Please explain the importance of “hate crimes” to me.

[MidwestRick]

I would like to hear your reasons for the importance of hate crime legislation, including new legislation which would include the GLBT community. Personally I see a crime as a crime, no matter what the reason for doing it. Is there a difference if someone is beaten, raped or murdered because the criminal hates this person? Is the logic behind backing this legislation akin to the various degrees of murder?

I would like to hear opinions on this without it getting into a flame war. I am truly interested in the opinions of the posters here.

Thanks in advance.

[Lerkfish]

1. if you have to ask, you won't listen to the real answers.

IMHO.

Civil rights during 1960s could have been handled on a case by case basis of discrimination, OR it could have been enacted as legislation. Which do you think was more effective?

[paulsby]

9. nice dismissive response nt

[imdjh]

15. That's a lot nicer than what I was thinking. Let's go with yours.

[paulsby]

22. i applaud people

who do not kneejerk and who honestly search for the right thing, even if it might go against the status quo.

i can respect people i disagree with, and i hold out the possibility that any of my beliefs can be wrong/subject to change given evidence or a different understanding.

and in fact, based on intelligent discussion, as opposed to bald dismissals, i have changed my mind on VERY significant issues.

i refuse to march in lockstep to any political party or ideology, and i applaud others for doing the same.

your dismissive response discredited his honest seeking of information and discussion, and made a prejudiced statement about his openness to ideas.

[imdjh]

25. My dismissive response?

I was agreeing with you.

[paulsby]

34. i apologize

i misattributed the attribution or something

very sorry

my
bad

[imdjh]

39. LOL. Carry on.

[paulsby]

40. day by day

sigh...

day by day :)

[Lerkfish]

33. well, since it was a driveby posting

I don't think I was wrong in assuming they didn't want any real answers. HOWEVER, I did give a real answer anyways. Do you need help understanding it?
I'll be glad to explain it: You cannot legislate against bigotry, but you can legislate against actions. The Civil Rights movement made it illegal to ACT against a group of people merely because of the color of their skin. It did not prevent bigotry, but it made it illegal to act on it. Segregated water fountains, for example became a thing of the past.

Hate crimes legislation is valid because it makes the ACT of hate crimes punishable. Since the intent of hate crimes, as others have noted, is a crime against an entire group to keep it down, silence it or eliminate it, it needs to be put into a different category than a simple assault.

I was in fact less dismissive in my response than you have been to me in yours.

[MidwestRick]

35. Drive by?

Not at all. I just got back from lunch. :)

[Lerkfish]

37. ah, nice to see you again.

what is your argument for why there should not be hate crimes legislation?

[MidwestRick]

48. I don't have an argument against them

I wanted to get an understanding as to why there is a need to create them outside of the current laws against particular crimes.

I would say that calling them "hate crimes" is what is confusing to me and others. It is basically adding additional penalties to existing criminal laws based on the intent of the assailant, much like the laws on the books that differentiate the various degrees of murder. With that said, I have no issue with this issue at all. I just wanted clarification, which I have received.

[imdjh]

41. I see the Civil Rights acts as clarifying rather than illegalizing. We don't need hate crimes laws.

Obviously, we're all smarter than those old folks who came before us, but the Emancipation Proclamation combined with the 14th amendment and the civil rights act of 18whatever should have made it pretty clear what the intent of the government was regarding (primarily) black people. But human beings being what they are, they went looking for workarounds. I hate workarounds, I realize they keep lawyers employed, but they are dishonest.

We don't need hate crimes laws. We need a "knock it the fuck off law". We need a law, so basic and clear that the Supreme Court will never see a case behind it, because it can't possibly be interpreted any other way. But it has to be compatible with absolutely free speech and freedom of association. So we kind of need a Baked Alaska law.

[Recursion]

2. The term "hate crime" is sometimes used too freely, and honestly it's a misleading name

The issue with "hate crimes" is not what someone felt, but whom the target was. If I'm a racist and attack an African American, those facts in themselves do not make the attack a hate crime. It's a hate crime if I carried out the attack in such a way that the entire African American community is threatened, eg, by picking a target by random (except obviously for race), leaving his body out in public, bragging about the attack, etc.

