Hate Crime Legislation
 

Is it even necessary? Is it anything but disguising a crime as an involuntary physical response to intolerance? Is it merely liberal thought-policing?

A few quotes and links to get things started:

link: http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp
link: http://www.vutorch.org/vIi4/hate.htm
Obviously, because I am a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy against all peace-loving minority groups, I am more inclined to agree with the latter quote. It's just another social issue that the government really shouldn't get involved in. There are hundreds of PACs that should -- instead of preaching to legislators and buying them dinner -- buy time in local TV and radio stations to get the word out about their cause. It is up to society to change their bigoted views, not the government. I say this as a homosexual man of "mixed-ethnicity", so put aside the you-only-say-that-because-you-are-a-heterosexual-rich-old-white-male retort.

I agree that the way to equality for everyone is through education and evolution and not through punishment but until that time comes there needs to be some way to discourage such behaviour. That way is harsh ramifications for hate crimes.

Consider the treatment and the image of the black people. How many years have passed since their "freedom", and yet we are still told to fear the black person as if they are some inhumane monsters. There are reality-TV shows that serve that purpose only. Admit it or not, everyone has certain level of mistrust of someone of a different colour and it's nothing to be ashamed of. Evolution has taken us to this point. We are made to fear or be wary of someone who is different from us.

We are moving away from government endorsed segregation and racism toward societal & social segregation (read: ghettos) and discrimination.

Re: Hate Crime Legislation
 

This is one of those questions that sounds right when you first think about it. Unfortunately it doesn't really hold water. A few examples: Assasinations, children, women.

The intent behind a 'hate crime' is what puts me in favor of it. The intent isn't to simply kill the person, but to terrorize an entire neighborhood, community, ethnic group, and thus should be submitted to more potential punishment than an equivalent murder where the intent is simply to kill. We're not holding zaccarias moussiau(sp) to the same standard as the accountant who kills his adulterous wife, are we? Nor should we.

Interesting topic, thanks.

I also agree. To hurt or kill someone simply because you do not like their color, sexual preference, or religion should hold a higher penalty. Like the poster said above, it is not only an attack on that person but on their community as a whole.

I think that it's interesting that the supporters of hate crime legislation are usually critics of anti-terrorist legislation. Isn't terrorism a hate crime? Wasn't Moussaui planning a hate crime? Would he get the same attention from the ACLU if he were planning to bomb a Baptist church?

i really think we need extra laws on this.

here in texas, remember the black guy that got dragged (byrd i think his name was?)

I'm no defender of the ACLU (a favorite conservative punching bag), but the problem with your point is that hate crime legislation is about beefing up punishments. I'm all for anti-terrorist legislation that has longer, harsher sentences, but where I draw the line is when it starts infringing on basic human rights like due process and habeus corpus.

Big Difference.

Moussaui is being tried in the criminal justice system as though he were an American citizen. I don't believe he is being treated with blatant disregard for his basic human rights. The point I was trying to make is that he IS being treated different from, say, Terry Nichols or Bobby Frank Cherry. Are their crimes different?

Here is the difference.

Terry Nichols or Bobby Frank Cherryb = American Terrorist

Moussaui = Global Terrorist


The entire world is watching what happens to Moussaui and a bunch of it wants a peice of him.

Yeah his name was James Byrd Jr. And the scumbags who did it are on death row <b>"one for life and the others awaiting the executioner’s needle for chaining Byrd’s ankles to a gray 1982 Ford pickup truck bumper in the early morning hours of June 7, 1998, and dragging him to pieces along rural Huff Creek Road."</b>

And Death Row in Texas actually means it. There was no 'hate crime law' in Texas when this happened

<b>“Everybody thinks we prosecuted a hate crime,” District Attorney said. “In our opinion, we were just prosecuting a real bad murder. We did nothing on this because of race. This was a bad case, and we worked it from Day One as hard as we could. We were prosecuting a terrible murder that turned out to be a hate crime.”</b>


I remember a Anti-Bush ad that showed, from a trucks headlight point of view driving down a road narrated by one of Byrds daughters saying that when Bush didn't sign that hate crime bill it felt like they were killing her father all over again. Her fathers killers were brought to justice! What would a hate crime law do for skells getting the death penalty? No alcohol swab before the needle I guess. It's like a child saying "guilty plus infinity"!

