Hate Crimes, eh? Good laws, or a bunch of BS?

[Conductor42]

Hate crime laws are just frankly crap, and that the outspoken homosexual lobby has embraced it is evil.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...1&postcount=19

While DDW and I take different positions on the role of govt. in marriage (I think - correct me if I'm wrong), I think she hit the bullseye on this one. Hate crimes are full of crap. Utterly, entirely full of crap. I can't think of one good reason they ought to exist. If someone burns down a synagogue because they hate Jews, they've already committed a crime - arson. If someone attacks a black man because he's black, he's already committed assault and battery. A crime is a crime is a crime. Who cares about the motivation for it, we don't have 'love' crimes on the books now do we?

So, can anyone come up with a convincing argument as to why 'hate' crimes should be on the books?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Because we want to try to condemn attitudes today more than actions. DDW is entirely correct. Being a racist is not a crime. It would just mean that the person is a jerk. We can't force anyone in society, for instance, to believe that blacks and whites are equally human or that Jews are not detestable or that evangelical Christians are not idiots.

What we can do is try to restrict them from acting on those beliefs in ways that are directly harmful to others. I'm with DDW again, for instance, on homosexuality being a sin and wrong. That doesn't mean though that I get to play judge, jury, and executioner and go out and attack homosexuals. In fact, as a Christian, I should do the opposite. I should show love for them as persons while not bending a bit on their actions.

I find it rather amusing though that the society that is so much into the idea of "tolerance" in the same breath wants to have hate crimes against attitudes that they don't like. When someone champions tolerance and all views being equal, they don't mean that at all. They mean that all views other than theirs are equally wrong and their view is the one that deserves to be "tolerated."

[$cirisme]

Well motivation does matter, this is why someone will get a much harsher penalty if he spent months planning a murder (1st degree murder) versus someone who killed out of the heat of passion (manslaughter).

One could argue that if you assaulted a black man because of race, that you are more dangerous to society than if you just assaulted him because of opportunity, or for money. The hate inherent in the first is inherently dangerous to society and we must deal more strictly with it to eliminate it.

I don't necessarily agree with all the ideas that surround hate crimes, but I do think motivation should play a part in sentencing crimes. I don't think it can be so simply brushed off as "full of crap" as you do.

[$cirisme]

Because we want to try to condemn attitudes today more than actions. DDW is entirely correct. Being a racist is not a crime. It would just mean that the person is a jerk. We can't force anyone in society, for instance, to believe that blacks and whites are equally human or that Jews are not detestable or that evangelical Christians are not idiots.

What we can do is try to restrict them from acting on those beliefs in ways that are directly harmful to others. I'm with DDW again, for instance, on homosexuality being a sin and wrong. That doesn't mean though that I get to play judge, jury, and executioner and go out and attack homosexuals. In fact, as a Christian, I should do the opposite. I should show love for them as persons while not bending a bit on their actions.

I find it rather amusing though that the society that is so much into the idea of "tolerance" in the same breath wants to have hate crimes against attitudes that they don't like. When someone champions tolerance and all views being equal, they don't mean that at all. They mean that all views other than theirs are equally wrong and their view is the one that deserves to be "tolerated."

Thought crimes definitely shouldn't exist. But read Yoshi's post again, that's not what we're talking about. We're asking whether a person's motivation for committing an existing crime should be taken into account.

If it shouldn't in the case of hate (to use the lack of a better term), why should we differentiate between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder?

[historic salve]

Who cares about the motivation for it, we don't have 'love' crimes on the books now do we?

That may be because there's no such thing as a "love crime".

[Conductor42]

That may be because there's no such thing as a "love crime".

Sure there are, we just don't label them as such.
For example, a teacher falling in love with a high school student and one of the lovers ending up pregnat.

