Hate Crime Laws

[sandorski]

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

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?

:thumbsup:

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: jackschmittusahate crimes by definition are cold blooded.

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.

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.

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.

What "end" would that be? Please explain.

As for the rest, you seem to be arguing against hate crime laws. I don't think they should be part of the legal code either, and I've already said as much. And this regardless of my personal feelings on the subject.

 

[fskimospy]

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

There are already all sorts of crimes that depend on your state of mind, or what you were intending and thinking while you committed them. As Rainsford mentioned, the difference between manslaughter, third degree murder, and first degree murder all have to do with what you were thinking when you committed the act.

Whole sections of our justice system are based upon what criminals are thinking when they do something... so why the act like hate crimes are somehow unique?

 

[beyoku]

I think Hate Crime laws should be on the books.
For people like this,

"The victim was repeatedly called a racial slurs while her captors sexually abused, beat and stabbed her." Also forced her to eat Rat and dog Feces. All because "This is what we do to N*ggers round' here"

These people are on another level or reasoning compared to crimes of passion, desperation, addiction etc. For those apposed is there a difference between manslaughter, Murder 1 or Murder 3? What if its a cop? Or a Toddler? What if it is self defense? Should they all be the same because its 1 life?

 

[IGBT]

..purposefully vague so present and future interpretion can choke off uncomfortable criticism and freedom of speech.

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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

There are already all sorts of crimes that depend on your state of mind, or what you were intending and thinking while you committed them. As Rainsford mentioned, the difference between manslaughter, third degree murder, and first degree murder all have to do with what you were thinking when you committed the act.

Whole sections of our justice system are based upon what criminals are thinking when they do something... so why the act like hate crimes are somehow unique?

Because people want to be able to harass blacks and gays?

 

[jackschmittusa]

Atomic Playboy

Not cold blooded?

Acting in "split-second, boiling-hot rage", is the classic definition of a crime of passion and is generally considered a mitigating factor.

Hate crimes simply point to selecting a victim based on his/her membership in a minority group.

Prosecutors usually depend on prior acts and utterances to show that the perpetrator was predisposed to commit such an act. A witnessed, bigoted utterance during the commission of the crime may also bolster his case.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The real question you should be asking is "do these laws deter crime?" That's the whole point of laws. We put them in place because we want to stop that behavior. We have laws against taking other people's property because we value the right to own property. We have laws against assault because we value the right to be free from violence. So if these laws are enacted, will they deter crime? I don't believe they will.

Here's how my logic progresses. Racist white man sees black man. White man thinks, "I will accost this black man." As he decides whether this is a good idea, a thought flashes through his head: Is this illegal? It turns out that assault is illegal, but that has nothing to do with hate crime legislation. Every single crime hate crime legislation covers is already illegal. So what is the goal? Punishing bigotry. But it won't deter crime. The racist white man, if he decides he will assault the black man even though he knows assault is illegal, is not going to change his mind based on his potential sentence being a few months longer. So hate crime legislation probably won't lower crime. All it does is make us feel better about ourselves because we punished a bigot asshole. It's pure vengeance. That's it. That's a law I'd rather not see in a land that is supposed to value mercy and the potential for personal reformation.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

As far as I know, hate crimes are the only written laws that specifically regard motive. They actually presuppose a motive while other laws require motive to be vetted out during trial. That's one third of a conviction (means, motive, and opportunity), and with a hate crime it's already "established" when the trial starts, effectively bypassing judge and jury. These laws go beyond the realm of punishing crime, they are legislation against thought.

 

[maluckey]

So,

If the purpose of law and equality it to promote equality.....why define who is less equal? A murder is a murder. A manslaughter is manslaughter etc. The laws do not distinguish that a female murder is differet than a male murder. Why should it attempt to distinguish a majority citizen versus a minority? Does that not admit that one is different? Doesn't public perception ergo jury opinion often fall in favor of the percieved minority as it is? If I didn't get a job and a W.A.S.P. got it instead, could I scream Franco American discrimination because of my racial and religious background? That's insane.

This is where these hate crime laws all boil down to. Whether or not you are a percieved minority, regardless of the truth of the circumstances. These laws become legislation against the majority not legislation to save the minority from abuse. Affirmative action is a prime example......

 

[teclis1023]

A lot of people are saying that because Hate Crime Legislation doesn't completely deter hate crimes, that they're ineffective. I am sure that they do deter many crimes, just like Sexual Harassment Legislation has helped deter sexual harassment. Just because they're not 100% effective doesn't mean they're illegitimate.

