Why I HATE Hate crime laws....

[catnhatnh]

Because your kicked ass is no more heinous than mine.

Because harassing, assaulting, and killing are harassing, assaulting and killing.

Because then an act of violence (rape) is then just another hate crime instead of a crime.

Because sometimes, when thought becomes a crime or a reason for penalty enhancement, the government will be wrong.

Because making Bushes crime worse because it is committed against brown people denigrates his crime.

I know I may be wrong about this, but have not been convinced this is so yet.....

[cuke]

1. What a load of BS

When someone kills someone for money, it gets a higher sentence than if you kill someone in a moment of passion.

Differing sentences is only a problem when it's used against the bigots

[Faygo Kid]

2. Targeting people for certain characteristics is particularly harmful to society

Killing a white guy and killing a black guy leaves them both dead, and are horrific crimes. Killing the black guy, historically, has been done to intimidate. Ever hear of Reconstruction? Those lynchings did not take place in a vacuum. They were done for a reason - to intimidate. Society has a particular interest in stopping hate crimes.

[jefferson_dem]

3. The "victims" of hate crimes are also within the community at large...

who are targeted and threatened by the perpetrator.

When Matthew Shepard was beaten and killed, the fucking bastards not only was took the sweet innocent life of Matthew, they were sending a message to others like him in the community...that they might suffer the same fate.

[trumad]

4. If you haven't been convinced yet---then you're a God Damn Moran.

[catnhatnh]

6. My, what a considered response....

and what a childlike trust that the government will apply these penalties fairly.....

[trumad]

7. Strict policy not to debate a Moran.

[catnhatnh]

49. I have read many of your posts....

...and have now ignored your calling me a "moran". If you can even now view this thread and adjudge me without considering the bulk of it, and that the discussion of it is worthwhile,then I am sorry-Your input ewould have been appreciated.

[trumad]

66. I am totally against your OP ---totally and a little surprised at your reasoning.

[cuke]

38. You had three "considered responses" that you ignored

so don't complain when you get unconsidered responses

Please explain why it's OK to distinguish between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder?

[Telly Savalas]

61. If the concern that a government might not apply a law fairly is grounds for not having that law

then pretty much all laws should be abolished.

[billbuckhead]

22. Because killing in America isn't really a sin, the law must educate the confused youth

Capital punishment? Many Americans thinks it's great.
Killing a drunk entering the wrong house? No biggie in the courts.
Young urban minority men killing each other over turf? I'm sure neal boortz will say thats good thing for society.
Bombing helpless women and children? We compartmentalize this as "collateral damage".
A gay guy makes pass at you? Kill him and plead "self defense"
Shoot Mexicans coming over the border? I've personally heard dozens say it was a good idea.

Why wouldn't today's youths be confused about when killing people different than you is the right thing?

[Solon]

5. I hate those who hate hate crime laws, bigots by another name if you ask me. n/t

[Sandaasu]

8. Good reasons listed already

Here's another. Sometimes local authorities will get lazy about prosecuting some crimes, because the individuals that are responsible for doing so didn't care much for a group the victim belonged to. Hate crime laws allow the feds to get involved to make sure the crime is brought to a real trial.

Similarly, it guarantees that things like the "gay panic" defense can not work, and will even backfire if attempted.

[democratsin08]

9. i agree

we all hate someone, unless we are jesus. should we all be in prison?

[davidinalameda]

10. if you act on your hate

then yes, you should be in jail

[democratsin08]

12. of course

you should be in jail for the crime you commit, not the emotion of hate. whats the next emotion to be criminalized?

[cuke]

15. No one has ever been in jail for hate. Take your BS somewhere else

[davidinalameda]

11. actually when my ass gets kicked or beat or stabbed or shot

for no other reason than I'm gay, then it makes it much more heinous

[Rhythm and Blue]

14. Right, since it sends a message of terror to all other gays in the area,

in addition to being especially humiliating and emotionally traumatic for you.

[cuke]

17. And someone who gets violent because of their emotions

represents a bigger threat to the community than someone who gets violent for money or some other personal gain

[Rhythm and Blue]

21. I haven't seen any statistics, but I'd feel fairly confident guessing that

those who commit hate crimes are more likely to commit multiple crimes if not stopped by police than are people who commit other murders. Does anyone have any information about this? I'd like to know.