A crime is a crime.


<a target=new href="http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?Category=23&ID=105621&r=0">Five years later, Jasper still dealing with Byrd killing - LINK</a>

Your right killing is still killing.


But, gay bashing is not just a bar fight.

Hypothetically: What if a few gay fellas decide to beat up on a straight guy- Is that a hate crime?

Why isn’t rape considered a hate crime? (IMO – this should be a death penalty crime)

Was OJ a hate crime? Why not?

If I get into a fight with someone of Italian background, being Irish does that qualify as a hate crime? (Move to Brooklyn and find out how important a difference race is)

If we're all created equal and justice is blind – what makes some else special in the eyes of the law?

I understand the need for special circumstances, kids, police, etc. But special laws will be abused.

I'm naturally curious why people think a piece of paper will make them feel safer. The laws that are on the books now are perverted all the time and not enforced properly, so the answer is making new ones? they'll be perverted even worse.

Good point. I think in some cases it can be. Hate against women. There are a lot of men out there that hate women because of the fact that they are women.

Quote:

Was OJ a hate crime? Why not?

No. He was pissed at his ex wife. So he went psycho. I don't think it had anything to do with her sexual preference, skin, color, sex, or religion.

Quote:

If I get into a fight with someone of Italian background, being Irish does that qualify as a hate crime? (Move to Brooklyn and find out how important a difference race is)

It is possible you can be charged with it but not likely. Italian on Irish crime is not as rampant and national as gay hate, racial hate, and religious hate. These are national issues that needed immediate attention.

Quote:

If we're all created equal and justice is blind – what makes some else special in the eyes of the law?

The fact that they are targeted because of their lifestyle and the fact that it has become a large problem.

Quote:

I understand the need for special circumstances, kids, police, etc. But special laws will be abused. I'm naturally curious why people think a piece of paper will make them feel safer. The laws that are on the books now are perverted all the time and not enforced properly, so the answer is making new ones? they'll be perverted even worse.

I agree. We need standardized laws that are well thought out and not picked apart by each side.

This is all about intent, a lot of you seem to be missing that point...

'If I get into a fight with someone of Italian background, being Irish does that qualify as a hate crime? (Move to Brooklyn and find out how important a difference race is)'

Are you fighting with him because you hate italians?

The 'why' seems to be missing from a lot of those against this form of legislation.

Intent being one of the more difficult things to prove in court. If a man tells a few jokes about gays in a bar one night and gets into a fight with a man one week later and kills him, only to find out later that he's gay, would this be considered a hate crime? Even if he knew beforehand that the man he was fighting with was gay but the fight was about something else is it? What if he just hates him as an individual? These are the questions that need to be asked before we blindly accept hate crime legislation.
And what about cases like Muhammad and Malvo. Could their crimes be considered hate crimes? If not then what makes their crimes less heinous or terroristic?

agree that intent is hard to prove.

so, what can we do?

prosecute for a hate crime ONLY when there is overwheliming evidence that the attack occuremed ONLY because of the person's race, color etc....

an example would be if the KKK did something or the black panthers did something

Intent is difficult to prove in court, so a hate crime has, by its very nature, a higher burden of proof than a similar crime.

Speaking as someone who firmly believes in racial and sexual equality, I believe that the notion of a "hate crime" is foolish.

Murder is murder.

And the same is true for other crimes.

Attaching additional penalities for the "thought" behind the crime smacks of 1984 and the "thought" police.

We already see 'thoughts' being prosecuting in the area of sexual moreys with men now being persecuted for taking pictures of underage CLOTHED girls (WITH parents consent!!)

I personally don't give a damn what you think of blacks/whites/gays, etc. so long as you don't act in a criminal fashon.