The increased penalties are based on the fact that an entire community, not just one person, is threatened by the crime.

[dipsydoodle]

8. It's very clearly defined in the UK

Hate crime

Hatred is the targeting of individuals, groups and communities because of who they are.

A hate crime is any criminal offence that is motivated by hostility or prejudice based upon the victim’s:

* disability
* race
* religion or belief
* sexual orientation
* transgender

All hate crime is important. No hate crime is too minor to report to the police. Anyone can be the victim of a hate crime. We all have a racial identity, all have a sexual orientation, all have some sort of beliefs. Anyone of us could be targeted because of some aspect of our identity. Tackling hate crime supports each and every one of us.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/hate-crime/

[paulsby]

10. the UK also punishes hate SPEECH as well as hate crime

fortunately, the USA does not

[dipsydoodle]

16. That's because

"speech" can be treated as criminal assult which has always been the case.

Aside from that - hate speech is a hate crime here. It's all for the good of the whole community.

[paulsby]

19. not really

speech here can also be tantamount to an assault if it is a THREAT.

in the UK, disparagement based on race can be a crime, even though there is no threat of violence.

it's a content decision, and is a significant difference between UK and US jurisprudence.

[imdjh]

14. How many auslanders have been prosecuted for hate crimes on British aboriginals?

[dipsydoodle]

18. I don't even understand the question.

.

[imdjh]

20. Eve, you're too short for that gesture.

[dipsydoodle]

23. Who the fuck is Eve ?

:shrug:

[imdjh]

26. Eve Harrington.

[dipsydoodle]

27. I'm none the wiser

.

[imdjh]

29. How many crimes against Celt/Anglo-Saxons have been prosecuted as hate crimes?

[Lerkfish]

36. There was a time, after the potato famine, when Irish immigrants were

the target of hate attacks.

so.... not sure of your point.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lerkfish]

44. that's a very bizarre comment.

is what I said inaccurate?

[dipsydoodle]

47. Perfectly accurate and a fair example

I can't make out what point imdij is trying to make.

[imdjh]

65. I asked you a question in excruciatingly precise terms, and you're batting....

.... your eyelashes and pretending you don't understand the question.

[dipsydoodle]

68. I did answer

see reply #45.

[imdjh]

72. Obviously I wasn't precise enough. Let's try this again.

How many ethnic natives of the British Isles, ie persons of ancient English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Cornish, and/or Viking and Anglo-Saxon caucasian citizens of the British Isles have been attacked by members of tribes not found in the British Isles in ancient times in numbers sufficient to be identified as Celt, Scot, Pict, Anglo-Saxon, Welsh, Cornish, Yorkish, Orkneyish, Danish, French, Viking, and or leprechaun; and in how many of those attacks has the criminal been charged with a hate crime against the English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Cornish, and/or Viking and Anglo-Saxon caucasian citizens of the British Isles?

You see we do have access to news sources in the British Isles, and it has come to my attention that there are some folks who believe that not only are hate crimes laws not enforced against nonwhite/etc.... people, but that the police and the press actually try to obscure the ethnic identity of such people when they do commit such crimes.

The entire point being that this kind of mess is precisely why hate crimes laws are bad law.

[dipsydoodle]

78. There are cases

which have been posted on sites supporting the BNP which I won't post here - you can find yourself by searching. The there are also cases which have resulted in the death of the victim and the resultant charges have overridden hate crime charges.

I do however take your point but our laws are designed to protect minorities which I still believe to be for the overall good. With regard to race it possible that at a future date there will be areas of the country where the indigenous population itself do in fact become the minority but that won't be the case with gays, physically disadvantaged, transvestites etc.

BTW - I'm sixty six and as a result of that I also regard African Caribbeans as being part of our indigenous population given that most either emmigrated here in the fifties on assisted passage or were born here.

