Why do we have hate crime laws?

[Spartacus]

This came up in another thread, and I'm curious enough about the subject to make a new thread just for this topic.

The question is in the title. Why are hate crime laws- whether state or federal, if it makes a difference- enacted? What is the argument for imposing harsher penalties? Also, what is the purpose of statutes about collecting and reporting statistics about hate crimes, and how does this relate to prosecution? Would it be possible to collect reliable data on hate crimes without prosecuting them as such?

[Cow Poke]

Thanks, Spart - I'll be in a meeting for a couple hours, but also interested in this.

[Starlight]

The general idea is that if an assault is motivated by hatred of a group then it has some serious negative psychological effects on the victim and the group they belong to, much more so than if it were just a random assault. The obvious example is historical KKK lynchings, the primary purpose of which was generally to terrorize black people, rather than the obvious physical consequences of killing the individual person lynched.

Hate crime laws, are in a sense, anti-terrorism laws: They recognize that certain kinds of ways of committing crime against a group make them an act of terror designed to terrorize that group and make them fear for their safety, and not merely inflict physical damage on the actual person assaulted. The inflicting of terror upon the larger group is deemed itself a crime (a 'hate crime') and punished itself, in addition to the normal punishment given for the actual physical damage caused to the individual.

Wikipedia says:

Hate crimes can have significant and wide-ranging psychological consequences, not only upon the direct victim but on others as well...

Impact on the individual victim

psychological and affective disturbances; repercussion on the victim's identity and self-esteem; both reinforced by the degree of violence of a hate crime, usually stronger than that of a common one.

Effect on the targeted group

generalized terror in the group to which the victim belongs, inspiring feelings of vulnerability over the other members, who could be the next victims.

Effect on other vulnerable groups

ominous effects over minority groups or over groups that identify themselves with the targeted one, especially when the referred hate is based on an ideology or doctrine that preaches simultaneously against several groups.

Effect on the community as a whole

divisions and factionalism arising in response to hate crimes are particularly damaging to multicultural societies.

Hate crime victims can also develop depression.

Also, what is the purpose of statutes about collecting and reporting statistics about hate crimes, and how does this relate to prosecution? Would it be possible to collect reliable data on hate crimes without prosecuting them as such?

If a particular group is being terrorized in society, it's probably worth having some hard data on it rather than merely having anecdotal evidence, in terms of trying to formulate a policy solution. I suspect you could try and collect such data without prosecution, but it might be less accurate.

[lilpixieofterror]

This came up in another thread, and I'm curious enough about the subject to make a new thread just for this topic.

The question is in the title. Why are hate crime laws- whether state or federal, if it makes a difference- enacted? What is the argument for imposing harsher penalties? Also, what is the purpose of statutes about collecting and reporting statistics about hate crimes, and how does this relate to prosecution? Would it be possible to collect reliable data on hate crimes without prosecuting them as such?

If I remember my history it's because many areas down in the Deep South refused to prosecute those who murdered or beat up blacks back during the Civil Rights era.

[KingsGambit]

If I remember my history it's because many areas down in the Deep South refused to prosecute those who murdered or beat up blacks back during the Civil Rights era.

I know that's basically why the federal government passed anti-lynching laws in the first half of the 21st century, because it wasn't getting prosecuted on a local level.

I think at this point in time, now that we don't have widespread refusal to prosecute, the idea of a hate crime law is less necessary. If somebody does something to try to intimidate someone (like if somebody vandalizes a black house to try to scare them out of the neighborhood), the intimidation can be considered as an aggravating factor during sentencing... so I don't think it's necessary to make hate crimes a specific law category in themselves.

[Terraceth]

I know that's basically why the federal government passed anti-lynching laws in the first half of the 21st century, because it wasn't getting prosecuted on a local level.

I think at this point in time, now that we don't have widespread refusal to prosecute, the idea of a hate crime law is less necessary. If somebody does something to try to intimidate someone (like if somebody vandalizes a black house to try to scare them out of the neighborhood), the intimidation can be considered as an aggravating factor during sentencing... so I don't think it's necessary to make hate crimes a specific law category in themselves.

Yes, I agree with this. The original reason made some sense, but at this point all it seems to do is give a higher punishment for what seems an arbitrary reason. I don't see why killing someone because of their skin color warrants a higher punishment than killing someone because they made you angry.

