Hate Crimes...

[AZ Jeff]

Nope.

If the beating was motivated by the person's race, religion, etc.. then it's a hate crime.

Why should the motivation for the crime make any difference? A murder is a murder, an assault is an assault. The why's are not really important, once we prove the person actually committed the crime for which he was charged.

 

[Car Knocker]

Absolutely untrue.

Also.. if you cant tell by now, I'm black and I find it terribly offensive for someone to imply that I'm part of a "protected group".

Perhaps that is untrue in California. However, the hate crime legislation in Utah that has been proposed for the last several years is accurately depicted in my example, according to the originator of the legislation in a conversation with me. "Prior bills would have enhanced, by one step, crimes committed because of bias or prejudice against groups categorized by race, color, disability, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age and gender." http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635175421,00.html

This year's bill doesn't define "groups" and may have a chance of passage as long as homosexuals are not construed as a "group". My preference would be for an "equal opportunity" hate crime bill (if such a thing must be passed) that would afford the same protection to everyone rather than just a subset of the general population.

I certainly wasn't trying to offend to anyone with my example (and any "group" I used could take offense) but in Utah, prior to this year, you would certainly have been in a "protected group" due to your race, and perhaps other factors such as religion or gender, in hate crime legislation. And those, like it or not, are just the facts.

 

[crazed_ss]

Why should the motivation for the crime make any difference? A murder is a murder, an assault is an assault. The why's are not really important, once we prove the person actually committed the crime for which he was charged.

Because it adds to the vicousness of the crime IMO. Just like how someone can be charged with murder with "special circumstances" .. Murder isnt just murder.. sometimes it's committed with extra malice. In those cases, punishments are harsher.

Same with crimes based on race. IMO, such crimes tear the very fabric of society and are much more harmful that normal crimes. I'd go as far as to say hate crimes are terrorism.

 

[nico]

BTW, I think such statutes are inane. If you want to take fighting racism into consideration, then just make racial motive a statutory aggravator at sentencing.

I completely agree. Motive is perfectly legitimage as an aggravating factor in sentencing (several motives are listed as aggravating factors in capital cases), but making the motive itself a crime is absurd.

 

[Working Man]

It's just stupid, people will use any excuse to call it a hate crime. :banghead:

If someone attacks a person and that person starts fighting back calling them a racial slur rather
than the traditional; A-hole, M-F'er, or Roster Inhaler, they'll get a harsher punishment (except for
the last one if the assailant happens to be a homosexual then you unknowing committed a hate
crime).

They are just words and the whole thing is just a sad state of affairs. I'll get no more PO'ed if some
calls me a M-F'er or a Ginny, WOP, or Pasta Puncher. You're mad and say stuff just to PO the other
guy. That's just the way it is.

We all need to grow up and stop paying for the sins of the fathers. We are here in America and need
to start acting like Americans.

 

[crazed_ss]

I always hear the excuse, "they're just words"

Words are powerful things.

 

[Biker]

I always hear the excuse, "they're just words"

Words are powerful things.

Words have the power that you allow them to have. If you wish to allow others to define you, that's your problem, not mine. In the meantime, to say that a person's skin color, sexual preference, gender or religion makes that person's life more valuable than mine is obcene.
Biker

 

[crazed_ss]

No one is saying that.

In fact, the law doesnt even say racial slurs have to be used in the commission of the crime. The point of the law is to hand down harsher sentences to those who terrorize others simply because they look different or practice a different faith. The law isnt isnt place only to harshly prosecute white people for committing crimes against minorities as so many here seem to think.

 

[Art Eatman]

My objection to the whole concept of "hate crime" is that there is too much potential for abuse. Too easy to attribute "hate" of some group when that was not the cause for the criminal action. Too hard for a defendant to prove that hate was not a motivation, when motivation is supposed to be shown/proven by the prosecution.

Too easy for witnesses from the alleged "hated" group to gang up on a defendant and perjure him into jail.

Art

 

[Jeff White]

crazed_ss,

One of the ideas this nation was founded on, was equal protection under the law. Any law that proscribes harsher penalties for doing the same action to a person who is of a different faith, race, gender, sexual orientation violates that idea.

Battery is battery no matter why it was committed. Murder is murder no atter why it was committed.

The Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech, which is probably the most common and damaging, is legal. The City of Skokie had to give the Nazis a parade permit. No matter how digusting the message is, it's protected.

There is no place in a society that claims to give everyone equal protection under the law, for laws that give anyone greater protection based on their faith, race, gender or sexual orientation.

Jeff

 

[Mr. James]

There is no place in a society that claims to give everyone equal protection under the law, for laws that give anyone greater protection based on their faith, race, gender or sexual orientation.

+1,000.

"Hate-crime" is an Orwellian perversion of our justice system.

 

[ArmedBear]

The law isnt isnt place only to harshly prosecute white people for committing crimes against minorities as so many here seem to think.

I think that people are looking at the history of the legislation, the politicians who proposed and supported it, and the history of its application (and times when it is not applied), and they conclude that, indeed, the law is, in fact, in place to harshly prosecute white people for committing crimes against minorities.