[dipsydoodle]

45. I don't know the distribution amongst the gay community

but common sense tells me the majority here are probably white Celt/Anglo-Saxons. I expressed that in context of this board being specific but I guess the same would apply to those who are physically disadvantaged for example.

Doubtless if you search you'll find an answer.

[Smarmie Doofus]

77. Besides it went out with Mrs. Fitch.

Whoever Mrs. Fitch was.

[imdjh]

12. I disagree. Territory crimes are committed every day without hate-crime enhancement.

When you drive through a black neighborhood and a black person throws something at you car because you are white, he's not going to be charged with a hate crime. At most, he'll be charged with hurling deadly missiles (a felony). But he very much is trying to send the message that white people are not supposed to be in "his" neighborhood. In practice, he's not going to be charged at all unless a police officer sees it happen.

[plantwomyn]

87. If you are white and you decide to drive through a black neighborhood

weren't you already intimidated? If you aren't you need to go back to the county for your own protection.
Switch it around. If you are black and you drive through a white neighborhood aren't you intimidated. Ever hear of profiling? How many times have you heard of the outrage of white people being pulled over because "driving while white"? DWB has been institutionalized by LEOs all over the U.S.
BTW there are a lot of people of color who are intimidated by driving through their own neighborhoods. They have have to face the violence every day, they have no choice. Black on black crime is more prevalent than black on white crime. Those of us people of color have no choice to "take a different route". Being a minority, we are surrounded by the "other". For now we have to live in a world dominated by Anglo-Saxons, Celts etc.

I guess my point is that when that black person threw something at the white person's car, he had no delusions that his action would effect ALL white people. This lesson is embedded in his DNA.

The entire basis for enhanced penalties for hate crimes is that a group is "terrorized" by the act of an individual or another group. Think the KKK and lynching. How many Anglo-Saxons have been dragged from their homes and lynched? They didn't want to kill all black people, they wanted to keep them in fear and subjugated. Keep them in their place.

Those of us who are Gay live in every neighborhood. We grow up in every culture, every economic class and in homes were for the most part we have no "mentors". Many of our communities youth live in fear of their own family.
We can't outlaw bigotry. We can as a society condemn those who attack their victim(s just because they see them a "lesser than".

Otherwise why have higher penalties for crimes against women, children, cops and the military. Why not pursue criminals into churches and bomb mosques, they're just buildings. Why have enhanced penalties for terrorists, after all they just blew up some buildings and crashed some planes right?

Wrong. Motive has always been considered by the Judiciary during sentencing. If you choose your victims(s) because you hate what you perceive they stand for you are trying to send a message and to subjugate the rest of "them". You are a terrorist. Just as Al Qaeda are terrorists. Just as the KKK are terrorists.

[CC]

3. There is a difference in sentences

given out and served. Maybe it should be different but it is what it is. A state's attorney once explained to me that judge's like most humans become desensitized over time and it can be reflected in sentences. Then you have the state's that have guidelines. The more charges the more time that can be given while following guidelines.

[imdjh]

4. The only legitimate aim of such would be to ensure that a case will be properly prosecuted.

The historic inequity was that if a victim of a crime was a member of any of a number of subject classes that a crime against him would not be properly prosecuted in certain jurisdictions. By and large, that is no longer a problem. But when it is, there ought to be recourse so that the jurisdiction can be moved to a federal court which would presumably properly prosecute the case. This is touchy, of course, because it could appear that the victim identified group is simply demanding a guilty verdict and severe sentence as proof of "proper" prosecution.

My opposition to hate-crimes bills is that they are simply unworkable. Some people cannot accept that the system will never be perfect, but really that is the situation. A great deal of progress has been made in the last 100 years without any help from hate-crimes bills, and hate-crimes bills generate a significant perception of an abuse of the law.

Others who support hate-crimes laws are blatant in their unconstitutional pursuit. They defend without compunction the notion that hate-crimes laws are supposed to send a message that "hate is unacceptable" when our constitution clearly protects your right to hate others or groups of others, to prefer your own, to associate only with those you approve of, etc...

