• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hate Crime Laws

40Hands

40Hands

Diamond Member
I would consider myself democrat/libertarian but I find these laws to be a bit vague and can't say I am really for them.

Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said during the debate. "To them, I answer, because brutal hate crimes motivated by race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation and identity or disability not only injure individual victims, but also terrorize entire segments of our population and tear at our nation's social fabric."

Am I the only one who thinks that these laws will be ripe for abuse? Also makes me think of this excellent South Park quote:

"If you're going to hurt another human being, you better make damn sure he's the same color as you."
 
to quote rehnquist, c/o wiki, "this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."
 
Laws like that are ok if there are a rash of that type of Crime being carried out, but they usually end up being used in cases that were never even close to the original intent. Those are the types of Laws that really should have a Time Limit on them. Even laws specifically written to address Terrorism have been used more for non-Terrorist related crimes than what they were intended for. For eg.
 
These laws should be used sparingly, and only in cases where it is clear that the crime is motivated primarily by race/gender/religion/etc. or the crime fits with increasing societal tensions between different factions of people.
 
I have never been in favor of them. In my mind, a crime is a crime, the value unchanged by what an individual believes. While I can see a difference between a crime committed in hot or cold blood, hate crimes by definition are cold blooded.

The idea that a "hate crime" is likely to provoke retaliatory crimes assumes that the minority affected is barely able to remain within the bounds of our culture and laws and will become lawless at the least provocation (meaning an offense against a single member of the group). You would think minority groups would be offended by such an assumption.

"societal harm" only follows if segments of the society would assume that an isolated nut-job is representative of the society as a whole. If this is true, then additional penalties for a hate crime do nothing but mask far greater problems.

IMHO, hate crime laws are nothing but a cost free attempt to say to minorities that the politicians care about minorities. Proof to the easily impressed that they are doing something. The zero cost makes it a politician's wet dream.
 
They are needless. A crime is a crime is a crime and should be punished.

The very idea that because a crime was committed by a member of a certain race or group against a member of another race or group it should carry more harsh punishment is itself racist.
 
Also a social liberal, and I find hate crime laws redundant, unnecessary, and feel they create the impression that killing someone because you are robbing them is not as bad as killing someone because you don't like their race. I don't think the dead person cares.
 
We have them because burning a cross on someones lawn is more then illegal disposal of refuse and deserves more then just a $100 fine.
 
Hasn't this been beaten to death on here? The classic examples are the reigns of terror visited upon blacks by the KKK, things like that. In these cases entire segments of society are ostracized and terrorized, which leads to (as above mentioned) societal fragmentation, bunker mentality, and reprisals. Because these types of crimes cause a greater amount of damage to society then a random crime of the same type, they are punished more severely. (as mentioned in the quote by Rhenquist in the quote above... an extremely conservative supreme court justice)

That's the rationale. Now there's going to be a big gay dance involving all sorts of arguments that have been mentioned time and time and time again. It will also involve an opportunity for the right wingers on here to make a Principled Stand for the equal application of laws to everyone.

That's great and all, but the laws aren't going anywhere... and that's the reason behind them. I'm not going to bother to argue it,as I've done it at great length before and it's not like I'm going to change anyone's mind, but I guess I'll stand back and watch the flailing.
 
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Also a social liberal, and I find hate crime laws redundant, unnecessary, and feel they create the impression that killing someone because you are robbing them is not as bad as killing someone because you don't like their race. I don't think the dead person cares.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
It reminds me of the stricter cop-killer laws that are sometimes proposed.

What, is a cop's life more important than mine?

Justice is supposed to be blind. she does not check the color of your skin or who you are.

 
Hate crimes are oftentimes systematic and organized. Rarely do you see groups of burglars grouping together to discuss the best techniques of robbing; however, you DO see neo-nazis, the KKK and other hate-motivated groups gathering together to discuss techniques. While there are exceptions, the standard cases of murder are one-offs, often fueled by 'necessity' or passion. I don't think many men kill their cheating spouse on a regular basis.

As was mentioned before, burning a cross on someone's yard is more than illegal disposal of waste. It sends a message to the entire community and creates a severe atmosphere of fear for the target community. Hate Crimes Legislation counteracts this by sending a strong message to the perpetrating community that their behavior will not only not be tolerated, but will be punished harder to dissuade others from perpetrated further crimes.
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
we need a poll to determine how many of the people saying they're bad are heterosexual white males 😉
Click to expand...