[catnhatnh]

16. Really?

More so than if it happens to my 5 year old grandson or my 80 year old Mom? Would you somehow say "Hey, this is cool-I think they figured I was straight." if the perpetrator said nothing denigrating? Should I for some reason feel I have suffered a lesser crime if I am beaten?

[Rhythm and Blue]

19. Actually, yes.

If your mom is beaten up, it is a random crime. There is no greater threat to anyone else in the area, and the victim is aware "my ass is beat because someone was looking for a cheap thrill."

If a gay man is beaten up for being gay, it is not a random crime. It is a targeted message to the gay community, saying "You are all targets. You are not safe." It is especially tormenting to the person who was attacked; victims of hate crimes are statistically more likely to suffer depression and attempt suicide.

[catnhatnh]

37. Sure...

....I'll tell Mom it was random and she'll do GREAT. Also I'm thrilled to hear there is less probably, less chance, she'll commit suicide then you....She's a great old broad and will appreciate how much less her being bruised counts than yours....

[cuke]

42. Being disingenous doesn't help your case

No one said it would be GREAT.

[Rhythm and Blue]

43. It should not diminish the pain of victims of random crime

that there exist greater crimes in the world.

Your argument is akin to saying "Murder should not be considered worse than assault and battery. Do you want to tell my old beat-up mother that her wounds aren't important?!"

[cuke]

33. Your 5yo grandson and 80yo Mom are gay?

[catnhatnh]

39. No...

But I'm sick to death to think how that was going to matter-in wishing and guessing about how their being assualted would change my attitude,

[cuke]

44. Then why did you raise the issue?

You brought your mom into it.

[davidinalameda]

65. actually I care much more about my ass than that of your grandkid or mother

just like I care more about my mother and my niece or nephew

[Rhythm and Blue]

13. If you think hate crimes should be banned as "thought crimes,"

because a crime is a crime, tell me:

Do you believe that manslaughter, first-degree murder, and second-degree murder should be punished in the same way? After all, the only difference in those is what you were thinking when you caused someone's death.

[trumad]

18. watch them stutter on this question...

[Rhythm and Blue]

24. I have *never* gotten an answer to this one.

I've been veteran of dozens of hate-crime arguments on almost as many boards, and I have *never* seen anyone explain why hate crimes count as "thought crimes," but the distinction between 1st-degree and 2nd-degree murder is okay.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

28. There is no distinction drawn based on the race/status of the victim

in your example.

That's the specific answer to your narrow question as to how hate crime might differ from other intent-determinations in criminal law. The killer's intent is treated the same no matter which human being the intent is directed against.

I'm not getting into the larger question, but "I've never goten an answer on this one" is a hard challenge to pass up.

Peace.

[Rhythm and Blue]

31. That doesn't really answer the question.

"Intent to kill" is an okay thought to consider. "Level of attention/negligence being paid" is an okay thought to consider. "Anger at victim" is an okay thought to consider. "Degree of malice" is an okay thought to consider. Whether the crime was planned out is certainly an okay thought to consider.

Why is it that "intent to terrify community of victim" and "hatred for victim" should not be allowed to be considered? What is the basis for considering there to be a difference between those thoughts and the previously-listed thoughts?

[cuke]

35. Neither are hate crimes

DOn't know where you got the idea that they were based on the race/status of the victim

[Rhythm and Blue]

45. Indeed. If I were to get dumped by a woman, and then go out on a walk in a rage,

pull a baseball bat out and crack the skull of the first person I see--and that person is black--that isn't a hate crime.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

48. Fine... not "based on," but there's a distinct nexus to race/status that does not

exist in the offered example of manslaughter. You can get into freaky hypotheticals where the skinheads attack a white guy because they think he's black, or whatever, but in practical terms there is a nexus. (That nexus exists *in hate crimes* despite the fact that not all crimes aginst black people, using the baseball bat example above, are hate crimes.)

I was just answering your question, not offering a broad theory of hate crimes. And my distinction is valid. Identifying a crime against a community with an individual victim is problematic, but that doesn't mean the problem invalidates the concept of hate crimes. Problem does not equal insolvable problem.