[av8rdave]

5. Although a crime is a crime....

I think hate crime legislation raises awareness across society. It also gives prosecutors some more leverage/bargaining chips if the case gets plea bargained. Finally, I think passing legislation like this sends an important message to minorities and the GLBT community that their society takes their safety and standing in the community seriously - a consideration they have been denied too long, IMO.

I hear all the right wing huffing and puffing about why hate crime legislation is bad. It seems hypocritical to me, coming from the party that claims to be tough on crime. Personally, I think they would rather race and orientation crimes be overlooked, but maybe that's just my impression.

Why should they care if a criminal faces a harsher sentence because of the motivation of the crime? After all, a crime is a crime.

[hypocrisyandlies]

6. Here's my thought

"Is there a difference if someone is beaten, raped or murdered because the criminal hates this person?"
I think there is a difference if someone beats or murders a person because they hate a group of people. If I go crazy and kill a black person because I hate black people, it's highly likely that I'll do it again. No black people would ever be safe around me.

But I do see where you are coming from. If someone is murdered, it is a tragedy regardless of the motives.

[GOTV]

7. Yes there's a difference between regular crimes and hate crimes

If you beat a person because you don't like him, that's bad and that's a crime and there's punishment for that. The damage you've done is to that one guy.

If you beat a person and it's clear it was out of some kind of class hatred, then in addition to damaging that one guy, you've potentially damaged a community.

The damage is greater, the punishment should be greater.

[Sebastian Doyle]

11. Those who commit hate crimes do so to "send a message"

It's not just directed at the physical victim of the crime, but also an implied message of "this is what happens to you (insert targeted group here - LGBT/African-Americans/Jews/Women's Health Providers/whatever) so shut the fuck up!"

[Recursion]

13. What he said

That's more clear than how I put it.

[hedgehog]

17. I've been reading the thread and I learned something. I had

only a vague notion of why hate crime legislation is important. I mean, i knew it was important. I just couldn't explain why. I like the definition of a hate crime as an attack on a random member of a community in order to intimidate the entire community.

We've used the concept of hate crimes for years in one area. People still differentiate among stranger rape, acquaintance rape and spousal rape. I think stranger rape fits the definition of hate crime because once one woman is raped by a stranger, all women feel unsafe if alone in that area.

[imdjh]

38. I think that the reason stranger rape is a higher crime is different from your analysis.

Included in stranger rape is the very high crime of kidnapping. While you can walk past a person and violate his person by punching him, perhaps doing severe damage even, you are not kidnapping him and except in the rare case you wouldn't be reasonably assumed to be willing to kill him. In the case of stranger rape, you have abduction and kidnapping as it is impossible to rape a woman without confining her, you have sexual battery of course, and you also have a reasonable assumption that if you are willing to commit these crimes then you would be willing to kill the victim, much the same way we assume that a burglar is willing to kill the homeowner.

The reason the lesser charges of rape are lesser is because when the two people know each other there is the possibility of situations which simply aren't present in a stranger abduction. In a stranger abduction rape there is no date-rape "he said, she said", unless you honestly believe that a woman chose to get savagely dragged into an alley and fucked by a junkie on her way home from work.

[hedgehog]

46. Stranger rape results in all women restricting their movements for their own safety.

http://www.takebackthenight.org/history.html

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

53. However, hate crime is about motive.

Most rapists don't do so to send a message to women-at-large.
I agree though, if the criminal intent is partly or wholly shown as to terrorize women ( or other groups (as a community) then it should be a hate crime.

[Toasterlad]

21. Yes, There Is a Difference.

Hate crimes are, by definition, crimes intended to intimidate an entire group of people. If someone lights a cross on a black person's lawn, that person hasn't just committed a crime against that black family, but against ALL black family. A swastika on a synogogue, a "Die Faggots!" spray-painted on a gay bar...these are attacks against an entire group of people.