We have plenty of laws against rape, murder and theft, yet those things continue to happen. Does that mean we should just get rid of those laws?

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: beyoku
I think Hate Crime laws should be on the books.
For people like this,

"The victim was repeatedly called a racial slurs while her captors sexually abused, beat and stabbed her." Also forced her to eat Rat and dog Feces. All because "This is what we do to N*ggers round' here"

I knew it wouldn't be long before this incident was broached as the *new* defining excuse for current, and perhaps new, hate crime legislation. Calling this poor woman "out of her name" simply doesn't make the crimes commited against her any worse.

These people are on another level or reasoning compared to crimes of passion, desperation, addiction etc.

Do you really think these "folks" took time to reason out their actions? It was a crime of opportunity.

For those apposed is there a difference between manslaughter, Murder 1 or Murder 3? What if it is self defense? Should they all be the same because its 1 life?

Yet all of these potential charges have one thing in common, they require tangible evidence for a conviction. It really isn't all about how worked-up society can get after the fact.

What if its a cop? Or a Toddler?

Is your life worth less than either of these?

 

[piasabird]

If you dont think like the liberal media obviously everything you do is a hate crime.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The phrase "hate crime" is in itself an appaling stupid term. It presupposes that hatred only exists on a level of bigotry, whether it's sexism, racism, homophobia, whatever. I'd argue that you'd have to hate someone an awful lot to kill them on purpose, assault them, rape them, etc. If I get stabbed by a white man, I'm going to call that a hate crime, even though I'm white too. Hatred is a strong motivator in an awful lot of crime that happens between people of the same gender, race, socioeconomic class, sexual orientation, religion, and any other dividing factor you can think of. Maybe you should replace the phrase "hate crime" with "felony bigotry."

 

[imported_Shivetya]

attempts to circumvent double jeopardy

iow - if they can't find you guilty of the crime they will find you guilty of something.


it also is a disgrace to reduce a crime of rape to a hate crime which is what occurs sometimes. If your guilty of rape it doesn't matter why you did it, its one crime, not as many as boneheaded polios want it to be

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: maluckey
So,

If the purpose of law and equality it to promote equality.....why define who is less equal? A murder is a murder. A manslaughter is manslaughter etc. The laws do not distinguish that a female murder is differet than a male murder. Why should it attempt to distinguish a majority citizen versus a minority? Does that not admit that one is different? Doesn't public perception ergo jury opinion often fall in favor of the percieved minority as it is? If I didn't get a job and a W.A.S.P. got it instead, could I scream Franco American discrimination because of my racial and religious background? That's insane.

This is where these hate crime laws all boil down to. Whether or not you are a percieved minority, regardless of the truth of the circumstances. These laws become legislation against the majority not legislation to save the minority from abuse. Affirmative action is a prime example......

I do not believe you understand what hate crime laws actually say and do.

First of all hate crime legislation does not exist to promote equality. It exists to deter the targeting of communities for intimidation and terrorizing.

Secondly, all people are covered by hate crime legislation. Just because a WASP is less likely to be targeted for a hate crime then a black person does not in any way decrease their protection under these laws.

I don't think this point can be successfully argued here, because people don't seem to understand how our legal system works. If you are complaining about 'criminalizing thought', then you should be out campaigning against a whole host of laws... because a whole ton of crimes require a certain frame of mind in order for what you have done to be illegal. Affirmative action cannot be applied to this argument because affirmative action specifically targeted certain races while hate crime legislation is explicitly race neutral.

Ahhh. I don't know why I bother. I fully expect a whole host of replies that have ignored what I wrote here.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: eskimospyIf you are complaining about 'criminalizing thought', then you should be out campaigning against a whole host of laws... because a whole ton of crimes require a certain frame of mind in order for what you have done to be illegal.

What? So it's okay if I carve you up like a roast, as long as I'm thinking of flowers and sweet tea during the act? Come on dude, the state simply doesn't have the ability to peer into my soul. That's why hard evidence makes a criminal case, while the thoughts of those involved are relegated to the status of icing for the cake. Isn't it already unlawful to "intimidate and terrorize", regardless of the characteristics possessed by the aggrieved party? And as far as that "whole ton of crimes" that hinge on state-of-mind, please name one that REALLY makes sense in a supposedly enlightened and free society.

Oh yeah, you might want to consider that at least some of those anticipated reponses may be the result of simple disagreement with your views, not a lack of comprehension.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: eskimospyIf you are complaining about 'criminalizing thought', then you should be out campaigning against a whole host of laws... because a whole ton of crimes require a certain frame of mind in order for what you have done to be illegal.