Be that as it may, I do think that motive, including "hate", should be an aggravating factor for sentencing. But the crime should be the actual crime committed, not what someone was thinking. Otherwise, we tread far too close to having thought crimes. Sometimes, we cross the line already.

 

[AZ Jeff]

Because it adds to the vicousness of the crime IMO. Just like how someone can be charged with murder with "special circumstances" .. Murder isnt just murder.. sometimes it's committed with extra malice. In those cases, punishments are harsher.

I suspect our viewpoints here due to our lifetime of personal experience, based on our ethnic backgrounds.

People are innocent until proven guilty, at least in theory. Often, it's IMPOSSIBLE to PROVE someones' motivation for committing a crime, even if we can actually prove him guilty of the crime itself.

Since proving motivations is so much harder than proving the actual act, many "hate crimes" are just ASSUMED to be such, due to circumstances. That, to me, does not belong as part of our judicial system.

 

[Working Man]

I always hear the excuse, "they're just words"

Words are powerful things.

Yes, indeed they are, but....

It's not an excuse it's the truth. Regardless how a word that may have
already existed is twisted, bastardized, or combined with another or one
created just for a malicious cause, it still does not change that it is a word.

It is no better or worse than any other harsh language or language used to
degrade. No special treatment/punishment should be given. If two Italians
beat up each other calling one another Ginny and WOP there is no hate
crime as far as the law is concerned. My oldest friend (known for 25 years)
who is Hispanic got into a fight with another Hispanic and called him a stupid
sp!@k and assorted other slurs.... there was no hate crime there just a simple
assault case against the other guy who started it.

Color or religion or financial level does not make a man my friend so why
should it make a man my enemy? If we are fighting and/or exchanging words
it is because of the man himself not his packaging.

Also, we already have laws that cover the points of reason that people use to
justify hate crime laws. The only things not covered by those existing laws
are the emotions held by those groups affected. It's not justice, it's
vengeance.

 

[crazed_ss]

I suspect our viewpoints here due to our lifetime of personal experience, based on our ethnic backgrounds.

People are innocent until proven guilty, at least in theory. Often, it's IMPOSSIBLE to PROVE someones' motivation for committing a crime, even if we can actually prove him guilty of the crime itself.

Since proving motivations is so much harder than proving the actual act, many "hate crimes" are just ASSUMED to be such, due to circumstances. That, to me, does not belong as part of our judicial system.

Good points everyone..

I'd like to clarify.. I dont think any white on black or black on white crime is a hate crime. For example, if a white mugger robs a black guy and uses the N-word in the commision of the crime, then I wouldnt consider that a hate crime.

A hate crime would be a group of Neo-Nazis who went out targeting minorities for assaults or maybe a black rapist that only went after white women.. in those cases, I think the criminals should get extra punishment..

 

[Meplat]

Nope.

If the beating was motivated by the person's race, religion, etc.. then it's a hate crime.

Any violent crime against another person is a "hate" crime.

These are just a few examples of why caucasian folks don't feel like they are covered by the same protections others are.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1912

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/03/06/hate/

http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/hatecrimes.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=2702

Since a caucasian person is at a 20 times higher risk of being assaulted by a black person than vice versa, and the number of blacks charged with "hate" crimes vs. the number of caucasians charged with "hate" crimes is HIGHLY disproportionate, one can perhaps see a reason behind this feeling.

Please do read these articles, and then tell me again how "hate crime" legislation is a two edged sword. It ain't. It MIGHT swing back in one direction and bruise one of the protected classes now and again, but if it does, it is an anecdotal incidence. Even if it DID cut both ways (and it most assuredly does not), it would STILL be stupid law. And dangerous to a free society. AND DAMN SURE DIVISIVE. Just what we need more of.

I find it very objectionable that there are some who would like to cause you harm because of your skin pigmentation. I also find it very objectionable because there are some who would like to cause you harm because of the car you drive, or your accent, or because you wear your hair differently, or because you happen to walk through the wrong neighborhood wearing the wrong color clothing, or because they might want your money, your watch, or your clothing, or for any other reason.

I find it just as objectionable that anyone would want to do the same to me for any of these reasons.

If you don't see it that way, your lenses need cleaning.

Hate is hate. Period. One hardly ever assaults another human being out of overflowing love for that person.

 

[redbearde]

I am white.

If I find someone else having sex with my wife, I guarantee I will hate him, and I may very well kill him for doing it...especially if she's not consenting.

If the man is white, and I kill him, then I may be able to get some sort of leniency during sentencing. If the man is black, and I happen to holler a racial epithet while I'm killing him for having sex with my wife, well, then perhaps I will get an extra 10 years for committing a hate crime.

So

The extra few years for the hate crime is either criminalizing my speech or my thoughts (perhaps I only thought the racial slur instead of blurting it out).

Mr Redbearde, do you hate black people? ...every one that has sex with my wife, well, yeah, at the time I sure did.