[imdjh]

24. So if you kill a black man, in total privacy, because you hate black people, and you call him names.

.....while you are doing it, but no one hears you and when his body is discovered there is no known motive for the crime, and you are not apprehended or suspect- has a hate crime been committed? Clearly, you didn't intend to send a societal message, but your crime was motivated by intense hatred for black people. Was there a hate crime?

[Toasterlad]

28. If You Killed Him Because He Was Black, Yes, Of Course You Committed a Hate Crime.

The motive determines whether or not it was a hate crime. And whether you "intended" to send a message or not, if you committ a hate crime, you're sending a message, even if no ones receives it.

[GOTV]

31. I would say that there was a hate crime ....

... but unfortunately you might not be able to prosecute because there's no evidence of the hate.

[Sebastian Doyle]

51. Why don't you ask the family of James Byrd about that?

Three miserable Klan fucks dragged him behind their truck on a gravel road until his body literally fell apart. The governor of Texas (a certain Chimp) didn't think it was a hate crime.

One of the KKKillers, John King, said this about his actions: "Regardless of the outcome of this, we have made history. Death before dishonor. Sieg Heil!"

Was this a hate crime, or do you agree with the Chimp?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

56. Very interesting example

I'm on the fence about whether it is a "hate crime" but am going to have to say "yes"
On one hand, the killer displays no motive to use this crime to make a threatening statement to the community.
On the other hand, the killer killed him "because of intense hatred for black people".

Since hate crimes punish people using the intent of the crime as a political/terrorist/threatening message...
Clearly, the spirit of the legislation is being violated, but the actions of a hate crime are not technically satisfied.
However. in the end if/when the crime is solved the intent should be uncovered in court.
By it's own virtue, the public discovery of such a crime will propagate the message, whether intended to or not by the killer.
At the end of the day, once the public knows, it's a hate crime. Because if this, yes a hate crime was committed.

Now, what if he never gets caught? Well a crime was still committed, despite the motive, so it remains an unpunished crime?

[GodlessBiker]

30. Intent matters. We punish other crimes more seriously if they are committed...

with a particular intent.

Kill someone. Your punishment will depend on whether your mental state at the time was intentional, negligent, or reckless. In other words, your very thoughts at the time you killed the person matter and your punishment, indeed the very crime you are charged with, will depend on what you were thinking at the time you committed the act.

Hate crimes are no different.

[imdjh]

32. I see a huge difference between hate and malice aforethought.

The reason premeditated murder is a higher crime than a crime of passion is because we take into account the "cold blooded" aspect of the former, the fact that you had plenty of time to reconsider your ACTION and commission of the crime of murder. In the latter, you are presumed to be caught up in passion, or a semi-involuntary state of poor judgement.

When a person is convicted of first degree murder for killing his ex-wife (because she was a total bitch who played custody games) his sentence is not enhanced because he shouldn't think his wife is a total bitch who played custody games, or because we believe we can read his mind and tell his intent to send a message to all women out there or all total bitches out there; his sentence is enhanced because he had time to reconsider his actions and chose to go ahead with the murder.

A better corollary might be laws which specifically address killing a public official or police officer. But while these special laws reflect a greater concern of society for a crime against society, it's not quite the same, because the constitution clearly protects political dissent, it simply doesn't permit one to murder in the pursuit of political objection. The very same constitution protects our right to freedom of speech, and religion and let there be no doubt about what that means. How much more contempt can you have for a group of people than to believe that God hates them, that they are abominations for believing in another god, and that their scripture prescribes death by stoning for the offense?

I simply don't see how hate crimes laws can pass the USSC if they are challenged.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

54. A hate crime has more numerous direct victims than the individual being assaulted.

More intended victims --> more punishment. That makes a helluva lot of sense to me.

The hate crime is done with the intent of sending a message to the community - the intent is to victimize an entire group of people at one in a terrorizing/threatening manner. The punishment is more harsh because the criminal is receiving punishment for the accosted individual AND the members of the target community. It's a stricter punishment that serves as deterrent to crimes against society. It is not more harsh because the criminal happened to hate the victim for any particular reason. However, personal hatred can often be used as evidence in proving necessary motive to substantiate hate crime punishments.

