the person(s) well being. My example was grafitti as &quot;I luv Janet&quot; or &quot;Die (racial slur)DIE&quot;. Both are considered vandalism, but the second is clearly with a different intent, to scare, coerce, threaten a person or group of persons. Picture if this was your home, first case your response is &quot;who is Janet?&quot;, second case &quot;who wants to kill me?&quot;. See the difference?

On the more serious crimes, rape, kidnapping, murder, etc, I think those crimes should bear the most punishment without needing to have extra sentences imposed by &quot;hate&quot; crimes. The punishment should always be severe for those crimes, I think if we could stand add more punishment for &quot;hate&quot;, then we should add it now, without waiting for a hate crimes bill to add to it.

Lets say:
rape= 10 years
rape+hate= 15 years
My Idea is that rape should= 15 years all the time.

 

[jaydee]

If a white kills a black, it's a hate crime. If a white kills a white, is it a &quot;love crime&quot;? I don't understand? How is this not racism and special treatment? Anyone?

 

[Shuxclams]

<< If a white kills a black, it's a hate crime. If a white kills a white, is it a &quot;love crime&quot;? I don't understand? How is this not racism and special
treatment? Anyone? >>



If the White guy who kills a White guy and its premeditated then the killer would face a stiffer penalty because of special circumstances, ie; Muder in the first degree with special circumstances. My assurtion is that if the crime was commited because of race, religion etc.. then that should also constitute special circumstances since the offender already had/has a predisposition towards the victim. So take the case of the wacko in philly who was released from a psyc ward and then went on a killing spree of white people, He should be charged with First degree murder + special circumstances (hate crime). If a white guy robs a jewish guy that would be random and impossible to prosicute, if a Klan member on his way to the local cross burning accidentaly runs over a black guy in a crosswalk it would be sticky but would hope that in that instance the hate crime would not be charged, although I think that bubba would get a kick out of that. We could debate this forever but I still havent heard someone point out a good example of how &quot;freedom&quot; would be infringed upon.


SHUX

 

[JellyBaby]

Gosh what more needs to be said? Hate crime legislation benefits the federal government and politicians who support it. It could very well be the first step into large breeches of freedom. What's next? Political Crime laws? I believe one state already has laws on the book that increase penalties if the crimes are based on political affiliation...I think it's Washington D.C. in fact. Scary!

The &quot;Hate Crimes Prevention Act&quot; is designed partly as a deterent to thought. Gore said, &quot;We must send a clear and strong message to all who would commit crimes of hate: it is wrong, it is illegal, and we will catch you and punish you to the full force of our laws.&quot; Um, if current unillateral laws aren't tough enough, fix 'em. If judges aren't giving out the proper sentences, appoint judges who will. If prisons are too full of weed users, free them to make room for real criminals.

It's another case of the federal government scaring citizens, pandering to select groups, pretending to be doing good for us when it benefits only them and otherwise poking its nose where it doesn't belong.

I can't wait to see a new major field of study appear at Harvard (if it already isn't there): Hate Crime Attorney.

 

[Tripleshot]

JellyBaby
>>> Hate Crime Attorney<<<????

It's probably already covered in law. Giving the state more power to prosecute hate mongers is all right with me. You can think what ever you want,any way you want.When you act on those thoughts and it is an obvious and provable &quot;hate&quot; motivated(as apposed to randum or &quot;normal&quot crime, I have no problem with attaching stiffer criminal and civil penalties as a deterent. That is not Orwellian, Bigbrother, mind cop, bullsh!t,so all the paranoids can go back in there cave and take inventory of your food,water and ammunition supplies.

Focus on the deterent aspect. Thats what it is hoped to do. Failing that,make hate motivated crime a minumum life without parole,and then maybe it won't seem like such a good idea to commit those aggregous crimes against your neighbor.