It would seem that hate crime legislation is needed in some states and not in others. Of course, the states that don't really need them are those that are condemned for capital punishment everytime they uphold the law. If all states were as interested in enforcing the laws as they are in passing them the problem would go away. I don't understand the need to specifically call a crime a hate crime - I see no need to discriminate against victims depending on who they are. A homosexual that is murdered is no different than a macho dude who meets the same fate. Crime is crime. It makes no difference if the victim is white, black, or purple - crime doesn't distinguish by race, creed, color, or national origin. We don't need new laws - we need fair and equal enforcement of the laws that already exist.

Do you really disagree that there are different levels of taking a life--each with its own culpability?

Justified homocide (I'm pretty sure you would retract your claim that "murder is murder" in this particular example).

Manslaughter I and II

Criminal negligence (homocide)

Murder (premeditated)

Heat of Passion

Insanity

Finally, hate on the basis of race, ethnicity, and possibly class.

Our courts already have a long history of distinguishing betwen diverse states of mind (mens rea)

I'm not sure where you get that. I see just as much white-trash and hispanics as I do black people on "COPS". :p

If I see a group of shady looking white punks walking down the street towards me in a "bad part of town", I would be just as concerned as if they were black, hispanic, native american, or hasidic jews. Race means less than upbringing, location, and social affiliations do nowadays.

Murder in the first degree = Murder in the first degree, regardless of whether it was a wife plotting against her husband for financial gain, or a klan member killing a homosexual out of hate. In both cases there is a lack of respect for human life which should be punished equally.

I didn't say that murder in the first did not equal murder in the first. Your statement, however, misses the mark. I stated that murder does not equal murder in the first (one element for that charge, by the way, is premeditation) and supported that with specific examples in the law in which murder does not, in fact, rise to the most heinous form we condemn--intentional, premeditated, and with malice.

Your example of a klansperson who kills someone purely based upon hate wouldn't rise to the level of first degree murder--even though the first one likely would. Various states have enacted legislation to enhance particular murders to rise to the same level of atrocity as murder in the first--namely that killing committed during the commission of another felony is enhanced, or in the vicinity of children, or, in this case, that the victim was chosen for no other reason than a minority group.

The arguments here against hate crime legislation depend upon the claim that it is either thought policing, political correctioness, or that one's state of mind ought to be irrelevant to the charging instrument and/or the ultimate sentence.

My examples indicate that all three of those points are contrary to the long historical application of the law (in regards to taking one's life, in particular) as well as its current state. One's mental state and intent have been and still are determinate factors in the charge as well as the sentence.

how far off are we from achieving equal and fair enforcement of the laws?

there are rampant cases of racial profiling and other issues that are going on in the nation.

yes, in a perfect world, we wouldnt need hate crime laws, but in today's world (at least for now) we do.

The major difference is that a hate crime is completely "unneccessary". It's killing or harassing somebody you don't know, because of things they can't help. There is no valid motive for committing a crime against somebody that way. In other cases you always have a motive; money, long-term hatred etc. Basically an action directed at improving one's position in life. When it comes to hate-crimes, there's no such reason. The victim could be anybody, and these types of actions truly damage whole cities, because they cause paranoia and mistrust.

It has nothing to do with with what type of murder is worse; the point is that hate-crimes truly damage society as a whole.

Re: Hate Crime Legislation
 

Are you really? Thats so cool.

I also think hate crimes are totally bogus. Of course I too am part of the vast right wing conspiracy(I never get invited to any of the meetings though) ... Well thats only half true but still. More on that later. The point is under current laws (or pre hate crime laws) murders still went to jail and often got the death sentance. Why do we need to single out the ones that did it because of "hate"? And beyond that what groups need to be protected by said laws? Blacks? Gays? Whites? What if I hate short people? What if I kill someone because he is short? Would I then be subject to hate crime laws? If not, then why not? If so, then where does it end? And also people are opening up the can of worms of one persons killer being more fitting for punishment then anothers because of the intent. What if I hate one family? I mean like 5 people. I kill one of them. I there for strike fear into the other 4. Should I there for be punished more harshly because I did it, atleast in part, to scare the others? This also assumes that these killings are well thought out well planned things. I think we are making a large assumption to say that everyone who kills someone else of a differn't race, because of race or whatever, did it for the sole reason to scare other people of said race.