Here's an easy fix:

For the sake of legal consistency, I would prefer that "intent to terrorize a community" be a separate charge in addition to the basic charge, rather than a degree component or part of a sentencing guideline.

Same result, but preferable structure. It is better to sentence someone to 5 years concurrent for seeking to terrorize a community than adding it to a sentence for an underlying crime. It makes the point even better, shifting the victim of the "hate" charge to the affected community, which is the point of the thing.

And you don't get into things like whether the victim survives. The intent componant of the act reamins the same, whereas a murder charge does not remain the same if the victim survives. We have attempted murder as a common law tradition, but there is no reason to conflate the underlying assault with the broader intent in a hate crime situation. Keeping the hate crime aspect seperate from the underlying charge is cleaner.

And a separate "hate" charge wouldn't burden the system because that component of the crime must be adjudicated anyway in any set-up. Even elements of sentencing must be ajudicated.

And if you think there's anything here worth challenging, you are awful contrary!

[cuke]

52. Wrong again

I don't what "nexus" you are talking about, but I doubt it exists.

There are laws making terrorizing a community a crime. It's used with phony bomb threats, mailing letters with powder in them, etc

"Same result, but preferable structure"

So it's OK to base a sentence, at least to some degree, on the motive and intent of the perp? And you STILL object to hate crimes?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

53. DO YOU HAVE READING PROBLEMS???

Jesus H. Christ... What is your problem? "And you STILL object to hate crimes?"

Where the fuck did I say that?

Do you realize these different replies are written by different people, and that you are not arguing with a computer game?

Don't put words in my mouth, and if you cannot understand what someone is saying, try re-reading it rather than just running at the mouth.

You are herby ignored. Bye-bye.

[cuke]

56. There is no "nexus" with hate crimes

Please be big enough to admit that you made a mistake. I'll show you how it's done:

I was wrong to say that you oppose hate crimes. I did indeed confuse you with another poster.

But of course, you'll never get to see how a decent person reacts when they've made a mistake because you can not tolerate me because I made a mistake

[catnhatnh]

29. Best Question I've seen.

And I will have to think it over.I guess the part I hate is that in most jurisdictions it is used as a doubler ...when you get to a crime involving not just outcome,but rather intent it would seem a good idea to have this as an option-but how do you double a death penalty?And if you can't then I would like to see the maximum statute penalty be the maximum statute penalty.I wonder if all the people dissenting here think that a hate component is not introduced when appropriate to increase the penalties in a trial.I guess what I'm saying is that within the trial system has always been the place to determine both guilt and the ultimate culpability of the criminal.And whether the beating a gay(or anyone), or a Jew (or anyone), or raping a women (or anyone) should in law have a different standing.If asking that is wrong I plead guilty.

[cuke]

40. So doubling sentence = Bad. Executing the perp = Good

How can you argue that doubling the sentence is wrong, but it's OK to change the sentence from a set # of years to an execution?

"but how do you double a death penalty?"

What a dumb argument. If you can't increase the sentence in a death penalty case, then why are you complaining about the increased sentences of hate crimes?

"And if you can't then I would like to see the maximum statute penalty be the maximum statute penalty."

So it's wrong to distinguish between 1st degree murder and 2nd and 3rd degree murder? The distinction results in an increase in sentencing?

".I guess what I'm saying is that within the trial system has always been the place to determine both guilt and the ultimate culpability of the criminal.And whether the beating a gay(or anyone), or a Jew (or anyone), or raping a women (or anyone) should in law have a different standing.If asking that is wrong I plead guilty. "

Yes, you are guilty. Guilty of ignoring the arguments that have been posted in your thread. You continue to argue that ALL beatings should be punished equally because it's only the consequences (to the victim) that count, yet you have no explanation for the different degrees of murder (and most every other violent crime)

[sniffa]

20. you are wrong

if someone kicked your ass, and Left you strung up for your community to see, that's a far worse crime - it's the crime against you, and a crime targeting your community.

this has nothing to do with thought crime. unLess your thought crime is acted on and you hang up some nooses in a bLack community, or dump a murdered gay man in greenwich.

do you honestLy not see the difference?