[GodlessBiker]

55. The fact remains that it is thought which is considered in a homicide case. Moreover, ...

intentional murder does not need to be planned ahead weeks in advance. The intent to murder can be formed in the seconds before the act is committed. It is the thought at the moment of the act, compared to someone who who had not thought to kill but knew there was a risk and ignored it (negligent) or someone who should have perceived a risk but did not (reckless).

There are no presumptions with intent. The prosecution has to prove a particular intent depending on the crime charged. We recognize that particular thoughts (mental states) which accompany an act are deserving of a greater crime and a greater punishment.

[bergie321]

43. The hate crime enhancement

Is important because you are not only attacking the victim, you are trying to instill fear into the entire group that the victim belongs to.

The perpetrator is essentially a terrorist and should be treated more harshly than an ordinary criminal.

[hedgehog]

49. Didn't the two men who murdered Mathew Shepherd attempt

to plea to a lesser charge by coming up with an alternative motive for killing him? In other words, they admitted there was such a crime as killing a stranger for the sole reason that he was gay, but denied that that's what happened in this case.

[Sebastian Doyle]

52. They tried to claim it was about drugs, not about him being gay

One of the shitbags girlfriends floated this story on ABC's 20/20 a few years ago. "Librul media" strikes again. :eyes:

[Toasterlad]

60. But First They Used the Gay Panic Defense And Claimed That He Came On To Them.

When that wouldn't fly, they brought up the drug business.

[FreeState]

71. One of the killers said it was an anti-gay attack - and this is in the last year he said that

http://www.365gay.com/news/plays-sequel-gives-voice-to-matt-shepards-killer/

According to the detailed notes taken by Pierotti and condensed into the new script, McKinney says he had been drawn to crime ever since childhood, feels sympathy for Shepard’s parents and expresses regret that he let his own father down.

“As far as Matt is concerned, I don’t have any remorse,” McKinney is quoted as saying in the script, which was provided to The Associated Press by the production company.

McKinney, according to the script, reiterates his claim that the 1998 killing in Laramie, Wyo., started out as a robbery, but makes clear that his antipathy toward gays played a role.

“The night I did it, I did have hatred for homosexuals,” McKinney is quoted as saying. He goes on, according to the script, to say that he still dislikes gays and that his perceptions about Shepard’s sex life bolstered his belief that the killing was justified.

McKinney and his accomplice, Russell Henderson, targeted Shepard at a bar in Laramie in part because they assumed he was gay, according to the script.

“Well, he was overly friendly. And he was obviously gay,” McKinney is quoted as saying. “That played a part … his weakness. His frailty. And he was dressed nice. Looked like he had money.”

More info about these interviews is available here:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-laramie11-2009oct11,0,2733126.story

[Toasterlad]

75. The Story Has Changed Many Times.

The reality is that Matt Shephard would be alive today if he wasn't gay, or if his attackers weren't homophobic assholes.

I dearly hope McKinney chokes to death on a cock while being raped in prison.

[hedgehog]

50. I have four daughters, three straight and one lesbian. I worry

about their safety, but the daughter I worry about the most is the lesbian. I fear that her orientation makes her a special target for men who hate women. If her orientation makes her a target, then that is the definition of hate crime.

(I apologize if my syntax is offensive. I love all my daughters, but am not always certain of the proper vocabulary to use when discussing GLBT issues. I think it's like being the hearing parent of a deaf person.)

[Toasterlad]

61. No, You Got It Right.

Sadly, your lesbian daughter IS a "special target". Hate crime laws won't prevent that, but they will hopefully make the price too high for a murdering bigot to pay.

When I came out to my parents, my father said the only thing that concerned him were the bigoted assholes in the world. At 6', 280 lbs, I didn't take his concerns seriously, and assured him I'd be fine. I still think about that conversation every time I'm in a situation where I fear for my life or health, which, thankfully, doesn't happen all that often. But it certainly happens much more than I ever dreamed it could, back when I was younger and more cocky.