I sense some hate in that statement.

We may need more stringent punishment to match your hatred towards heterosexual white males
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
we need a poll to determine how many of the people saying they're bad are heterosexual white males 😉
Click to expand...

Try heterosexual white Jewish male, and I don't think a neo-nazi should serve more time in prison for killing my family than another jew who offs them because I had a sandwich on passover, or the dude down the street pissed off that I'm banging his wife.
 
These type laws strike me laws against a certain type of *thought*. As repugnant as the thought may be, I cannot support any law against *thought*.

Fern
 
I've always thought of hate crime laws as a way to counter biased juries/judges who give to lenient sentences for crimes against minorities. That said, I still think they're a bad idea.

And I'm totally brown, in case anyone was wondering.
 
eskimospy

Those "reigns of terror" are pretty much a thing of the past. They did exist, and they were pretty bad. But they only existed because the people in some areas allowed them to exist. As much as people harp on the negatives of TV, it performed a huge public service in the '50s by showing how even governments and police departments treated blacks in some parts of the South. TV news caused a fundamental shift in our culture by really making people aware of what was happening in other parts of the country. It made ordinary people think about the country as a whole. Many concluded that if they wouldn't tolerate such things in their community, it shouldn't tolerate them anywhere. There are a number of other laws now (both criminal and civil) that prevent such things from happening again without special hate crimes.

I have despised a number of people in my time, but I don't think I hate anybody (hate seems to be such an active word). But as an American, I reserve the right to hate anybody I might choose.

And a side note to teclis1023.

Burglars do form educational educational groups and compare better ways to be burglars, compare notes of mistakes leading to capture, etc.. They do it in prison all of the time. Getting caught is like failing a test on the job, so they get to go for remedial training.
 
Originally posted by: Fern
These type laws strike me laws against a certain type of *thought*. As repugnant as the thought may be, I cannot support any law against *thought*.

Fern
Click to expand...

So you aren't in favor of laws that distinguish between a crime of passion at the spur of the moment and a coldly calculated, premeditated murder? The idea that we don't punish what's in your mind at the time of a crime is silly, we do it all the time...it's called MOTIVE. Drawing a line between the specific actions and what motivates those actions doesn't make a lot of sense if you really think about it, because actions are NOT the same if taken for different reasons. Those reasons are just part of the data that describes the crime, but they do describe the crime, and it would be foolish to discard those reasons because discussions of race make us uncomfortable.

The reason our laws take motive into account is because the legal system is supposed to determine punishment based on the harm that your crime does. The fact that a crime may have similar ACTIONS does not mean the impact on the individual and society as a whole is the same. Killing someone for their wallet, while terrible, does not have the same negative impact on society that killing someone because of their race...there have never been wars or mass killings because of the actions of a mugger.

And despite what you might think, hate crime laws are not laws against thought. You can think whatever you like, if you hate gay people, black people, Arabs, Muslims, Jews, whatever, there is no law against that. There is no law against getting together with some of your fellow idiots and talking about all these people you hate, hell, you can even march down to city hall and proclaim your stupidity through a bullhorn if you like. What you can't do is go murder those people you don't like...who has a problem with THAT being against the law?
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Fern
These type laws strike me laws against a certain type of *thought*. As repugnant as the thought may be, I cannot support any law against *thought*.

Fern
Click to expand...

So you aren't in favor of laws that distinguish between a crime of passion at the spur of the moment and a coldly calculated, premeditated murder? The idea that we don't punish what's in your mind at the time of a crime is silly, we do it all the time...it's called MOTIVE. Drawing a line between the specific actions and what motivates those actions doesn't make a lot of sense if you really think about it, because actions are NOT the same if taken for different reasons. Those reasons are just part of the data that describes the crime, but they do describe the crime, and it would be foolish to discard those reasons because discussions of race make us uncomfortable.

The reason our laws take motive into account is because the legal system is supposed to determine punishment based on the harm that your crime does. The fact that a crime may have similar ACTIONS does not mean the impact on the individual and society as a whole is the same. Killing someone for their wallet, while terrible, does not have the same negative impact on society that killing someone because of their race...there have never been wars or mass killings because of the actions of a mugger.