In the end my opposition to hate crime laws boils down to two things. First, they are completly unnecessary. I mean what are we going to do? Kill them twice? I mean if all we did was unforce current laws we would be fine. We will in no way help the seperation of the races by staying that the death of a black man by a white man is some how more "Bad" then that same white man killing another white man. Secondly, even if I was to approve of them as a whole I would still have to be against them because of the ease of misuse of them (I.E. Anytime any body of another race kills someone else or kills a gay man it will be a hate crime)

I don't think killing someone over race is any different than killing someone cause they stole your wife or something. What they should instead do, especially with the case of the Byrd murder, is execute the criminal in the manner they commited their crime. I'm sure there are more than enough black people in Texas, and white people as well, willing to drag those dumbasses behind their trucks.

Racial profiling / including race (or gender, even) in suspect profiles is becoming less effective as years go by. When it becomes more of a hassle than it is an asset (which is only a matter of time, as certain ethnicities climb the socioeconomic ladder), it will be abandoned.

I don't think that I am missing the mark. Lebell stated generally that "murder is murder", and I believe that you misinterpreted it, and just listed various "degrees"/classifications of murder in hope of debunking him. Nowhere in Lebell's post did he even mention "first degree", so where you got that from is a little confusing. No, manslaughter is obviously not the same as murder-in-the-first as it is not premeditated, nor does it generally involve any intent to do injury. My brother faced involuntary vehicular manslaughter charges after a horrible car accident that he was in, and responsible for. Manslaughter is a different crime entirely.

As for "justified homocide" (sic, that gave me a bit of a laugh ;)), it does not involve the kind of thought-policing that hate crime legislation entails. A homicide is only justified if there was considerable threat of serious injury or death, and there was no option but to put down the attacker. Shooting someone who breaks into your house and steals your television but presents little or no physical danger to you would earn you some prison time (at least in MN). Distinguishing hate-motivated crime from other of the same degree, is a much more bold move than determining if someone was acting in self-defense by an examination of circumstance.

By specifying murder in the first degree I was hoping that you would see my point that if one person plans a murder because of financial gain, or someone else plans a murder because of the color of someone's skin, it doesn't matter. They are both the same crime and have the same results, and so should be punished equally -- hopefully not with seven year jail terms and probation.

Honestly, it seems to me that designating certain crimes as "hate crimes" merely gives them unintended power over the community that the crime was committed against. If someone who murders a homosexual is recognized as doing so out of hate for all homosexuals, then he is elevated from the level of a worthless human being that doesn't deserve to live, to that of a crusader that will end up giving his life for "the cause".

Re: Re: Hate Crime Legislation
 

No offense, but there is some ignorance of the way police do business here. Police never assume that 'anytime anybody of another race kills someone else' it is automatically a hate crime. This comes out from the nature of the crime, confessions of the defendant, witness statements, etc. Intent is something quite hard to prove, right up there with pre-meditation, no matter how easy it looks on Law & Order. So please don't assume that these sort of killings will be somehow 'rubber-stamped' through the judicial process because of a labelling of 'hate-crime'.

so, citizens should take up law enforcement?

Let's not get this offtrack here...

The reason "hate" crimes are being singled out for additional legal consideration is because of the fear perpetrated on other members of the community who share similar circumstances as the victim (race, religion etc.). These people in essence become victims, too. The level of the crime needs to be considered as part of the equation. Certainly a murder is a grievous crime, no matter what the reason behind it. But burning a cross on someones lawn is not simple vandalism. Hate crimes cannot be lumped into one simple category, and should not be addressed by sweeping legislation. Hate, in itself, while anti-social is not a crime.

Never said it, never suggested it.

But first degree murder is still first degree murder, whether or not it is the man who is sleeping with you wife or the gay man next store.

Same with second degree murder, manslaughter, etc.

And I'll repeat: The "hate crime" designation is an attempt to punish 'thought', which I cannot approve of.

And while you cleverly try to argue that the courts have a long history of distinguishing levels of offense based on "thought", what you fail to say is that in all the cases (save one), they are actually considering the intent surrounding the crime. In other words, did the perpetrator plan the crime, was it accidental, etc. Most people (myself included) find these are reasonable questions. In the case of mental insanity, the question becomes, did the perpetrator know what the did was wrong at the time of the crime (much simplified). This goes to mental state, not intent.