[Tladatsi]

Hello Agent Yoshi,

The legal systems of most countries, certainly the US, are based on in no small part the motivation of the perpetrator. In many states there are basically four degrees of criminal unlawful death. In California for example, there is involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, second degree murder, and first degree murder. There can be "special circumstances" which include, for example, the death of a peace officer, multiple deaths, financial gain. Although the term is not used, one of the 22 special circumstances is "hate crimes". There are of course different sentences associated with each crime. In California, the death penalty is reserved for first degree murder with special circumstances.

The essential difference between each of these four unlawful deaths is the state of mind of the perpetrator. The difference between first degree and second degree murder in California, like almost every state, is "malice aforethought" while second degree murder is commonly thought of a spur of the moment murder. Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act. The usual distinction from voluntary manslaughter is that involuntary manslaughter is a crime in which the victim's death is unintended.

The difference is entirely the state of murders mind, intent. So the severity of punishment is a directly tied to the intent of the perpetrator. The more reprehensible the intent, the greater the penalty. The theory being that the greater the penalty, the greater the deterrence. Also of course, all of the special circumstances are conditions with historical occurrence, i.e. these things have actually happened so they are not so theoretical condition.

The people of California, and most other states viewed "hate crimes" as sufficiently reprehensible, and have occurred with sufficient frequency, to provide the necessity of requiring greater deterrence.

I would add in the case of hate crimes, they have historically gone not been prosecuted. For example, a Chinese man is beaten to death in Detroit simply because his white attackers (with malice aforethought) thought he was Japanese, but his attackers get probation. There are innumerable other examples. Hate crime provisions are intended counter this long standing problem.

Convincing?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...1&postcount=19

While DDW and I take different positions on the role of govt. in marriage (I think - correct me if I'm wrong), I think she hit the bullseye on this one. Hate crimes are full of crap. Utterly, entirely full of crap. I can't think of one good reason they ought to exist. If someone burns down a synagogue because they hate Jews, they've already committed a crime - arson. If someone attacks a black man because he's black, he's already committed assault and battery. A crime is a crime is a crime. Who cares about the motivation for it, we don't have 'love' crimes on the books now do we?

So, can anyone come up with a convincing argument as to why 'hate' crimes should be on the books?

[Dee Dee Warren]

What I think everyone is missing is the special categorization of "hate crime" - we already have issues of intent and motive in our system of law for the already existing crime. We don't need to add another "crime" hate to the list. It is not illegal to hate anything. It is illegal to act out on it, and thus we already have a system for that. What today's "hate crime" crap is doing is making some victims more special than others.

If I get attacked because someone doesn't like the shape of my nose, I get less consideration than if someone is attacked because someone doesn't like that they are homosexual.

BTW, motive isn't always necessary to prove a crime. It helps but it can be irrelevant to the crime. There are seemingly motiveless crimes.

This isn't about motives. It is masquerading as being about motives. It is about special privileges for certain victims.

[Hamster]

Don't know where I stand on this one. I don't like the sound of "hate crimes" but it seems like motive should factor in to how a crime is prosecuted. For example, if a group of men dress up in KKK outfits and go on to someone's private property and refuse to leave, it seems like they should be charged with more than just tresspassing.

Say Bob vandalizes a co-worker's house. He spray paints a message on their garage door. It is either of these messages:

A) YOU'RE A JERK
B) YOU'RE A XXXXXXX


Bob-A hates his neighbor because his neighbor plays his stereo too loud.

Bob-B hates his neighbor because they are african american and he doesn't want african americans in his neighborhood

Isn't B's crime worse than A's? Doesn't the context that the crime takes place in count for how bad it is?

[Nicholas]

Well motivation does matter, this is why someone will get a much harsher penalty if he spent months planning a murder (1st degree murder) versus someone who killed out of the heat of passion (manslaughter).

One could argue that if you assaulted a black man because of race, that you are more dangerous to society than if you just assaulted him because of opportunity, or for money. The hate inherent in the first is inherently dangerous to society and we must deal more strictly with it to eliminate it.