[LeftHander]

57. BECAUSE...some prosecutors will...

go easy on someone who has beaten a person simply because of the color of their skin, gender identity or sexuality...HATE CRIMES force PROSECUTION.

THAT IS WHY.

[Deep13]

59. or cops or jurors or sentencing judges. nt

[Deep13]

58. Motive and intent are important for sentencing and are often elements of the offense.

Murder is the malicious killing of a person with malice aforethought. Malice means intent to kill, intent to cause grievious injury, homicide during a felony or "depraved heart." Rape is sexual conduct by force or threat. Assault is causing physical harm by force or threat. In each case the defendant acts purposefully. Certain conditions elevate the severity of the offenses.

If the victim is elderly, a child, a pregnant woman, disabled in some way (vulnerable victims) or a police officer (always in danger) the degree of the offense is elevated. A hate crime recognizes that some people are particularly vulnerable because of irrational hatred. Burning wood on a random person's front lawn is bad, but not as bad as burning a cross on a Black person's lawn. Racial hatred is a motive that makes some people particularly vulnerable to attack.

Likewise, being singled out for a random murder is bad, but certain groups are especially susceptible to it. Matthew Shepard was not a random victim. He was singled out specifically because the assailants had an irrational hatred of gay people. People like that need to know that if they let their irrational hatreds become action that the law will single them out for harsh punishment. Likewise, some hate crime laws are justified under the Federal governments sweeping power to enforce civil rights. Often, despite the laws, local police, prosecutors, court officials and juries are reluctant to punish someone who shares their prejudices. If god hates gays, how can we punish someone for doing god's will? In that kind of situtation, it is good to be able to rely on Federal civil rights prosecution as a back-up.

Like all criminal laws, hate crime laws punish ACTION not thought. Like most criminal laws, they recognize the role that intent and motive have in causing action.

Frankly, if hate crime laws make the people on this forum a little safer and sleep a little easier, then I'm all for it.

[MidwestRick]

62. Absolutely

"Frankly, if hate crime laws make the people on this forum a little safer and sleep a little easier, then I'm all for it."

Agreed.

[GodlessBiker]

63. +1

[NMMNG]

64. Hmmmm

Do you oppose Hate Crimes legislation that protects people on the basis of their race/ethnicity, gender, religion and other characteristics or do you only oppose adding those nasty LGBT people to it?

[imdjh]

66. Small correction: Hate crimes laws don't protect anyone.

[FreeState]

70. 100% False - Hate Crimes laws protect the victims

the new law ensures that the victims of crimes can and will have their abusers persecuted under the full extent of the law. When local bigoted governments wont do anything the Federal enforcement now will, protecting the victim. Money is allocated to the local authorities to prosecute the crimes they may not have because of financial issues, giving judicial protection to the victim.

The law will not stop hate crimes - it will/may deter them in the long run, but it will protect the victim better than current law does.

[Politicub]

85. Such a good point - esp. in states like Alabama, which would...

probably let criminals off easy if they were targeting a LGBT person.

Now it's a federal crime to assault someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and this is it should be.

It's a good day for justice.

[dsc]

67. Assuming you are serious

There are three main reasons hate crimes legislation is important.
One Hate crimes are crimes against an entire community and thus are worse crimes than an ordinary crime. The message being sent to every gay person by an assult on random gay people is unmistakable. None of us are safe.

Two, even locales that want to prosecute hate crimes in a vigourous manner face bankrupcy when they do so. That is what happened in Laramie. Prosecuting Matthew Shepard's killer forced the county Laramie is in to lay off people to pay the bills.

Three, Hate crimes are harder to deter and thus need stiffer punishment. Give poor people enough money and they won't steal. No amount of money can make people who hate gays not hate gays.

[ShadowLiberal]

69. Harsher sentences for those who do it, that's why

[ZombieHorde]

73. How is motivation determined in any potential hate crime?

Especially for first time offenders?