"Hate crimes" on the other hand, fall into the realm of motive.

Now we can argue all day whether or not motive has any place in sentencing, but in my mind, it is disingenious at best to consider motive when deciding on the severity of a crime, such as homicide.

If you have a problem with the severity of sentences in such cases, then I believe your complaint should rest on the sentence associated with the crime and not the motive of the criminal. Do do less is offensive to those victims who where not victims of a "hate crime" but who are victims nonetheless.

Re: Re: Re: Hate Crime Legislation
 

Of course I was never talking about police. Or atleast not specifically police. I was talking more about society as a whole. The thing is, most crimes that are (or are atleast callled) hate crimes these days get at least a little media attention. They may, depending on the type and severity of the crime, get national attention or it may just be a small article in the local newspaper. At any rate people tend to pay attention to them more. Newspapers (as well as the local news broadcasters) have alot of influence over the way people think. All it takes is for them to start claiming, justifiably so or not, that someones crime was race motivated. Then they start pressuring the local congress man or mayor to tack on a hate crime sentence to his regular sentance.

Do you really think the media can make a difference in a crime investigation? I mean I know they can get in the way and leak information but do you really think they can sway a judge into prosecuting someone not based on evidence but on media propaganda?

I agree. Punishing thought is deplorable at best. I repeat that hating is not against the law.

Murder is not the crime I would associate most frequently with "hate crime". No life can be measured by the motive of the taker. Adding punishment to these crimes shouldn't be possible because they need to have the maximum possible punishment, no matter why they were committed . There are crimes, however, whose entire intent is the intimidation of certain minority groups. These are true "hate crimes". The intimidation here needs to be punished, not the hate. In many cases it is already is a crime to do these things, but the punishment needs to be stepped up if the intent of the crime was to intimidate. Painting smiley faces on a bridge abuttment is not the same as painting a swastika on a person's front door.

geep,

I understand what you are saying, but you've compared apples to oranges.

Forgive me, but perhaps it is more relevent to ask if the punishment should be the same between painting a swastika and a smiley face on a bridge or painting them on a door.

In my mind, the answer is still "no", because if the image of the swastika is the problem, then shouldn't we just outlaw it all together? (and no, I wouldn't outlaw it.)

I guess I really don't want images or anything else outlawed. I have a right to hate anyone or anything if that is my choice. I do not have a right to intimidate anyone under any circumstances. I simply wanted to imply that murder is not the only crime that is commited which involves the "hating" of a specific minority. Other crimes can bear this stigma as well. These types of crimes can victimize a community, while being targeted at an individual. Whether this warrants special criminal code or not is the question asked at the beginning of this thread. IMO expressing yourself at the expense of someone else is not freedom of speech, but an abuse of that freedom. I will admit, however that most of the hate crime legislation that I've encountered does seem to want to punish people for what they think. Clearly, the current publicity of this problem is 'media spawned' to police thought, but it has some merit at it's very core.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate Crime Legislation
 

I think race issues are very important in the national debate, and to make believe and pretend that everyone is equal and is treated fairly is incredibly naive. Having a national spotlight cast on hate crimes is one of the most positive things about it, so we can *all* look at it, and maybe look within ourselves.

Yeah, we should bring back lynch mobs...

No, actually, I'm just saying if we're gonna change crimes, we should change the executions.

@Seretogis, sorry for the slip. I looked at my typo and thought about it after I posted it but by then it looked correct--nothing intentional.

My point regarding 1st degree murder was directed towards your post, not Lebell's.

@Lebell, you seemed to be suggesting that all murders were the same by stating that "murder is murder" and I replied by saying that not all life taking offenses were murder.

See if this helps or confuses the issues we are discussing:

Fundamentals of Criminal Law

Advanced Topics in the law of homicide: Intention

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

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.

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.

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

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).

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?

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

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."

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?

geep,

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

So much for "Blind Justice".

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.

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

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.

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?

And then the cat votes Republican!!! :rolleyes:

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.

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

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

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%

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

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.

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.

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