I don't necessarily agree with all the ideas that surround hate crimes, but I do think motivation should play a part in sentencing crimes. I don't think it can be so simply brushed off as "full of crap" as you do.

I've gotta agree with Cir here. While I do have some problems with how hate crimes are defined, I think that there is a legitimate reason for it. For example, we wouldn't consider someone burning a cross in the front yard of a black family or painting a swastika on the car of a jewish family to be the same as some other act of vandalism, such as egging someone's house. For similar reasons, I think that the motivation behind other crimes, such as murder, should be taken into account as well.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Again we have more special victims than others. I think the adequate redress is already in place in the system we have. A person could paint a swastika on a Jewish family's home for reasons other than hate. A gang initiation, they are young and stupid and think it is funny - whatever.

If there is a pattern of intimidating any particular group - there are already laws in place for that too.

Hate is not illegal. Hate is not a crime. What I think is what I think.

The way "hate crime" crap is going on now is giving groups special privileges and is politically correct to the core. Our current system already can deal with this without the ultimate objective then to make everyone who has racist ideas or is opposed to homosexuality or whatever an immediate thought criminal of the crime of hate. Some people have racist ideas for reasons other than hate... and so on. They may be looney or grossly mistaken, but it is just oh so much the fad today to create special classes and anyone who thinks anything that they don't approve of them is a "hater" and not only that, their hate is criminal.

[$cirisme]

What I think everyone is missing is the special categorization of "hate crime" - we already have issues of intent and motive in our system of law for the already existing crime. We don't need to add another "crime" hate to the list. It is not illegal to hate anything. It is illegal to act out on it, and thus we already have a system for that. What today's "hate crime" crap is doing is making some victims more special than others.

You're looking at it only from the angle that if someone is attacked and is black, or homosexual, or a woman, or whatever the case may be, the attacker would automatically get a more serious punishment.

But that's a straw-man. No one is saying that. What should be done should be based on the motivation of the attacker, not the special circumstances of the victim.

Just as we would punish a man who spent months poisoning his wife (thus showing premeditation, and planning) harsher than a man who killed someone else in the heat of passion during a fight, we should punish anyone who for years festers in their hate for a group to the extent that it blisters out and results in crime not primarily based on heat of passion or something spur of the moment, but something that really is in a way premeditated.

If I get attacked because someone doesn't like the shape of my nose, I get less consideration than if someone is attacked because someone doesn't like that they are homosexual.

Seriously. This is a really dumb argument. I've had a few responses to write here, but I just can't post any of them because I am just too personally embarrassed for you for making such this retarded argument.

BTW, motive isn't always necessary to prove a crime. It helps but it can be irrelevant to the crime. There are seemingly motiveless crimes.

Not sure why this is relevant, since we are talking about cases where motive is known or can be found.

This isn't about motives. It is masquerading as being about motives. It is about special privileges for certain victims.

Repeating a straw man doesn't make it true, nor does it make it less of a straw man.

[Dee Dee Warren]

You're looking at it only from the angle that if someone is attacked and is black, or homosexual, or a woman, or whatever the case may be, the attacker would automatically get a more serious punishment.

That is what is going on in much of "hate crime" legislation.

But that's a straw-man. No one is saying that. What should be done should be based on the motivation of the attacker, not the special circumstances of the victim.

But there are people saying just that. That is what Yoshi and I are referring to. The straw man (and I believe it is unintentional) is that we are speaking of two different things and not realizing it in the conversation. The fact is that much of the "hate crime" legislation is indeed based on the special circumstances of the victim. That is what I am opposed to. It appears we are in agreement on that.

Just as we would punish a man who spent months poisoning his wife (thus showing premeditation, and planning) harsher than a man who killed someone else in the heat of passion during a fight, we should punish anyone who for years festers in their hate for a group to the extent that it blisters out and results in crime not primarily based on heat of passion or something spur of the moment, but something that really is in a way premeditated.