Oh, but r, your motive for killing the fellow is that he was having sex with your wife. ..not that he is black. or white.

And I say to you, you don't know that.

This is the problem with criminalizing motive. You may be able to generally determine motive (greed, extreme emotional distress, violent horniness), but the action is reasonably prosecuted. Putting me in jail for 1 year because I punch a man might be reasonable. Adding another 4 years because I said something naughty about him while I punched him strikes me as overkill.

On the other hand...

We do have laws covering certain groups of people already. Children and old people are considered less able to care for themselves, so abusing them might warrant different legal ramifications from adults abusing each other. Consequently, raping someone is really bad, but raping an 8 year old is REALLY bad. Why? Because the 8 year old warrants the special protection.

Now, do black folks or gays need special protection like old people and children? If so, then perhaps "hate crimes" have a place in society.....but a different name would be helpful. Perhaps "crimes of inequity". Do black folks not need special protection like old people and children? Well, then, perhaps there isn't a place for those sorts of laws.

Seems to me the behaviors associated with all the examples already listed are covered under existing laws. kidnapping, unlawful imprisonment, torture...add it all up, and we don't need to add another 10 years for motive.

*shrug* or I could be completely wrong. I'm white. And though I dress and look somewhat like a bum, I rarely have trouble with people because of what I look like.

oh, and to make this somewhat about guns: Go 2nd Amendment! Yay!

 

[redbearde]

Good points everyone..

I'd like to clarify.. I dont think any white on black or black on white crime is a hate crime. For example, if a white mugger robs a black guy and uses the N-word in the commision of the crime, then I wouldnt consider that a hate crime.

A hate crime would be a group of Neo-Nazis who went out targeting minorities for assaults or maybe a black rapist that only went after white women.. in those cases, I think the criminals should get extra punishment..

If the Neo-Nazis went after only people of French descent, would that be a hate crime? Why or Why not?

 

[gc70]

If the Neo-Nazis went after only people of French descent, would that be a hate crime? Why or Why not?

If a person walked up to you and punched you in the nose, it would be a criminal act. If a person walked up to you, said he hated redbearde, and punched you in the nose, it would be a criminal act. Would your nose feel any different based on the reason the person punched you?

Now consider the above criminal acts in a different light, taking motivation into account. The second person obviously hated you - he even said so - which makes some people believe that he should be punished more severely. OTOH, the first person punched you because he had a really bad day - his wife left him for another man, his dog ran away, his teenage daughter told him she was pregnant, and he was fired from his job. Since the first person had so many things that provoked his violence against you, should those extenuating circumstances be taken into account and his punishment be reduced accordingly?

If the legal system considers motivation to increase punishment, it is only logical to consider whether motivation should reduce punishment. And I am sure that I do not want to see the legal system go in that direction.

 

[Chrontius]

Six months in solitary confinement, no bread, no water would be cheaper.

Yes, but not nearly as unpleasant -- there is, as a rule, not much suffering in madness and if six months in solitary won't do that, then nothing will.

 

[Rockstar]

MAYBE I'd be o.k. with hate crime legislation, if the definition of "hate crime" were "any inter-racial crime." Wanna hear a buncha folks scream? Pass legislation with that definition.

 

[tom barthel]

Hate Crimes

While it may seem a good idea, people need to think. In parts of Canada, the Christian bible may not be quoted. It seems God may be in violation of hate crimes laws. Thou shalt not may be leading to a hate crime. Thou shalt may be leading to a hate crime. How about the big one (ABOMINATION)? The problem seems to be most people are easily led. There is no informed voting public. People need to start thinking.

 

[crazed_ss]

If the Neo-Nazis went after only people of French descent, would that be a hate crime? Why or Why not?

Yes, it would. Hate crimes cover crimes motivated by a person's race, color, disability, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age, gender, etc.

If neo-nazis were attacking people because of their French origin, that'd be a hate crime IMO.

 

[Biker]

Yes, it would. Hate crimes cover crimes motivated by a person's race, color, disability, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age, gender, etc.

If neo-nazis were attacking people because of their French origin, that'd be a hate crime IMO.

National origin? Good Lord, that would make war a hate crime. It seems that many people today seek out and enjoy special privelages today as victims.



Biker

 

[ArmedBear]

If the legal system considers motivation to increase punishment, it is only logical to consider whether motivation should reduce punishment. And I am sure that I do not want to see the legal system go in that direction.

Let me add something to what I wrote about aggravating circumstances.

If someone is a member of an organized group whose purpose is to intimidate others through acts of violence, and he commits a violent crime in that context and with that motive, then said crime can be called an act of terrorism.

This could be applied to the Klan kidnaping and beating a family, any street gang controlling the neighborhood by murder and the threat of murder, Al Qaeda, the Earth Liberation Front, a labor union using physical intimidation, etc.

If one wants to use the terrorism argument, fine. But which of the above are covered by "hate crime laws"? Just one: the Klan.

So I am not comfortable with hate crime laws. But I am not uncomfortable with specifically criminalizing the plotting of violence against others for the pure purpose of asserting a group's power over those others.