[catnhatnh]

46. Yes-I Don't

every example you give is foul-but punishable under existing law.Without appealing to easy emotion,does the killing of a rich, day trading, Yale graduate need prosecution? Should the penalty be doubled because his ass reminds me of Bush??? If all people are equal under law, then all crimes against persons must be held the same.Killing either my gay (I think) or straight daughter-sorry-I see no difference.

[JackBeck]

23. "Because your kicked ass is not more heinous than mine"

Look-up "overkill", then we can talk.

[JackBeck]

25. "Because harassing, assaulting, and killing are harassing, assaulting and killing."

That makes lynchings OK in your book.

[catnhatnh]

55. Yep...

....I'm sure thats exactly what I said....I'm sorry that even though people who disagree with me missed it that is EXACTLY what I meant-Including lynching my half black daughter and my mixed racial grandchildren. It takes someone as perceptive as you to elect me Grand Kleagle-Bless you and the horse you rode in on, Mr.Beck.

[JackBeck]

58. So do you would agree that lynchings are more than just harassing, assaulting, and killing?

And therefore, deserve a bit more attention by both local and federal authorities than just an everyday "harassing, assaulting, and killing"?

Not only am I sure Amiri Baraka would agree, but he'd also want those laws extended to his murdered lesbian daughter and her murdered partner, as well as Sakia Gunn. But hate crimes don't cover sexual orientation. Yet.

[JackBeck]

26. Do you hate the Hate Crime Laws that have been around since the 60's?

Or just the addition of the LGBT community to the already existing laws?

[Bluebear]

27. Hate crimes victimize a whole community. They are intended to terrorize many, many people.

It's a shame you don't see this.

[sniffa]

50. Look at his response to me

he's obtuse, and intentionaLLy so.

this thread is fLamebait, and nothing more. i'm sorry i tried to actuaLLy speLL it out some to him, since he obviousLy had no intention of having a "diaLogue" in this thread.

[catnhatnh]

57. No...

...I may have missed a reply.This thread may be the fastest I've ever posted but Sniffa I have read and respected a ton of your stuff I 've seen.Please believe that I believe what I've posted and va;ue your opinion.

[cuke]

63. No, youdidn't miss his post

You responded to it

[NoGodsNoMasters]

30. This point has been brought up before...

But i just want to throw my two cents in and simplify if I can. There is a fundamental difference between a hate crime, and random, pointless cruelty. In both cases the victims suffer the same, physically, however... The difference lies in motivation, as opposed to a random attack, a hate crime is meant to project that an entire ethnicity/orientation/religious group are not safe and not welcome, this message carries on to the family friends and associates of the victim. These people suffer too, in both cases, but in the case of a hate crime not only do they feel hurt and upset about they're loved one, they have to live with the fear that it could and very well might be them, soon. Moreover, to be the victim of an act of hate is not only hurtful, but dehumanizing, you're not a human being, you're a "faggot/nigger/kike/pakkie/what have you". the victim is made to feel that they are no longer an individual, but a part of a mass, one of "those people." Moreover, if someone is convicted of an act of random violence, there could be mitigating circumstances, they might not do it again, but a person convicted of a hate crime obviously is motivated to hurt and destroy a group of people and will most likely do so at every oppertunity. Lastly, because the harsher sentences act as a deterrant, and help keep these endangered groups safe. As someone who's never been inclined to commit such an act (Unless republicans and rednecks become a protected minority group.) these laws don't bother me in the slightest.

[sniffa]

51. nope, sorry. no difference.

:eyes:

good Luck getting a response.

[David Zephyr]

32. Burning a cross in the yard of a black family is not just "vandalism". It's a message to intimidate.

Sending terror into children's hearts with burning crosses on someone's lawn is not just vandalism, it is meant with all the evil and malice one can muster to deliver a "message" of intimidation to the victim.

Painting swastikas on the homes and temples of Jewish Americans, knowing full well what horror that symbol represented, is not just vandalism, it is motivated intimidation and constitutes a "threat" to the victim.

I imagine that you are a white, heterosexual man who is non-Jewish. Please tell me I am wrong so that I could wonder what made you post such a thing. If not, then you are hardly in the shoes to discuss the validity of hate crimes.