We are in agreement on that, and such is already in place in our justice system without the need for hate crime laws.

Seriously. This is a really dumb argument. I've had a few responses to write here, but I just can't post any of them because I am just too personally embarrassed for you for making such this retarded argument.

I think you have missed the point of my argument which is why you see it that way. Therefore I forgive you for those hurtful statements.

Not sure why this is relevant, since we are talking about cases where motive is known or can be found.

It is relevant to the extent that I wanted to make it clear that proving motive is not necessary to find someone guilty. A lot of people mistakenly think it is. Think of the cases where someone rich and famous is accused of rape and people disbelieve the charge because they so, "Why would he do that? He could already have nearly any woman he wanted." It is a common mistaken notion.

Repeating a straw man doesn't make it true, nor does it make it less of a straw man.

Since it appears we agree, there are no straw man but simply a failure to understand each other's point.

[$cirisme]

Again we have more special victims than others. I think the adequate redress is already in place in the system we have. A person could paint a swastika on a Jewish family's home for reasons other than hate. A gang initiation, they are young and stupid and think it is funny - whatever.

But motivation matters. If the gang was a bunch of Neo-Nazis that believed that Jews should be eliminated, then that IS a much worse crime than some other gang initiation, or vandalism, or whatever, and should be punished more heavily.

Motives should always be used in determining the punishment for a crime. When I say that I support harsher punishments for so called hate crimes, that's exactly what I mean.

I think that it's right to punish people for premeditation and planning of a crime, and I think that "hate" is in some ways just another form of premeditation and planning, but doing so without necessarily knowing the exact victim you will unleash upon when that finally happens.

Hate is not illegal. Hate is not a crime. What I think is what I think.

Neither is planning a crime. Neither is premeditation. (at least, until you tell somebody else, then it becomes conspiracy. But then, so does the "hate" we're talking about.) So I fail to see your point.

The way "hate crime" crap is going on now is giving groups special privileges and is politically correct to the core. Our current system already can deal with this without the ultimate objective then to make everyone who has racist ideas or is opposed to homosexuality or whatever an immediate thought criminal of the crime of hate.

I'm sure there are some who hold that as a goal. But to use that as a reason to dismiss the whole enchilada is dumb. You know I don't hold those ideas, for example.

Some people have racist ideas for reasons other than hate... and so on.

Of course; hate is an outcome, not a cause.

They may be looney or grossly mistaken, but it is just oh so much the fad today to create special classes and anyone who thinks anything that they don't approve of them is a "hater" and not only that, their hate is criminal.

So you're opposed to hate crime laws because.... it's popular?

[$cirisme]

That is what is going on in much of "hate crime" legislation.

Examples, please.

But there are people saying just that.

Ok. I argue, as I usually do, for how things should be. Not how they are or who says them.

We are in agreement on that, and such is already in place in our justice system without the need for hate crime laws.

Maybe. I'm not very familiar with criminal law or the practicalities of how things actually work out. As I was saying above, I argue for how things should be as a practical result.

I think you have missed the point of my argument which is why you see it that way. Therefore I forgive you for those hurtful statements.

No, I understood it, and I understand how ineffective and silly it is too. Sorry if for some reason you're hurt by what I said, that wasn't intentional, I just think your argument could have been better made.

It is relevant to the extent that I wanted to make it clear that proving motive is not necessary to find someone guilty. A lot of people mistakenly think it is. Think of the cases where someone rich and famous is accused of rape and people disbelieve the charge because they so, "Why would he do that? He could already have nearly any woman he wanted." It is a common mistaken notion.

I still don't understand how it's relevant. We're talking about cases where ideally 1) motivation was had and 2) it could be proven. What you say is true (and I agree it is a common misconception) but nobody here is talking about applying it to cases where motives aren't/can't be known.