The_Dude

the purpose would be to prevent your hating from turning into something illegal (like intimidation)

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

gibber71

We need the policing of "hate crimes" because if we didn't have it,there would be no victim.Without a victim,there is no avenue for retribution or profit for specific individuals or groups that comprise different cultural groups.

Scipio

My understanding of hate crime legislation is that it would make crimes that are racially/ethnically/etc. motivated aggravated crimes, which would carry stiffer penalities. Although this might seem like punishing someone soley for the ideas they have, it's worth pointing out that if you're assessing risk (which a part of determining punishment), some who will commit crimes out of racism is a bit more dangerous, because everyone he hates is a potential victim, and he hates a lot of people.

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

geep

So execution becomes more of a deterrent to a "hate crime" murderer than to a casual murderer?

smooth

No, it doesn't, but taking one's life doesn't result in the death penalty in all cases.

Hate crime factors could be used to elevate the crime to one punishable by death (but aren't necessarily) and there are other crimes besides killing someone else.

For example, assaulting someone simple because they are an ethnic minority can now be punished more severely than assaulting someone because you are in a drunken fight in a bar.

/still confused over how people refuse to understand that what you intend to do and why you intend to do it are important elements of a crime (and always have been).

Lebell

smooth,

I understand what you are saying, I just refuse to accept your premise that that a victims's sexual orientation, race, etc. are more relevant than their marital status, income bracket or any other factor when sentencing a criminal.

To make it so insults the whole idea that we are all equals under the law.

Now what can't you understand about that?

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

The_Dude

here's another take.

if somebody assaults somebody just because of thier race/sex/sexual orientation etc...., it means that the whole group is at risk of being victims to the person.

so, if the person is let out after serving the sentence (w/o hate crime), he/she can do it again. but w/ the added sentencing, he/she is off the street for the added time.

it's flimsy, but it keeps us safer

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

smooth

Well, where did you get your concept that we are all equals under the law? We may have guaranteed rights, but that doesn't necessarily mean we all have the same rights under all laws.

Law is the complex interaction between society and lawbreakers. We allow the law to protect particular things we hold important--we create special laws to protect groups that can't, won't, or are restricted from protecting themselves.

We have laws that protect property, the environment, people, and groups (children, aged, and now ethnic minorities), etc.

"Hate crime" legislation is a social statement that our society protects various groups from harmful acts that would otherwise occur against them simply on the basis of attributes they were born with.

Did you read the links I provided?

Here is an interesting point:

"When we talk about INTENTIONAL CONDUCT, we're talking about situations in which people set out to accomplish something and they try to realize that accomplishment exactly as planned. They have a mental picture in their minds, so to speak, of precisely how they want things to turn out. There's no accidents, no complications, no side effects, just true intent. Intent is a legal concept that goes beyond Purpose.

Probably the best way to understand Intention is to understand it's opposite -- Negligence. The irony is that the concept of Intent comes into criminal law from tort law and notions of liability. But even long ago, Roman lawyers distinguished between the terms dolus (intention) and culpa (fault, negligence). These terms have become the basis for criminal and civil responsibility, respectively. It's widely assumed that committing a crime intentionally is much worse, more culpable, more blameworthy, than committing a crime negligently. But where do we draw the line between intention and negligence? The answer is that intention is closer to motive, the idea that there was a special inducement to commit the crime. Motive, considered along with Intent, help us easily distinguish harmful consequences from blameworthy and non-blameworthy accidents. Negligence is a blameworthy accident in which a person didn't exercise a reasonable degree of care. Negligence lacks a motive, however, and the only defenses to it are mistake and justification."

geep

I think the point Lebell was trying to make was that adding sentences to existing crimes for "hate" makes other victims of the same crime less than victims of the "hate" crimes. Am I right?

Lebell

geep,

That was exactly the point I was making, but it seems to be lost on smooth.

So much for "Blind Justice".

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

smooth

I understood exactly what he was claiming. Do you notice how inconsistent your view is with how our law has historically and currently works?

Using that same logic, you would have to conclude that victims of spontaneous murder are less important than when their attackers planned it beforehand because we have two different crimes and punishment for those, as well.

If I hit you with a bat out of malice and you can prove it in court then I will have a more severe charge and sentence than if I had merely hit you because I was angry or even without feeling--accidental or in self-defense.

Our legal system is based on the intent and what we are arguing over in terms of what constitutes "thought" in regards to the offender--how violently did he or she violate our social norms. It is not about justice between a victim and offender--that's the role of civil lititgation. Criminal trials are purely between the state and offender.

I would be very surprised if either of you have had extensive experience with the criminal infrastructure. If you don't have personal experience, how do you get your information--from the movies, media, rumor, perceptions, etc.

The legal system is a codified struggle over values and beliefs--thoughts. Whether you like it or not, the people in charge of the legal structure create legislation that controls actions and thoughts--we learn society's norms via people close to us, educators, distant relations (work, friends, etc), and also the law.

Hate crime legislations is not some new, liberal attempt to control thought.

smooth

We finally agree. There hasn't been "Blind Justice" since Lombardo--if even then.

Lebell

Nonsense.

It is perfectly consistant and no amount of obfusication or ad hominim attack changes that.

The core arguement you are trying to make is that the status of the victim (gay, black, etc) should be taken into account during trial and sentencing. Further, you are trying to argue that this consideration is equal to the consideration we give to the criminal justice classifications of different types of homicide, e.g. first degree murder vs vehicular homicide, etc. Nothing is farther from the truth. Those classifications go to circumstance and intent whereas you would have us believe motive should also be considered.

This is an arguement I reject utterly.

No no and no.

The crimes are what they are and should be punished as such, regardless if the victim was a white business man or a black homosexual hairdresser.