And despite what you might think, hate crime laws are not laws against thought. You can think whatever you like, if you hate gay people, black people, Arabs, Muslims, Jews, whatever, there is no law against that. There is no law against getting together with some of your fellow idiots and talking about all these people you hate, hell, you can even march down to city hall and proclaim your stupidity through a bullhorn if you like. What you can't do is go murder those people you don't like...who has a problem with THAT being against the law?
Click to expand...

You set up a very nice argument and then dash it to pieces in the last line. Murder is already against the law. It's not like white people are murdering blacks by the thousands and hate crime legislation is the only thing that can help.

I have a few problems with hate crime legislation personally.

1. It is completely subjective standard. Motive can be difficult to prove. Did person A kill person B because of skin color, or because he wanted person B's money, or because he thought person B was sleeping with his wife, or etc.? Proponents of hate crime legislation act like every crime is as cut and dry as Ed Norton curb-stomping a black man in American History X. They aren't.

2. It's insulting to minority communities. I'm a member of the queer community. When Matthew Sheppard was brutally killed, I wanted vengeance levied against his attacker. But I didn't want to see them treated differently than if they had killed a straight man. Vengeance (which is really what this is all about) shouldn't be based on minority status. If you kill anybody in cold blood, regardless of whether you were motivated by race, or sexual orientation, or xenophobia, or greed, or jealousy, or whatever, you should be held just as accountable as anyone else.

3. It's a poor solution to a different problem. The problem here is not the crime, it is the morivation. So what are we trying to stop with hate crime legislation? Racism, homophobia, bigotry. These are not things you can legislate out of existence. The skinhead who kills a black man is not going to suddenly develop an acceptance of black people because his prison sentence is twice that of a "normal" murderer. The truth is, there is no surefire way to change the mind of someone; but punitive damages are just about the least effective path to take. You're more likely to build resentment than understanding in a system like this.

Obviously something should be done. We shouldn't be killing each other over issues of skin color or sexuality or religion or what have you. But doling out vengeance more heavily on those who may have bigotry as a motivation for crime does nothing but encourage further bigotry. It does not help alleviate the underlying problem, and as such, it is a pointless and futile exercise in "feel good" legislation that accomplishes nothing.
 
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Fern
These type laws strike me laws against a certain type of *thought*. As repugnant as the thought may be, I cannot support any law against *thought*.

Fern
Click to expand...

So you aren't in favor of laws that distinguish between a crime of passion at the spur of the moment and a coldly calculated, premeditated murder? The idea that we don't punish what's in your mind at the time of a crime is silly, we do it all the time...it's called MOTIVE. Drawing a line between the specific actions and what motivates those actions doesn't make a lot of sense if you really think about it, because actions are NOT the same if taken for different reasons. Those reasons are just part of the data that describes the crime, but they do describe the crime, and it would be foolish to discard those reasons because discussions of race make us uncomfortable.

The reason our laws take motive into account is because the legal system is supposed to determine punishment based on the harm that your crime does. The fact that a crime may have similar ACTIONS does not mean the impact on the individual and society as a whole is the same. Killing someone for their wallet, while terrible, does not have the same negative impact on society that killing someone because of their race...there have never been wars or mass killings because of the actions of a mugger.

And despite what you might think, hate crime laws are not laws against thought. You can think whatever you like, if you hate gay people, black people, Arabs, Muslims, Jews, whatever, there is no law against that. There is no law against getting together with some of your fellow idiots and talking about all these people you hate, hell, you can even march down to city hall and proclaim your stupidity through a bullhorn if you like. What you can't do is go murder those people you don't like...who has a problem with THAT being against the law?
Click to expand...

You set up a very nice argument and then dash it to pieces in the last line. Murder is already against the law. It's not like white people are murdering blacks by the thousands and hate crime legislation is the only thing that can help.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should have read my "very nice argument" a little more carefully. There are already numerous categories of crime that would fall under the broad heading of "murder", that doesn't mean they are exactly the same crime and are (or should be) punished exactly the same. Motive is a factor in a lot of crimes, I don't see why racially motivated crimes shouldn't be considered a unique and problematic motive.
I have a few problems with hate crime legislation personally.

1. It is completely subjective standard. Motive can be difficult to prove. Did person A kill person B because of skin color, or because he wanted person B's money, or because he thought person B was sleeping with his wife, or etc.? Proponents of hate crime legislation act like every crime is as cut and dry as Ed Norton curb-stomping a black man in American History X. They aren't.