[catnhatnh]

60. No Sir,

You have caught me completely. I am all you claim. And in fact recognize the vast difference between spray-painting "Brittney Rules" and "Jews Die" on a wall. I'm just not sure how to lay it down in law.Nor am I yet convinced it needs to be.I know that the "Jew" line could be written a thousand times and convince no one I know-Neither would the Brittany.
I am saying that there are just crimes.These must be prosecuted.It is wrong to delve into the "why"...This is better approached after a verdict is reached and then either the heniousness of a crime or the exculpation is determined.Then the (Federally Mandated) sentance can be made to fit the crime.

[cuke]

64. Try explaining instead of repeating

"It is wrong to delve into the "why"..."

Every crime takes motive into account. Why do you only have a problem when it's taken into acct with hate crimes?

"is better approached after a verdict is reached and then either the heniousness of a crime or the exculpation is determined.Then the (Federally Mandated) sentance can be made to fit the crime."

That's exactly how it's done with a hate crime. So what's your problem?

[David Zephyr]

69. I didn't "catch" you as the straight, white, non-Jewish man . Your post revealed it.

One day in the shoes of one of us, and you'd see things differently.

You write naively, even though I think you mean well, that hate crimes are "better approached after a verdict is reached and then either the heniousness of a crime or the exculpation is determined.Then the (Federally Mandated) sentance( sic) can be made to fit the crime."

When you are black man depending on an all white judge and jury, expecting a "sentence to fit the crime", history teaches us even up until today, one's expectations for justice are nil. Nil. The same applies to gay victims of crime who are lectured by judges, even now, that they had it coming. This is true with all minorities who have been murdered, intimidated, and suffered great losses at the hands of discriminating judges.

How so many decent white, straight, non-Jewish or non-Muslim men can see discrimination and the crime of the hate behind any small statutory infraction is a testament to the goodness that even you can achieve if you would open your mind.

[Skittles]

34. let me guess....you are a white male

yup

[Rhythm and Blue]

41. Two or so weeks ago,

my fiancée (white, female) was going on a walk around her grandparents' house after visiting them for dinner. On the way, two black adolescants (maybe 16, 17, she guessed) drove up to her, shot her twice with a paintball gun, and yelled "Next time it won't be paint, you white bitch!" It was night; she didn't get their plates. And she's been walking in that neighborhood for years, and has always gotten along well with her neighbors.

That is racially-motivated assault. That is a hate crime.

I know it's not anywhere near as common, but white folk living in black-dominated neighborhoods can be the targets of racism too.

[Skittles]

47. I never said they couldn't be

I am saying that everyone I have every heard bitching about "hate crimes" are always white males

[Evergreen Emerald]

36. hate crime intimidates a whole class of people

that is why it is different.

[abq e streeter]

54. just noticed the post above mine said similar thing to me

and have been thinking that calling them "hate" crimes trivializes the reality of them. "Hate" should not be a crime; people have the right to hate anyone they want to, as long as they don't act on it or incite others to. However, the thing about hate crimes is that there is inherently either the intent or at least the consequence, of the intimidation of an entire group of people; i.e. the burning of a cross on one black person's lawn is an implicit threat against every other black person...I wish these were called crimes of group intimidation or something like that ; it would get the point across of why they need to be an enhanced class of crime.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

59. Excellent point. "Intimidation" is better langauge

[Captain_Nemo]

62. Read how Jews were treated in Pre-Nazi Germany - then you will know why.

[Midlodemocrat]

67. How can you say that? How can you say that people who are

victims of a crime simply because of who they love, or the color of their skin are the same as the white guy mugged in the train parking lot on his way to work?

Tell Mathew Shephard and James Byrd that there are no such things are hate crimes. Oh, wait. You can't. They're dead simply because of WHO THEY WERE.

This is a horrible OP. I hope you reconsider your position on this.

[NMMNG]

68. You are wrong about this

Hate crimes are not only committed against the victim(s), they are committed against the entire group the victim(s) belong to. They are intended to intimidate and denigrate everyone in that group. That's why they're different than ordinary crimes. That's why they require stiffer penalties.

[fightindonkey]

70. I Didn't Know Obama Posted Here

The religious right is protected.