What? So it's okay if I carve you up like a roast, as long as I'm thinking of flowers and sweet tea during the act? Come on dude, the state simply doesn't have the ability to peer into my soul. That's why hard evidence makes a criminal case, while the thoughts of those involved are relegated to the status of icing for the cake. Isn't it already unlawful to "intimidate and terrorize", regardless of the characteristics possessed by the aggrieved party? And as far as that "whole ton of crimes" that hinge on state-of-mind, please name one that REALLY makes sense in a supposedly enlightened and free society.

Oh yeah, you might want to consider that at least some of those anticipated reponses may be the result of simple disagreement with your views, not a lack of comprehension.

Same ones that have already been mentioned. The difference between manslaughter, third degree murder, and first degree murder is almost entirely based upon your state of mind while killing someone.

EDIT: For clarification on this matter I'll point you to mens rea, which is one of the foundations of our criminal system. Here at Wiki.

In short, your state of mind while committing a crime is extremely extremely relevant.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
As far as I know, hate crimes are the only written laws that specifically regard motive. They actually presuppose a motive while other laws require motive to be vetted out during trial. That's one third of a conviction (means, motive, and opportunity), and with a hate crime it's already "established" when the trial starts, effectively bypassing judge and jury. These laws go beyond the realm of punishing crime, they are legislation against thought.

QFT. Well said, G.

 

[fskimospy]

But anyways.. I promised myself at the beginning of this thread that I wouldn't get caught up in this tard-dance again. So... I'm out of here. It's nothing against anyone here who I haven't already made abundantly clear in the past that I don't like, I just don't want to have this conversation for the 5th time.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: beyoku
I think Hate Crime laws should be on the books.
For people like this,

"The victim was repeatedly called a racial slurs while her captors sexually abused, beat and stabbed her." Also forced her to eat Rat and dog Feces. All because "This is what we do to N*ggers round' here"

I knew it wouldn't be long before this incident was broached as the *new* defining excuse for current, and perhaps new, hate crime legislation. Calling this poor woman "out of her name" simply doesn't make the crimes commited against her any worse.

These people are on another level or reasoning compared to crimes of passion, desperation, addiction etc.

Do you really think these "folks" took time to reason out their actions? It was a crime of opportunity.

For those apposed is there a difference between manslaughter, Murder 1 or Murder 3? What if it is self defense? Should they all be the same because its 1 life?

Yet all of these potential charges have one thing in common, they require tangible evidence for a conviction. It really isn't all about how worked-up society can get after the fact.

What if its a cop? Or a Toddler?

Is your life worth less than either of these?

Crime of opportunity? You must be joking? Its not like she left a car running in a bad place in the city. Yes they must have though about something when they kept a person hostage for a week of torture.

 

[Gooberlx2]

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

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?

Well said. :thumbsup:

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Same ones that have already been mentioned. The difference between manslaughter, third degree murder, and first degree murder is almost entirely based upon your state of mind while killing someone.

No they don't, at least not to the degree you seem to think. Negligence, planning before the fact, and general intent are tangibles, and as such can be discovered. What's in our noodles at any given time simply can't be known (short of a confession, and even then...), at least not with any true veracity. And you didn't answer the question: Specifically, what crimes can one be convicted of that hinge exclusively on frame of mind, and still be thought of as beneficial in a supposedly enlightened and free society. I know my question jumps smartly into a mindfield of individual interpretation, BTW.

In short, your state of mind while committing a crime is extremely extremely relevant.

Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence)

"Some level" doesn't equate to "extremely extremely relevant", at least not to me. VERY interesting link. Thanks!

 

[Train]

what about crimes by the self loathing type moonie keeps telling us about? Those would be hate crimes too right?

Just add hate crimes to the extremely long list of unconstitutional bullshit shoved down our throats by the left using some twisted PC interpretation of what they think is good for society.

 

[teclis1023]

People here seem to be making it out that any time an interracial crime is committed, liberals try to brand it as a hate crime. Not true. The vast majority of crimes tried are branded simply as crimes. It takes special circumstances for a court to recognize a crime as falling under 'hate crime legislation'.

The example of that woman who was kidnapped and tortured is a great example. Six white people captured a black woman, tortured and raped her in the basement and continued to slam her with racial slurs. Maybe they just wanted a random person, but the bottom line is that they didn't capture a white person, they captured a black person.