2. It's insulting to minority communities. I'm a member of the queer community. When Matthew Sheppard was brutally killed, I wanted vengeance levied against his attacker. But I didn't want to see them treated differently than if they had killed a straight man. Vengeance (which is really what this is all about) shouldn't be based on minority status. If you kill anybody in cold blood, regardless of whether you were motivated by race, or sexual orientation, or xenophobia, or greed, or jealousy, or whatever, you should be held just as accountable as anyone else.

3. It's a poor solution to a different problem. The problem here is not the crime, it is the morivation. So what are we trying to stop with hate crime legislation? Racism, homophobia, bigotry. These are not things you can legislate out of existence. The skinhead who kills a black man is not going to suddenly develop an acceptance of black people because his prison sentence is twice that of a "normal" murderer. The truth is, there is no surefire way to change the mind of someone; but punitive damages are just about the least effective path to take. You're more likely to build resentment than understanding in a system like this.

Obviously something should be done. We shouldn't be killing each other over issues of skin color or sexuality or religion or what have you. But doling out vengeance more heavily on those who may have bigotry as a motivation for crime does nothing but encourage further bigotry. It does not help alleviate the underlying problem, and as such, it is a pointless and futile exercise in "feel good" legislation that accomplishes nothing.
Click to expand...

Of course there are problems with hate crime laws, but I don't think that means we should throw up our hands and say "to hell with it". We live in a free society, that means we can't legislate against racism, homophobia, and other assorted bigotry. What we can do is try to make sure those mindsets stay in the minds of the people who hold them. I agree, the law isn't a perfect tool to solve this problem, but it's better than nothing. Your argument isn't wrong, but it applies to ALL crimes, not just racial crimes...you could use your exact same argument to argue against ALL laws.
 
Originally posted by: jackschmittusahate crimes by definition are cold blooded.
Click to expand...

Nothing could be further from the truth. "Hate crimes", as they're broadly defined, require a state of being on the part of the perpetrator that epitomizes split-second, boiling-hot rage. This is not to say that there are no premeditated hate crimes, of course there are. But to assume that a hardcore racist generally has the intellectual fortitude to coldly plot his escapades gives far too much credit to the type.

The idea that a "hate crime" is likely to provoke retaliatory crimes assumes that the minority affected is barely able to remain within the bounds of our culture and laws and will become lawless at the least provocation (meaning an offense against a single member of the group). You would think minority groups would be offended by such an assumption.
Click to expand...

Another interesting take on matters. Why wouldn't\shouldn't I be PARTICULARLY angry about another black man being killed or injured simply because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, wearing the wrong skin color?

And no, I don't think there should be added penalties for crimes based on what the perperator was thinking at the moment the crime was commited.

 
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: jackschmittusahate crimes by definition are cold blooded.
Click to expand...

Nothing could be further from the truth. "Hate crimes", as they're broadly defined, require a state of being on the part of the perpetrator that epitomizes split-second, boiling-hot rage. This is not to say that there are no premeditated hate crimes, of course there are. But to assume that a hardcore racist generally has the intellectual fortitude to coldly plot his escapades gives far too much credit to the type.

The idea that a "hate crime" is likely to provoke retaliatory crimes assumes that the minority affected is barely able to remain within the bounds of our culture and laws and will become lawless at the least provocation (meaning an offense against a single member of the group). You would think minority groups would be offended by such an assumption.
Click to expand...

Another interesting take on matters. Why wouldn't\shouldn't I be PARTICULARLY angry about another black man being killed or injured simply because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, wearing the wrong skin color?

And no, I don't think there should be added penalties for crimes based on what the perperator was thinking at the moment the crime was commited.
Click to expand...

Let's follow this to its end. 1992 saw the city of Los Angeles erupt into widespread rioting after the four officers accused of beating Rodney King were found not guilty. Hate crime legislation was not around back then, but it clearly would have been an issue, as the four white officers beat a black man. The LA riots showed that clearly a minority group can be moved to violent action by a "hate crime." But there are two questions that emerge:

1. Would the riot have been avoided if the officers had been found not guilty of a hate crime vs. simply a regular crime? No. At issue was not what the crime was called, but the verdict.

2. Would the rioters have been prosecuted under the same hate crime legislation? No, since most of the victims were minorities themselves (many black and Asian owned stores along Crenshaw Boulevard in South Central were the targets of the most extreme vandalism). But clearly the riots were racially motivated. So hate crime legislation would be an ineffective method of dealing with a very real situation like this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top