[KingsGambit]

I don't know if it's necessarily arbitrary. For example, I'd argue there's a difference between arson to try to wipe out your business competition, and arson of your own property to try to commit insurance fraud. Both are bad, but I think the former should result in a higher sentence.

[Jaecp]

I know that's basically why the federal government passed anti-lynching laws in the first half of the 21st century, because it wasn't getting prosecuted on a local level.

I think at this point in time, now that we don't have widespread refusal to prosecute, the idea of a hate crime law is less necessary. If somebody does something to try to intimidate someone (like if somebody vandalizes a black house to try to scare them out of the neighborhood), the intimidation can be considered as an aggravating factor during sentencing... so I don't think it's necessary to make hate crimes a specific law category in themselves.

Do you happen to be a member of any community for which there are hate crime laws? What benefit do you think that an individual of that group might gain as a result of them? Is anyone being unfairly punished as a result? Hate crime laws and their punishment, broadly speaking, apply to people who are already getting charged, no? If there are benefits to these communities and the people getting punished by these laws really are burning down churches in black neighborhoods or robbing people to convince them to stay in their own part of town then what's the problem?

Put another way, the charge of arson is against the property owner. The charge of a hate crime is against the whole community. The class action lawsuit version of coercion through violence

[Cow Poke]

Yes, I agree with this. The original reason made some sense, but at this point all it seems to do is give a higher punishment for what seems an arbitrary reason. I don't see why killing someone because of their skin color warrants a higher punishment than killing someone because they made you angry.

But, in today's society, I don't think you'd ever be able to do away with the "killing somebody because they're gay" (or GLBTXPKTR) That's the new sacred cow, so to speak.

[KingsGambit]

If there are benefits to these communities and the people getting punished by these laws really are burning down churches in black neighborhoods or robbing people to convince them to stay in their own part of town then what's the problem?

The same crowd that most heavily supports hate crime laws also tends to be the most vocal about how the US is the highest imprisoner of any country in the world and how such a high percentage of people are in prison. So sending people to prison longer isn't a neutral issue, right?

I have to admit that I'm not all that passionate about this stance though. I would be hard pressed to defend treating blowing up a black church for the reasons you state as just an ordinary arson.

[Cow Poke]

Do you happen to be a member of any community for which there are hate crime laws? What benefit do you think that an individual of that group might gain as a result of them? Is anyone being unfairly punished as a result? Hate crime laws and their punishment, broadly speaking, apply to people who are already getting charged, no? If there are benefits to these communities and the people getting punished by these laws really are burning down churches in black neighborhoods or robbing people to convince them to stay in their own part of town then what's the problem?

Put another way, the charge of arson is against the property owner. The charge of a hate crime is against the whole community. The class action lawsuit version of coercion through violence

Yeah, it's more like you're 'gunning' for a segment of society, rather than a specific individual. I just wonder how many people have been charged and/or convicted of "hate crimes" when it really was a beef with that individual who happened to be black or gay or whatever, but that had nothing to do with the act.

[Starlight]

I just wonder how many people have been charged and/or convicted of "hate crimes" when it really was a beef with that individual who happened to be black or gay or whatever, but that had nothing to do with the act.

Well the point of courts is to decide whether the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt or not. They inevitably get it wrong sometimes with any crime. Plenty of innocent people have been executed for murder over the years.

[KingsGambit]

Well the point of courts is to decide whether the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt or not. They inevitably get it wrong sometimes with any crime. Plenty of innocent people have been executed for murder over the years.

Determining whether somebody committed a crime is a different type of question than how we label the crime.

[Cow Poke]

Well the point of courts is to decide whether the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt or not. They inevitably get it wrong sometimes with any crime. Plenty of innocent people have been executed for murder over the years.

I think there's even a phase of the trial that attempts to establish that it is, indeed, a hate crime - maybe evidence would be a guy's posting habits on facebook or websites he subscribes to, or blogs he writes or follows...

[KingsGambit]

I think there's even a phase of the trial that attempts to establish that it is, indeed, a hate crime - maybe evidence would be a guy's posting habits on facebook or websites he subscribes to, or blogs he writes or follows...

And sometimes they still get it very, very wrong... like the judge in Canada who found that assaulting a stranger while yelling "I hate white people" wasn't a hate crime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-a-hate-crime/