A guy may be a White racist who never talks about this racism openly. If he gets drunk one night, and decides to beat up the next Eskimo who walks into the bar, how will his hate crime guilt be proven?

What if the guy is not a racist, and he beats up an Eskimo because the Eskimo uses the same cologne as the White man's father, during the fight the man yells, "Fuck you, Eskimo!" but he is thinking "Fuck you, Dad!"? This would not be a hate crime, but may appear to others as a hate crime.

[indigo32]

74. I would hope

I would hope, actually frankly assume, there is a bit of effort put into determining the motive in prosecuting such a crime. My experience with the criminal justice system doesn't go much beyond reading and tv....I'll be honest, but I get the impression motive plays a part in prosecution regardless of whether the person is being prosecuted for a hate crime or not. It's part of the case.

[Deep13]

80. Right.

Most serious offenses require the state to prove some mental element like intent to kill, recklessness, for the purpose of sexual gratification, intimidating a witness or committing another felony. While motive is not always an element of an offense, the prosecutor usually makes a case for motive to show that the defendant had a reason to do it as a way of reducing doubt. Likewise, offenses against certain victims are punished more severely than others. Assaulting an able-bodied man is bad, but assaulting a child is worse. A random act of violence is bad as it can happen to anyone. An assault motivated by hatred of gays is worse because members of that group are in constant danger of it.

[Deep13]

79. With evidence.

The state has the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Bar fights generally are not hate crimes. Generally.

[sui generis]

82. what if he's a blind "neegro" white supremacist

whose never been told he was black? :shrug:

:P

(props to Dave Chappelle for that one)

[imdjh]

83. I damn near died laughing, "had to divorce his wife, because was...."

[Meldread]

76. There are three main reasons.

1. Deterrence. Hate Crime Laws are reserved for minorities who suffer persecution. It is very difficult to deter hatred, but it is hoped that by having harsher penalties for hate crimes that it assists in some way. Even if it is a minor way, perhaps someones life somewhere will be saved.

2. Higher Profile. When a Hate Crime takes place it is more likely to get media coverage. The higher profile of the case, and the subsequent punishment also feeds into the effort to deter the crimes in the first place.

3. A Crime Against a Community. When someone commits a hate crime, it isn't personal against an individual. There is a difference between killing a gay man because of some personal vendetta against him. It is another thing entirely to randomly target him and kill him for no other reason than the fact that he is gay. In doing this, the crime is not merely against an individual it is against an entire community of individuals. The point that is being pressed is one of terror. It has the same result on a community that a terrorist attack might have - people are afraid and believe that they might be targeted. As a result it is important to ensure that these crimes are more harshly punished to, once again as I said in #1, to deter them from happening.

[sui generis]

81. Think about motive.

When you commit a violent crime because you were afraid for your life, it's not the same as committing a violent crime to take someone else's property away, and again not the same as because you were angry at your long-time for messing around.

A violent crime that is committed ONLY because you dislike their culture or community isn't driven by a perceived need, such as pro-active self-defense or robbery, or by by some circumstantial grievance.

It's committed based on an idea about the right of another individual to exist at all, most often formulated in a cultural stereotype, and most often centered on minority position.

That's not to say that you couldn't go kill a bunch of honkey crackers because they were white: that would also be a hate crime.

There are degrees of stupidity in committing violence, and social hate is merely the worst.

[MarkRaymond]

84. hate crime laws

Don't let the dramatic responses to your question bother you, Rick. I'm gay and for the most part, I don't like the idea of hate crime legislation either. I understand the reasoning behind it, but I'm not crazy about creating special classes of people in that way.

[FreeState]

88. What special class is being created? n/t

[RetiredTrotskyite]

86. A Hate Crime

is done to "send a message" to the victim and to force them to change behaviour, dress, language, whatever the hater doesn't like. It is a crime in and of itself and when the victim is a victim of hate, I believe the message should be sent loud and clear via enhanced sentencing that this country does not condone hatred.