This is as close as you've come to actually making a convincing arguement, but I can concede that there are aggravating circumstances (such as anger or lack of) which might enhance or mitigate sentencing PROVIDED that these rules are applied evenly.

Can you see the difference from this and what you are argueing for?

Can you see how you've contradicted yourself?

You say that the "trials are purely between the state and the offender." yet you are argueing that a particular trait of the victim be considered in the trial.

If it is as you say, then the victim should sue the offender if they feel additional victimization due to other factors.

You can't have it both ways.

Ad hominim attack not even worth response.

Something else we agree on, except that I would add that it is the citizens who are ultimately in charge of the legal structure and as a citizen, I am saying NO to the offensive idea of a "Hate Crime". Now it remains to be seen how many fellow citizens I can convince so we can elect people to office that agree with us.

Yeah, right.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

geep

O.K. Time to for a story.

A dog is hanging out in an predominantly dog neighborhood. He's a little broke and is try to figure out ways to get cash. He sees a cat walking down the street towards him. The cat is afraid to be in a dog neighborhood, but is there on business. The dog figures the cat has money and robs him. During the course of the robbery, the dog assaults the cat physically and verbally, using derogatory language degrading cats in general. He is arrested and indicates that he robbed the cat simply because he was a cat. He states that he doesn't like cats. He also states that it was simply a crime of opportunity, and that he probably would have robbed someone else if the cat had not come along. The cat was clearly chosen to be a victim because of who he was, yet it was not the "motive" for the crime. The case has all the classic elements, including fear, of a hate crime. Should this be a hate crime? If not, why not. Who will be drawing the boundary on what type of thought constitutes a "hate crime". Wouldn't this be intrinsically dangerous and arbitrary?

Sparhawk

And then the cat votes Republican!!!

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

smooth

geep, you stated that the dog claimed he "would have robbed someon else" anyway.

You also state that there appears to be evidence that the dog robbed the cat solely on the basis that he was a cat.

Then you wonder who should decide and whether arbitrary application would be dangerous.

As in all criminal trials where the defendant does not admit the crime, a jury will decide whether the evidence is proof of a hate crime or not--citizens are the final "check" of legislation and they "draw the boundary."

It is not "intrinsically dangerous" (this danger is not a necessary component of the jury process nor is it built-in to it) but arbitrary application should be minimized--as it should be in any jury trial and not just "hate" cases.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

geep

If the dog is not charged with a hate crime, the jury cannot add the charge later.

smooth

As in all cases, the prosecutor charges the element as an enhancement factor and the jury decides if it applies after weighing the evidence.

BBtB

Okay. Everything else aside. How do you prove that a crime is racially motivated? I mean if 3 white guys kill a black man one night after they have all been out drinking it could be anything. If it was between 4 white guys you wouldn't give it a second glance (unless the victim was gay of course) but if it was 3 white guys and a minority you would (and you know you would) jump to the conclusion that it was a hate related crime. Now it is possible that that can be proven wrong later (nothing like good ol innocent to proven guilty for ya) but still. First impressions are a bitch. There is no physical way to know WHY someone did something. I mean you can prove that someone did something using physical evidence. You can prove if they planned it as well. But there is no true way to get inside of their head and PROVE, beyond a shadow of a doubt, why they did it. Oh sure, there can be plenty of hearsay and conjecture. But there is still no way of knowing 100%

__________________
Meridae'n once played "death" at a game of chess that lasted for over two years. He finally beat death in a best 34 out of 67 match. At that time he could ask for any one thing and he could wish for the hope of all mankind... he looked death right in the eye and said ...

"I would like about three fiddy"

smooth

Good points, BBtb.

These issues permeate all criminal trials. We have to order and trust that jury members don't leap to such conclusions without evidence they deem as proof.

I haven't ever prosecuted a crime enhanced by "hate" (or malice, for that matter, which is an enhancement factor in some states), so I can only presume the burden falls on the prosecutor to provide evidence along the lines of a confession or an accumulation of past behaviors that exhibit a hatred towards a particular category of people.

edit: and you are correct in implying that the mere fact that 3 guys harmed 1 of a different category is proof of anything, much less the reason for the crime.

Your reservations can be eradicated by reading a few transcripts (they are public record). Any prosecutor who wants to secure a case is going to present more evidence because your counterclaim (that any reason could have been the motivator absent any evidence regarding one's motive) is a claim any defense attorney (assuming the attorney cares about his or her client) would make and a claim the jury is required to agree with.

I find it interesting that many of the people here have argued elsewhere that murderers should basically be shot upon arrest, shouldn't be given extensive appeals, and certain laws shouldn't raise concern since they don't affect people who aren't doing wrong. Yet, here we are given a situation where someone has committed the crime but those same people are defending the accused from stiffer punishment even if they specifically targeted someone (which is an enhancement factor in other types of crimes, already).

unintentional -- low level of punishment

intentional, but general -- slightly higher level of punishment

intentional, and specific -- higher level of punishment

intentional, and specific, and planned -- highest level of punishment

always been, currently is, and likely always will be the scenario

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

seretogis

That is a pretty lame justification, imho. If someone commits a violent crime, the entire populace of the area is at threat of becoming another victim. We put people in jail in order to protect the populace, not just as a form of punishment.

By jailing a murderer of a gay man for twice as long as a murderer of a straight man, you are suggesting that the gay man's life is worth more than that of the straight man and that protecting the "gay community" is more important than protecting the "straight community." To make such judgements is un-American.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Sparhawk

To make blanket statements like 'To make such judgements is un-American' to make your point is Un-American, and a little too much McCarthy for my tastes.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

seretogis

Uhh.. to make the point that every citizen who is made a victim should be considered equal under the law, is un-American?

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames