Am I the only "liberal" against hate crime laws?

It seems like the kind of 1984-ish stuff that we're always railing the * admin about...or maybe I need to be better informed on the issue?

What in the world is 1984ish about hate crimes?

I believe that is the thought process behind that...

Don't see the analogy, but thanks!

no matter who killed who.

is grafitti on the walls the same as swaztikias on a Jewish cemetery,just vandalism?. I think common sense,should always prevail.Motive is very important both at trial and, sentencing.As a member of a community who has been shit on by law enforcment for many years, I demand action. Give me a better solution , than force DA's and Cops to enforce existing Law. This issue seems to me like AA, in a sense that in a perfect world, these laws are superfluous. However,the are no alternate fixes.

If there is no evil intent, there is no crime in the action

:dunce:
interesting discussion...

and sentencing.

Hate is not an act. It is a motive or thought process.

But I don't know how to go any further in this train of thought.

There's 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder, manslaughter, negligent manslaughter, etc

Hate is not an act. It is a motive or thought process.

Money isn't an act either, it's a motive, and if you murder for money, you're getting more time than if you had murdered in the heat of the moment.

now to find out what that latin term above means....

What you're talking about is a person's "mental state," which is entirely different from their motive. "Heat of Passion" will reduce murder to manslaughter because a person is presumed not to be in control of themselves. Deliberately killing someone for money is as much murder as deliberately killing someone because they're black.

Now, if you killed a black person to indimidate the black population, then you have ANOTHER CRIME in addition to the murder, namely the intimidation. It doesn't change the legal status of the murder itself.

What you're talking about is a person's "mental state," which is entirely different from their motive

No, I was talking about motive. "Murder for hire" (motive) is punished with more severe sentences than a deadly bar fight.

Deliberately killing someone for money is as much murder as deliberately killing someone because they're black.

Not true. Murder for hire is considered more serious than a hate crime.

Now, if you killed a black person to indimidate the black population, then you have ANOTHER CRIME in addition to the murder, namely the intimidation.

That's just not true. The intimidation caused by a murder is not a crime itself.

I hope not, because nothing in your post is remotely accurate.

Murder for hire is premeditated. A deadly bar fight is not.

And many states have anti-intimidation statutes.

Either way, you're still talking about mental state, which is a legal concept distinct from motive.

Murder for hire is premeditated. A deadly bar fight is not

Murder is murder, according to you.

Either way, you're still talking about mental state, which is a legal concept distinct from motive.

Nope, we're talking motive. To prove a hate crime, there is no need to demonstrate the accused's mental state. All you need to do is to show motive.

MOTIVE, as distinct from MENTAL STATE, is NOT a factor in determining whether one has committed 1st degree murder, 2d degree murder, or manslaughter.

The difference between those things is the perpetrators mental state.

You are using legal terms to obfuscate. Mental state covers a lot of ground.

The ADL link suggests it does cover motive, but it's not entirely clear. Here's some of the text:

Finally, the Court made clear that "the First
Amendment . . . does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to
establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent."

Prosecutors do try to prove motive with evidence, so a court opinion talking about proving motive in court isn't necessarily conflating the two.

However, every criminal statute sets out the level of intent required for a conviction, and it's indicated with words like "knowing," "reckless," or "intentional." Those are the words you're looking for. Sometimes if a statute doesn't specify an intent requirement, it might be void (or is it that the highest level of intent, "intentional" is required? I can't remember).

When you talk about motivation, you're talking about the back story and not about the intent requirement. You could have a motivation, but without intent, you don't have a crime.

Here's a VA hate crime statute:

"for any person ... , with the intent of intimidating any person or group ... , to burn ... a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place," and specifies that "ny such burning ... shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group."

You have to have the intention to intimidate (accidents, or unknowing intimidation don't cut it) and you have to have the action "to intimidate." To make it easier, VA defines a specific act that constitutes intimidation (burning a cross).

I recognize that "intimidation" sounds like motivation, but I think it's also clear that VA is trying to tie it to concrete actions. Lynching, and other actions which seem to be vestiges of the civil war probably also qualify. Also, if you can't prove that you even knew your victim before hand, that would probably be persuasive evidence of group intimidation (and that would get into proving motive -- it's persuasive evidence, but it's not requird by the statute). So, intimidation sounds like, at least in VA, it has a tight connection to actions.

I should emphasize that I've given this more thought it the last 30 minutes I have in the previous many years, so I'm sure that someone who knows more about this can tell you more than I did. But I think that's a pretty good start.

From what you've posted, I don't blame you. However, I'm not sure if that was the best example of hate crime legislation to use. I realize it was just an excerpt, but it sounds like it's focused on burning crosses, as opposed to a more general group of hate crimes. It sounds as if it criminalizes cross burning, and not seperating the ordinary crime of cross burning from the more serious crime of cross burning for purposes of intimindation.

So now I'm wondering just how much these laws specify intimidation as a factor, and whether or not the intimidation factor is required. I'm also beginning to suspect that hate crime laws are a little like Affirmative Action - a general concept that has been implemented in myriad ways, some quite different than originally intended.

what other states say.

By the way, that was the hate crime statute that I believe the Sup Ct upheld in 2003.

http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/text_legis.asp

2. Bias-Motivated Crimes

A person commits a Bias-Motivated Crime if, by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation or gender of another individual or group of individuals, he violates Section ______ of the Penal code (insert code provisions for criminal trespass, criminal mischief, harassment, menacing, intimidation, assault, battery and or other appropriate statutorily proscribed criminal conduct).


A Bias-Motivated Crime under this code provision is a ______ misdemeanor/ felony (the degree of criminal liability should be at least one degree more serious than that imposed for commission of the underlying offense).

As you can see, there seems to be no requirement that there was an intent to intimidate. It only mentions that the crime be "by reason of..."

Not really. You are the one obfuscating here. Mental state is simply not the same thing as motive, no matter how much you want it to be.

The following are mental states:

Negligence
Knowing
Recklessness
Premeditation
Deliberation
Heat of Passion

The following are motives:

Because he's black.
Because she ran at me brandishing a knife.
Because she stole my car.
Because I wanted to prevent him from testifying against me.

The first category determines what you're guilty of. The second category may determine how much jail time you get.

(I tried not to put too many "legal terms" in there, so you wouldn't accuse me of "obfuscating.")

which something crimes involve.

And then there's strict liability. And that's a whole 'nother ball of wax which is not really germane to this discussion.

But if you like, I'd be happy to explain it to you.

discretion at sentencing.

Whether you fall in the range of years set out for any particular crime, it depends entirely on the first category. You have to have committed the action and had the required intent for that particular crime. Itentional murder carries a heavier penalty than reckless homicide.

Once you're convicted of that crime, the sentence might be at one or the other range of the range because of motive.

No?

Motive can go to the severity of sentence. But not to the particular crime charged or whether a person is guilty or innocent of that charge.

Hate crimes are not seperate crimes. They are just a finding of motive that allows a greater sentence to be imposed. That's why you haven't listed just ONE hate crime that's:

1) a seperate charge
2) requires proof of a person's thoughts to convict them of the underlying crime

have to be proven, and a conviction means that the underlying offense jumps up a degree.

They're not findings of motive that are given weight AFTER conviction of the underlying offence at the sentencing phase.

You have to be found guilty of the hate crime offense too, and they have intent requirements.

Statutes crimalize an action + intent. You need to do an act, and have the required intent (intentional, knowing, reckless). Why you were motivated to carry out that act ("my mom beat me so I hate women") isn't relevant. That you beat someone, that you picked the person because that person was a woman, and that you intended to beat the person, will convict you have a hate crime (if there's one relating to gender).

In court, the prosecutor will have an easier time getting the jury to understand the story if the prosectur can prove the motivation. Juries enjoy narratives. But just because you can't present a psychological portrait of the defendant that results in a logical narrative of the crime doesn't mean a prosecutor won't get a guilty conviction. You'll get the conviction so long as the prosecutor can prove the essential elements (which don't include motive).

This is a word game one can take either side of. "Possession with intent to distribute" is a crime with motive as an element.

You can take a step back and say a person's motive in possessing with intent to distribute (like wanting to get enough money to buy a certain car) need not be proven, but that's not real useful.

too.

And it is inferred based on circumstances, no? Like the amount you have.

You could always try to prove that you were not going to distribute it, based on whatever evidence you can put together.

And again, motive is a term of art in the law, and when prosecutors talk about proving motives, they're talking about things like proving that you just lost your job, you needed money, and they present evidence of opportunity, like you have a boyfriend who was a drug dealer, but motive and opporutnity aren't elements of the cirme that you need to prove to get a conviction.

If you catch a person with drugs that they've broken up into a hundred small bags, proving that alone is probably enough to get a conviction of possession with intent to distribute regardless of whether you can prove motivation and opportunity (or even if there is none -- even if you're only dealing drugs because you just want to).

"Motive" is not an element of possession with intent to distribute.

Intent is.

You may have absolutely no motive whatsoever and still be guilty of that as long as you had the intent to distribute. Put another way, the prosecutor does not have to introduce any evidence of WHY you intended to distribute it. It just doesn't matter. Only that you DID intend to distribute it.

an action for a conviction. You can plan and fail, or get stopped before you finish. You can still be guilty (conspiracy, attempted murder, etc.)

But it still is anticipationg actions (distribution) rather than anticipating motivations.

With hate crimes, the underlying act is what the perp is convicted on, and that doesn't require any showing of motive. However, it is my understanding that the increased penalties that are applied if it is a hate crime can be based on (aggravating) factors that are not needed to convict.

Maybe I should be clear about this, but I've assumed that hate crimes legislation doesn't create new crimes; it merely increases the punishment for already existing crimes that are somehow "based" (ie motivated, etc) on hate.

If you're doing additional time for something, the prosecution has to prove facts, satisfy their burden of proof, and the defendant has have the opportunity to rebut the charges.

I think there was a supreme court case on this in the last couple of years. There was some satute which tacked on years to a conviction for another offense (outside the range of years proscribed by that other offense).

The supreme court said you can't do that. You can only be penalized for crimes of which you're convicted through normal, contitutionaly-established criminal proceedings.

I could be wrong, but that VA statute seems to be a pretty clear example of a hate crime statute being a stand alone offense.

obviously a set of facts from a single event can give rise to several charges, but they're all separate offenses which the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

SCOTUS ruled that in order to impose the additional penalties that come along with a finding of a hate crime, the jury must find that, in addition to committing the criminal act, that it was a hate crime. Up until then, in some states, the jury only decided on the underlying crime and it was the judge who decided if the additional penalties applied. SCOTUS found THAT unconstitutional, but also said that if the jury made that decision, it was constitutional

I could be wrong, but that VA statute seems to be a pretty clear example of a hate crime statute being a stand alone offense

I agree, however I think it may be atypical. I suspect that most hate crimes legislation is based on crimes that already exist. However, that's obviously not the case with this law, though I would still consider it a hate crimes legislation.

obviously a set of facts from a single event can give rise to several charges, but they're all separate offenses which the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

My understanding is that hate crimes are not acts themselves, but rather an aggravating factor that can result in additional penalties.

http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/text_legis.asp

Reading quickly, it seems they call it a "sentence enhancement statute" because there's always an underlying crime which is aslo prosecuted. But these aren't merely statutes that give discretion at sentencing. They're separate crimes (misdemeanors) with their own penalties (so it seems) -- generally, the move up the tier of the underlying crime one degree, and they add a fine, or increase the fine one degree.

Apprently 43 states have hate crimes modeled on these statutes.

But you do have to prove they intended to act. If someon shoots a gun at someone intending for the bullet to hit that person, you have intent. It doesn't matter why they did it.

Whether murder for hire is considered more serious than a hate crime (presumably a murder) is a matter for individual state legislatures, and I don't know how you could say that without knowing the laws in all 50 states. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot of places which gave the same or greater sentences for murdering someone because of their race, relgion, etc, than they do for hiring a person to committ a murder.

Your third point -- I don't know the law, but isn't that how hate crime statutes are written? Don't they crimanilize the intent to intimidate a community (coupled, of course, with an action, such as an assault or a murder)?

It's not "criminalizing thought," or any other bullshit the right-wing might spew.

It's criminalizing an attempt to intimidate an entire community through crime.

so let me ask you, was I mistaken in saying that hate crimes are based on motive? Or is it really intent? "feelings"?


Your third point -- I don't know the law, but isn't that how hate crime statutes are written? Don't they crimanilize the intent to intimidate a community (coupled, of course, with an action, such as an assault or a murder)?

Funny, I was just asking you that. It was my understanding that crimes that are motivated by the perps "hatred" for certain groups was what defined a hate crime, but I could be mistaken. I don't think there's any need to show that the perp wanted to intimidate (intent as opposed to motive) a community.

...answer that question.

Thank to hate crime legislation we can punish someone more harshly when their crime was done to intimidate a certain group of people or encourage others to follow their example.

Now, if you killed a black person to indimidate the black population, then you have ANOTHER CRIME in addition to the murder, namely the intimidation. It doesn't change the legal status of the murder itself.

Here's why hate crimes are actually terrorist acts: They're crimes designed to intimidate federal, state, and local governments by forcing them to stop enforcing civil rights laws. Hate crimes laws should be abolished as separate crimes and put into the terrorist category, and those convicted should be rightly branded convicted domestic terrorists.

In many cases its a pretty grey area with terrorism.

Words are power

But these laws don't put someone in jail for thinking about "hating fags" or whatever....they are additional penalties for commiting a crime with the intention of showing all homosexuals how much you hate them.

I'm not very bright about legal matters, but that's my take on it.

are fine by me... of course, there's the question of how you prove that intent in court, but leaving that aside.

Additional penalties because of the murderer's feelings about the group to which the victim belongs? Not so good. That's venturing into "thought-crime" territory.

Intentional killing of a person is murder. (as my bar review course keeps insisting on reminding me.) Whether it's for the person's money, whether it's because the person slept with your wife, whether it's because you don't like the way the person dresses, and yes, whether it's because the person is gay... none of that should matter. Can you imagine if we had gradations in the law based on the perpetrators feelings? (note, NOT the perpetrators "mental state" at the time of the killing, because that is different and that WILL change the legal outcome.)

and I have to wonder why you seem so adamant in making untrue assertions. There are several posts in this thread explaining how crimes we are all familiar with (manslaughter, murder for hire, etc) are treated differently based on differing motives, but you insist that it's not motive, it's "feelings"

Intentional killing of a person is murder

Not true. The law has a different definition of "intent" than the common usage one

Whether it's for the person's money, whether it's because the person slept with your wife, whether it's because you don't like the way the person dresses, and yes, whether it's because the person is gay... none of that should matter.

It all matters. Whether it should or not is just opinion. That it does matter is a fact.

I am studying for the bar exam. I have worked in criminal law.

You should stop talking law as you have no idea what you're talking about.

I know many lawyers who have spent hundreds of hours, and learned very little. You can claim authority, but as far as I'm concerned, you're just some stranger on the Internet.

I am studying for the bar exam. I have worked in criminal law.

I've got 10 years

But you're still wrong.

Finally, the Court made clear that "the First
Amendment . . . does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to
establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent."

It's about motive and intent, not "feelings"

You need to spend more hours studying before you try throwing your weight around.

And you need to find something at least a tiny bit relevant if you're trying to make some sort of point.

I'm baffled.

Motive is not intent. It's amazing that a smart person like you can fail to grasp this simple fact.

that quote is from the Court's decision, so I don't why you think THEY don't know the difference.

But as a lawyer, you should know the value of citing court decisions. So far, you havent. Someone else has, and there's no mention of "feelings" in sight

Motive is something you prevent evidence regarding at trial (as is opportunity), but it's not the same thing as proving that statutory intent requirement.

I don't think they conflate motive and intent. They merely state that the 1st Amendment doesn't prevent a criminal proceeding from reviewing speech in order to determine intent and/or motive.

I was under the impression that this argument was about whether hate crime statutes were thought crimes, punishing motive, and that people are trying to point out that the law punishes the intent to commit actions that are criminal, and doens't punish motive.

I thought sangh0 was arguing that intent and motive were the same thing because of this quote.

I'm just pointing out that it's not clear that this statement conflates the two.

I was under the impression that this argument was about whether hate crime statutes were thought crimes, punishing motive, and that people are trying to point out that the law punishes the intent to commit actions that are criminal, and doens't punish motive

No, with hate crimes, the conviction comes on the underlying criminal charge which does not require any finding as to motive. Once convicted of the "ordinary" crime, additional findings of aggravating factors can lead to a greater sentence.

Hate crimes legislation do not create thought crimes or any new crimes. They merely add the possibility of increased penalties for a subset of those already existing crimes - specifically, those that are motivated by hatred of certain specific groups

I thought sangh0 was arguing that intent and motive were the same thing because of this quote.

1) I thought you knew this, but sangha and sangh0 are both me.

2) I was arguing that the Constitution does not prevent the criminal justice system from taking motive and intent into consideration when determining the convicted's sentence.

It's not about aggravating facotrs which increase a sentence within the proscribed range for the underlying offence.

it says, if X facts are present (intent/actions) then the crime of which you can be convicted is one step up (eg, Class B to Class A misdemeanor).

This is important because aggravating factors are things you take into account separately from a finding of guilt. Criminal trials have two phases -- guilt and then sentencing. Once you prove guilt, you talk about sentence.

With hate crimes, you have to prove that you're guilty of the hate crime (ie, you satify the elments of the statute). It's not a statute that sets out guidlines for the sentencing phase.

Study a little harder if you want to pass that bar.

When you murder a person because they are part of a group, you are also harming that group, targeting them as part of a campaign that, if carried to its logical extreme, would equal genocide. THAT's where the extra penalty comes in, because you are making the murder part of something larger.

A person who hates all blacks and kills a black man isn't necessarily guilty of a hate crime. He has to have targetted the man because the man was black. If the culprit gets in a bar fight with a black man and kills him, that's not a hate crime, even if the emotion of hate was present. The crime has to have been the result of a premeditated act against the victim motivated by hatred of that victim's group, for example as an effort to punish a gay man for being gay.

The culprit is not being punished because of his thoughts, but because of his intentions, and intention is the only factor that makes an act a crime. If I kill someone due to an obvious accident, I haven't committed a crime. If I kill someone with the intention of killing them, or at least the intention of harming them or disregarding their safety, the intention is what makes the act a crime, not the act itself.

for a conviction.

I can see how people can mix those up. Intent and knowledge are mental states, which are required for all crimes except strict liability crimes.

Motive is seldom if ever required. If I point a gun at you and shoot you and you die, I'm guilty of murder despite my motive.

(a) Whoever, as consideration for the receipt of . . . anything of pecuniary value . . . murders, kidnaps, maims, assaults with a dangerous weapon, commits assault resulting in serious bodily injury upon, or threatens to commit a crime of violence against any individual in violation of the laws of any State or the United States, or attempts or conspires so to do, shall be punished -
. . .

18 USC 1959

Many people have pointed a gun at someone and shot and killed him and were not guilty of murder or any other crime.

It's still punishing an ACTION - i.e. the receipt of money. Not MOTIVE.

And, um, what did you mean by this? "Many people have pointed a gun at someone and shot and killed him and were not guilty of murder or any other crime."

Huh? Are you talking about self-defense? war? the person not knowing the gun was loaded? those are the only situations I can think of off the top of my head where it's not murder. And guess what? Those are excused killings because why? Say it with me now... "MENTAL STATE."

Not motive.


ON EDIT: To nitpick, the "not knowing the gun is loaded" COULD be murder if the jury finds extreme recklessness... still, it all hinges on the defendant's mental state at the time of the killing.

It's the act, and it's intention that's being punished.

"If I point a gun at you and shoot you and you die, I'm guilty of murder despite my motive."

I should have made my response easier to understand since it was a response to the immediately preceeding post. I can see how some people would be confused by such a thing. Comprehension of the written word can be challenging, I apologize for making it more difficult for you.

That's why we have extenuating circumstances and different degrees of murder.

And extenuating circumstances are defenses, or they may be things you introduce at the sentencing stage to reduce your sentence withing the proscribed range of the punishment established by the statute.

You never HAVE to prove motive or opportunity to get a conviction, but you will try to prove them if you have evidence, because they may help support your argument about the presence of other facts that help you make your case.

168 replies and counting, none from the OP, interesting discussion...
It's a wild, wacky world! :toast:

After all, it should be perfectly legal to have unreasonable feelings against other groups of people. It's acting on those feelings that is the crime. Punishing the feelings as a separate crime is thought crime, and that's right out of "1984."

Personally, I don't support the legislation, and not only because the largest group of victims of hate crimes was left out. I don't support it because I think punishing thought or emotion is a very dangerous thing to do. I would like to see the motivation of blind bigotry considered in sentencing, but I can't see making it a seaparate crime.

Well-said.

ie, a crime of passion (I came home and my wife was fucking some other guy and I lost it) generally gets a lesser sentence than premeditated murder (I planned over a course of many days to murder my wife).

It is not punishing someone's thoughts per se. It is punishing their actions on that thought.

I believe this was the case with the guys in Texas who dragged that poor man behind their truck. They didn't have too much trouble finding intentions since they had racist tattoos on their bodies.

Intention is.

If I hate all black men and get in a bar fight and kill a black man in a fit of anger, I'm not guilty of a hate crime, no matter what my thought or emotion is. I have to have the premeditated intention of killing a black man because of my hatred of his grouping in order for it to be a hate crime. It's about intention, as is all law, not about thought or emotion.

Hate crime is meant to protect the entire group, not just to avenge the single victim. Genocide can happen in concentration camps, or it can happen one or two murders at a time. THAT's what's being legislated against.

No one's punishing the thoughts.

on referring to it) absent any ACTIONS which are the basic crime itself.

That means, as I said in a different post, you can think murderous thoughts all day long, against any or all groups, you just can't act on them.

I agree with those who liken this to "motive" and "intent" relative to the law.

They affect sentencing--they don't create new crimes.

Is beating someone up in front of a polling station worse than doing the same thing in a parking lot? You bet your ass it is!

Not the kind of terrorism that the administration is always talking about... but a hate crime is made to cause fear on an specific group of people.

Watched a documentary about lynchings which brought that up...

Another disturbing fact was that lynchings were pre-meditated acts. Hate groups planned the things in advance and somethimes even adverstised via flyers.

I'd always thought lynchings were more of a "crime of passion" or result of a crowd gone crazy.

very hard to prove.

do you just ignore it?

and worth trying to prove if at all possible.

A crime is a crime-- you should be punished regardless of why you committed it. Whether you like hurting people, hated the person's race, wanted their watch-- it doesn't matter imo.

Depending on the motive, murder can be classified 1st degree, 2nd degree, 3rd degree, or merely manslaughter.

1st degree, 2nd degree, "3rd Degree" (that doesn't even exist at common law) and manslaughter are classified according to MENTAL STATE, not MOTIVE. There is a DIFFERENCE.

I don't blame you for not grokking the difference, because you are obviously not trained in law. Now, accusing me of repeatedly making untrue statements, THAT I blame you for.

And I usually enjoy your posts so much! What a shame.

In some areas, murder for drugs is punished more severely than other forms of premeditated murder.

But it isn't unreasonable to consider that some crimes are intended to go beyond inflicting harm on the immediate victim and also attempt to intimidate. So, in that way, there is a greater criminal act.

A greater or lesser punishment for prejudices one may hold? No. But for an act that intends to spread fear beyond the immediate crime, yes.

Can you provide examples of what you mean?

(I'm thinking this through myself, so bear with me)

If I went on a spree of randomly throwing bricks through windows, is that the same crime as if I targeted the homes of black people living in predominately white neighborhoods and threw bricks only through their windows?

Yes. Not that anyone will agree with my opinion, mind you. So feel free to disagree :)

respectfully disagree and I think poat # 84 makes the point even better than mine: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1795690#1795998

. . negligent driving, do you get the chair?

My point is, if you run over and kill someone intentionally, murder is murder, and you should be punished as such.

It wouldn't have something to do with what the accused was thinking?

If you accidentally hit someone at night with no chance to avoid them in your car, and were driving safely, it is genuinely not your fault. But if you do it on purpose, that's murder. That's my point. Why does the reason you murder someone matter so much? Should it be a lesser crime to merely kill someone for the inheritance money or whatever?

If you accidentally hit someone at night with no chance to avoid them in your car, and were driving safely, it is genuinely not your fault. But if you do it on purpose, that's murder. That's my point.

I know what your point is. I asked what the difference between intentional and unintentional was. Your answer was that "If it's intentional, that's murder"

That doesn't explain the difference. It just says "intentional = murder".

Why does the reason you murder someone matter so much?

Because we believe in Justice. Because different types of murders result in differing amounts of pain and suffering.

Should it be a lesser crime to merely kill someone for the inheritance money or whatever?

As a general principle, we try to make the punishment fit the crime, so it would unjust to treat all murders as if they were equally harmful, when we all know they are not.

"I know what your point is. I asked what the difference between intentional and unintentional was. Your answer was that "If it's intentional, that's murder""

Intent-- did you intend to commit the crime or not?

If you intended to commit the crime-- if you wanted to kill the person, for whatever reason-- that is murder.

If you didn't intend to commit the crime, if it was an accident, that is not murder. Depending on how negligant/dumb you were, it might be a lesser degree of murder or manslaughter.

I don't know how else I can explain intentional vs. unintentional.



"Because we believe in Justice. Because different types of murders result in differing amounts of pain and suffering.

As a general principle, we try to make the punishment fit the crime, so it would unjust to treat all murders as if they were equally harmful, when we all know they are not."

True, a particularily long and painful death is probably worse. But I don't recall the judge ever saying, "well, you did shoot him in the head, was a pretty clean murder. I'll cut your sentance in half."

If they made it a painful/torture death, I'm sure there's some other charge they tack on to it.

IOW, it DOES depend on the accused's mental state. That was MY point!

True, a particularily long and painful death is probably worse. But I don't recall the judge ever saying, "well, you did shoot him in the head, was a pretty clean murder. I'll cut your sentance in half."

Actually, murderers have received shorter (and longer) sentences because their crime was not as brutal (or more brutal) as most. Battered wives who shoot their husbands frequently get lighter sentences.

If they made it a painful/torture death, I'm sure there's some other charge they tack on to it.

It's possible, but they will also add a few years to the murder sentence to boot. In our criminal justice system, all murders are not the same.

...

Its a crime in some city's to burn anything in the city limits.

Are you saying that its no more of a crime to burn a cross than to burn a field?

Is burning a cross in your 'neighbors' yard any worse than throwing a lit ciggarette in their yard?

Or is it any worse to put a 'crucifix' in your neighbors yard than a lit crucifix?

I am confused!!

mq/wp/ac

Great examples!

And welcome to DU too!

If a a man kills a woman because she won't go out with him, is that less of a crime than the man who kills a woman because he thinks all women are evil, sinful bitches and one of them had to be "punished"?

I'm not seeing why one should recieve a greater punishment. They both took human life for no good reason and should be punished as such.

*shrug*

and the other is a crime against an individual.

group.

Other than the state (or city, or country), and humanity

I have never heard an opened-ended "group" named as a victim.

Actually, that example I gave doesn't accurately reflect the distinction as I see it. Add to the second murder some additional act of intimidation (a letter to the newspaper explaining hatred for women, sending a lock of hair from the victim to NOW, etc.) and you have what I see as a hate crime.

no chair. The killing has to be intentional, deliberate, and usually premeditated to qualify for first-degree murder.

Mere negligence does not rise to the level of intent required.

Most states have "negligent homicide" as a category.

Again, classified by mental state. Not motive.

After all those hours you've spent studying, you should know the difference between "intent" and "mental state". You're conflating the two. There is a difference

You got me there. I meant to say that negligence is a mental state that won't rise to the level of murder.

But you knew that. You're covering up your ignorance by trying to bait me. But it won't work! Oh, wait. I guess it did work.

Oh well.

Anyway, at least I know the difference between mental state and motive.

I bet the second half of "Law and Order" drives you up a wall every other week too?

How many times can you say "against penal interest" in an entire law career, and yet it was said every other week for about three years.

I'm from Michigan, and have never heard that in a courtroom my entire life!

It drives the people in my office wild.

Have you noticed the right's use of the phrase "political hate speech"? I prefer violent acts be judged on the severity of the violence used.

I have to imagine that people here HAVE to see the potential abuse of these laws by the "patriotic" right. Dear God, hate crimes in Ashkroft's hands. Yuck.

Please spare me the "degree" arguments: 1st degree assault, murder, etc. Yes, these do deal with intention but not in the same way hate crime legislation does.

A crime is a crime....

Some actions may however, become crimes based on motivation.

If I burn a cross in my back yard - it shouldn't be a crime.

If my neighbors are black - and my proven intent is to terrorize them, that should be a crime.

If you beat somebody to death, I could care less why you did it or who the victim was.(in comparison)

The intimidation of an entire group of people.

"If my neighbors are black - and my proven intent is to terrorize them, that should be a crime."

Shouldn't burning a cross be under the freedom of speech? I don't like racism or the KKK but on the other hand, I also worry about losing freedoms to stuff like this.

"I hate Illinois Nazis" -The Blues Brothers

It's no different than saying, "I'm going to beat you up!"

In any context, that is a crime (assault technically - if I follow through it is a battery)

If on the other hand, my neighbors are white (and so am I) no reasonable person would believe it is a threat.

I don't see the need for special law to protect my black neighbors, only a good judge.

on this:

"regular" crime is committed against individuals. If you get mugged, the effect is entirely on you. However, a hate crime is against a much larger group. The effect is worse.

If I set fire to a paper bag of dogshit on your stoop, I have attacked you alone. If I set fire to a cross on your lawn, I have attacked a community.

If somebody is murdered because he's gay, the effect is much larger - all gays are terrorized. If somebody is beaten for being a Jew, all Jews are terrorized. Hate crimes really ARE worse than other crimes, and I see nothing wrong with recognizing that.

I don't think I could have been as eloquent as you. You did a great job of taking the words right out of my mouth!

There is no such thing as a crime against an individual or a group.

If I beat you over the head and take your wallet, the crime is against you.

The state, however, has an interest in preventing such behavior.

I'm not trying to start with you. I want to hear a good argument against it.

It's like outlawing drugs to reduce demand or addressing fundamentalism with cluster bombs. Stupidity is a constant, the number of prisons is not.

The idea isn't to pass hate-crime laws, but to build schools like citadels and educate this kind of stupidity out of existence.

I'm game.

I'll go make a leftist splinter website to point out the flaws in your idea.

Race, gender, sexuality and religious discrimination are the most irrational barriers to the participation in the economic life of America.

Ideally, you want to grease the skids to participating and competing in the economic life of the country. You want everyone to be able to apply their talents and nobody to stand in the way of people who just want to work and contribute their ideas and talents and labor to civic life.

Two guys fight over a personal matter. What's the affect on society? It's miniscule.

People bash gays. What happens? Gays move out of the community. Those who don't try not to engage in society. Their life at work suffers. In their free time, they don't contribute to life in Ameirca.

There is a HUGE cost to that.

I think it's OK for people, through their government, to say, "we have got to allocate the huge costs of hate crime in a way that makes sense." We have got to make sure that when someone committs a hate crime, they pay for all the damage to society they're doing. Thus, more severe penalties than if you just got in a fight who slept with your girlfriend.

It really makes social and economic sense.

bashing me with the purpose of intimidating gay people, and bashing me because you don't like me because I'm gay. It's a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless. The former, I can see extra punishments added, but only if you can prove that the intent was to intimidate others - similar to burning a cross on a black family's lawn.

If you're just bashing me because you don't like me because I'm gay, then you should get charged with assault, plain and simple, and your motivation shouldn't enter into your charge or your punishment. That is, to me, "thoughtcrime."

so yes, you could say that I am also a liberal opposed (generally) to hate-crimes laws.

justice.

If you do something wrong, and someone beats you up because it's easier than going to the cops, that a little social transaction just between the two of you. If the law catches up, that's good, because we believe in judges and juries and laws in America. We don't take people's word for it that they were good judges and jurors when interpreting and applying the law.

But you know, sometimes street justice sort of works. It allocates costs and beneifts in a curious way.

Bashing people who never did anything wrong is totally inefficient. You're not allocating costs and benefits. You're just creating a huge social cost. And I think the law should come down double hard on people who create such huge social costs. You penalize them for the self help, and then you penalize them for the costs they create for society.

Just strikes me as a slippery slope kind of issue, especially considering the current political climate we live in, where people on the left are often accused of supporting terrorism, or even being terrorists themselves simply for disagreeing with * ...on its face, I could probably agree with most people here that hate crime laws are basically a decent idea, but looking at it from a big picture perspective, it seems like such a dangerous precedent to set.

yours is a distinction without a difference. The effect is the same. Whether someone gets to the point of realizing that whether it's his conscious intent or not, his action WILL serve to intimidate ALL gays is basically irrelevent because the truth is that it does.

In FACT, I'd say that's precisely a key PURPOSE of having a hate crimes law: to make people understand quite consciously that the effects of their actions go much farther than any single victim of theirs, and that society does not APPROVE of that (any longer).

The fact is ALL attacks on individuals should be punished. But there's nothing wrong with recognizing that some crimes have effects beyond the individual victim.

I understand society wanting to send a message that bias crimes are particularly pernicious. But the devil is in the details.

Laws that gradate charges based on the perpetrator's thoughts alone are in my opinion a slippery slope that can just as easily be turned against "US" as against "THEM."

You seem to be saying that any assault against a member of a minority group could automatically fall into the category of "hate crime" simply because of the effect that might have on the victim's community. Almost like a strict-liability offense. I can't go that far.

You seem to be saying that any assault against a member of a minority group could automatically fall into the category of "hate crime" simply because of the effect that might have on the victim's community.

But I DO support hate crime legislation in general (that is, as a concept).

AND while I don't think (to answer the subsequent poster) that it will necessarily PREVENT such crimes on an individual basis, I do think the overall effect is, as I stated in a different post chilling because it's society saying: no, we don't wish to allow this wholesale terrorization of certain minority groups any longer, and we're quite serious about it.

and not the perpetrator's bias against the group the victim belongs to(in the mistaken assumption that any crime against a member of a minority group is the same thing as a crime against the entire group) then I don't see a problem.

Hate laws are going to deter someone from hating enough to act on their hate.

IMO, Hate Crime laws' chief purpose, although not stated and maybe not even the intention, is there to give some sort of false comfort to discrimated groups. "Ah, the law is doing something to protect me."

No, not really. Because if someone wants to kill or maim you badly enough, Hate Crime Laws aren't going to stop them when normal penal laws don't.

... I used to be for them (hate crime laws) but more and more I see it as an unworkable construct. It's not that I don't think that the concept is basically valid, its just that the application (prosecution) is iffy because you are now trying to prosecute someone for what they think, hence you have to prove what they think.

I no longer think these laws are really a good idea.

No, not for being (currently) against hate crime legislations, but for this:

or maybe I need to be better informed on the issue?

I see SO many people here coming out on the wrong (read: rightwing) side of various arguments and they have neither the sense nor the modesty to think they may be missing something. So I am pleasantly all agog at your interest in hearing more. Good for you!

I hope the "terrorism" and "economic cost" arguments made were instructive, along with the reality that these laws aren't about prohibiting thought, but prohibiting actions against vulnerable and historically discriminated against classes (which actions KEEP them vulnerably and discriminated against and therefore living less than full lives).

Edited to add: After all, laws against murder (and anything else, for that matter) aren't about trying to prevent people from THINKING about murder, just doing it.

I'm glad you have the 'sense and modesty' to share your radiant viewpoint with the teeming masses in need of your perspective. The radiance of your viewpoint is only dimmed somewhat by the utter folly of what you're handing out.

After all, laws against murder (and anything else, for that matter) aren't about trying to prevent people from THINKING about murder, just doing it.

Yes, and laws against thinking things while committing murder are laws against thinking things. Hate crime statutes and/or sentencing guidelines are *additive* and are designed to punish something above and beyond the underlying crime; in this case THOUGHT in the form of motive.

Those who can't get it have chosen not to get it.

And rightwing arguments are still rightwing arguments.

another because of their race/sex/sexual orientation in order to terrorize other members of that group, then it isn't just about what they were thinking. They had intent beyond just what they did to the individual. They also intend to terrorize everyone else. That intent is what is being punished, NOT the thought. You are the one who is not getting it.

informed on the issue." Yes, why don't you try that.

From the ADL website: http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/constitutionality.asp

So everyone can at least be on the same "legal" footing (see the entire site for a more detailed discussion).

Noting that "raditionally, sentencing judges have considered a wide
variety of factors in addition to evidence bearing on guilt in determining what
sentence to impose on a convicted defendant," the Court rejected the
defendant's contention that the enhancement statute penalized thought.
First, the Court affirmed that the statute was directed at a defendant's
conduct -- committing a crime. The Court then held that, because the bias
motivation would have to be connected with a specific act, there was little
risk that the statute would chill protected bigoted speech. The statute
focused not on the defendant's bigoted ideas, but rather on his actions
based upon those ideas. Finally, the Court made clear that "the First
Amendment . . . does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to
establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent." After
Mitchell, challenges to penalty-enhancement statutes on the basis of the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution appear to be largely
foreclosed.

There's no reason to accept a word of the linked material as valid legal analysis... isn't that a particularly pro-hate crime organization, if not THE pro-hate crime organization?

Can we be "on the same legal footing" using something from the ACLU, or are some footings more "same" than others?

and various legal arguments made against Hate Crime Laws.

The other stuff on their website is clearly their own analysis of hate crimes legislation.

Their summation of the Supreme Court rulings is spot on.

By the way, I don't support hate crimes legislation. The ADL are some smart cats, and their treatment of the court cases was short enough, yet very clear on the main points, to help move the discussion here along.

I think you are correct in your overall skepticism.

who asks why he can't kill a black man because he is a prick? It has to be because he is black.

that statement of Carlin's is just plain silly. Of course a black person can be killed simply because he is a prick. That would not effect the entire black community and not be considered a hate crime. However if African Americans are murdered simply because they are black, that would be a crime motivated by racial hatred and thus a hate crime. The entire black community then becomes fearful. If you had lived in the south during the Jim Crow era, you'd feel quite differently about this matter. My great aunt was terrified when a white man from Louisiana threated to sic the Klan on her for talking back to him. The family, friends and neighbors were all terribly frightened. I fully support hate crime laws. As someone has stated, hate crimes are acts of terror.

then I would argue that you have a separate crime there. Call it "criminal intimidation" if you will... I just don't think it should be folded into the original crime, or change the original crime into something else. Assault is assault. Assault with intent to kill = attempted murder. Different crime. Assault with intent to intimidate the black community? I think that should also be a different crime.


It all comes down to how the statute is worded, IMO. And to be honest, I haven't even read the hate crime statute yet!

aren't going to try for a hate crime conviction?

Nobody actually likes hate crime laws. But they are, like the legalization of e.g. abortion, an attempt to compensate for things that are unusually problematic in our time relative to our overall condition as a society.

Hate crimes laws are usually written well enough that there are no real 'thought crime' problems. There are, noentheless, usually tussles about censorship/'free speech' issues- victimized groups tend to be wounded people and become more aggressive to the extent that they feel recooperating but their healing up threatened. Offense-committing groups tend to be ignorant and/or callous; the malicious kind is simply bigotted, the stupid kind misunderstands the issue one as one of status tussling between groups that seem to them closely enough matched in strength.

Hate crime laws are temporary measures often poorly or badly enforced, so in very many cases of their being exercised no side feels the right thing has been done. The only fair thing to believe- and I've seen hate crime/discrimination situations that ended up in firings, fights, and lawsuits involving gay bashing, sexual harassment, and anti-Semitism up close- is that hate crime laws don't achieve much justice. What they do do is inflict psychological pain to such a degree that no one involved wants to touch that third rail again- they achieve separation of the parties.

Be glad you didn't have to see or deal with the sexual harassment conflicts inside companies and universities in the '80s that went on into the early '90s. You learn what dispicable and cowardly human beings you're surrounded with and that the viciousness of the Sixties conflicts only began to die down around 1995 in the liberal parts of the country. The human wreckage was awful.

Since many states immediately make that a capital offense.

Indeed, I can think of no form of criminal law where motive is not considered in the charges brought against the suspect.

not coming back to respond?

I see "three strikes" and "hate crime" statutes to be a weakening of the separation of powers. It the job of the legislature to set the range of punishments for a given class of crime, but it is the job of the judiciary to mete punishments appropriate for each specific case at trial. Nothing in this position can be construed as being in favor of "hate" of course, but that doesn't stop people from saying so.

It is not aimed solely at the victim but an entire community and bears a particular political message with it.

The the constitutionality link above (see R.A.V. v. City of Saint Paul): http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/constitutionality.asp

I'm not saying that you're wrong in equating terrorism and cross burning; I'm simply pointing out that the laws created to punish this very act has been ruled unconstitutional with regards to hate crimes legislation.

Hate crimes deserve more severe punishment because a hate crime results in many, many victims - possibly in the millions.

Although the assholes who killed Matthew Shepherd didn't kill any other gay man in America, they degraded their lives, and made it more likely that other deranged assholes might do the same. They made all gays feel less secure in their lives and took away some measure of their happiness.

That's why there needs to be harsher penalties for hate crime - because of the huge number of victims.

It is not punishment for thought - it is punishment for deed. You'd pretty much have to hate gays to deny the damage that hate crime does to them - or to think it doesn't affect them.

you're saying that if I'm against hate crimes legislation then I hate gays? Gee...I don't know about that.

There are principled reasons (as explained by several people above, my gay self included) why well-meaning people might be opposed to hate-crimes legislation.

I think ascribing homophobia to those people is unfair.

. . when a gay man is killed by a homophobe. Perhaps you are not obviously gay, or perhaps you live in a part of the country that is more tolerant.

But a homophobic killing does affect all gays, even if only indirectly.

I didn't say you'd have to be homophobic to be against hate crimes legislation. I said you'd pretty much have to hate gays "to deny the damage that hate crime does to them - or to think it doesn't affect them".

Or maybe you just don't care - I should have added.

Added on edit: Oh yeah, I see you live in San Francisco.

However, if I'm walking down the street and someone mugs me, and takes my wallet, and in the process says "faggot," is that a hate crime? Maybe, but probably not. Probably more of your garden-variety robbery for money.

If a person torches the gay/lesbian community center, and spray-paints DIE FAGS all over the facade, then we have a hate crime.

The difference? The intent to terrorize the community.

I have no problem with creating a separate crime of intent to intimidate or terrorize a group based on their minority status. In fact, I think such crimes already exist.

...things like that -- ie, using symbols which the community of (in the case of cross burnings) black people would recognize as directed at their community. As you note, a mugging happens to so many people (and obviously has a different motivation -- money) that it wouldn't be read by the community of (in your case) gay people as being directed at them.

So, you're right. At least the VA statute is written in terms of targetting the community (and cares about actions that can clearly be read by the community as directed at them ).

That people who oppose hate crime statutes deny any damage or just don't care.

Either you believe that vicious damage has been done to a group of people that has diminished their lives and their happiness, but don't think that deserves to be punished - or you deny that the damage was done.

Which is it?

I do not meet your criteria, yet I remain opposed to hate crime legislation.

. . to a large group of people, but oppose hate crimes legislation, to address that crime - either you think it should go unpunished or you think some other remedy is in order.

If it is the latter, then we are arguing which approach would provide the greatest deterrent. I'm not real big on retribution. I'd rather keep criminals away from society and have their punishment (banishment) act as a deterrent to others.

I don't know what your alternative would be so I can't say that codifying hate crimes would be best - but it seems to be the most obvious to me.

Do you believe that any crime against a gay person is a crime against all gay people?

How about the dog-mauling case from right here in San Francisco? A woman was mauled to death by out-of-control presa canario dogs in the hallway of her apartment building. The dog owners (her neighbors) got convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The victim was a lesbian.

Hate crime?

Seriously, though, you present a false choice. Bias against the victim on the basis of race, sex, orientation, etc. CAN AND DOES result in extra punishment, because judges have the discretion to take that into account in sentencing.


ON EDIT: What Liberal Classic said.

...than simply the presence of a protected class.

For example: A bias crime law is written so that a person is singled out for a criminal act based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.

I don't know of anyone who doesn't have isn't SOME race, some form of religion (even atheism) or sexual orientation.

So if a straight guy happens to get into a personal fight with a gay guy, it doesn't necessarily follow that it's a bias crime.

However, if a group of gay radicals target a straight person for being straight specifically, then they have committed a bias crime.

the community to make it legit.

Otherwise, I do think it's punishing thought.

Punishing the thought that preceeded the murder?

You're punishing the mental state of the killer, i.e. a planned murder is more serious than one committed in the heat of passion, which is itself more serious than one committed accidentally.

You're punishing the fact of the murderer's deliberation, NOT the particular reason why he/she decided to kill.

ie, Let's go find a fag and beat the crap out of him and strap him to a fence.

That certainly smacks of deliberation to me.

the fact of the deliberation establishes a defendant's mental state. The CONTENT of the defendant's thoughts (i.e. bias) does not enter into this particular phase of the criminal process. It may, however, be considered by the judge at sentencing.

Bias may or may not play a part in sentencing...if for instance there is a clear bias against midgets, or vietnam vets or wealthy people or asians - it may be recognized as pretty unsound reasoning, but I don't know of a state that allows a tougher penalty for such bias on its face.

(again this is assuming we are talking about sentencing, rather than the conviction under some special circumstances or out-and-out different charge related to hate crime)

In both cases aren't you taking into account the thought processes of the perpetrator that preceded and contributed to the crime.

Why treat deliberation differently from motive? That seems like an arbitrary difference that just happens to support your point.

They're both indicators of the severity of the crime and both should be considered. And they both should be reflected in the criminal code - where possible IMHO.

"Why treat deliberation differently from motive? That seems like an arbitrary difference that just happens to support your point."

It may seem like an arbitrary difference to you, but it just happens to be the law.

The difference is between punishing the FACT of the thought process and the CONTENT of the thoughts.

And while you are correct that they both should be considered in that they impact the severity of the crime, the place where the CONTENT of the thought is considered is in sentencing, not in the trial.

Do you believe that any crime against a gay person is a crime against all gay people?

Of course not. That's why we should have hate crime legislation. So the justice system can determine if it was a hate crime.

You said it better than I could have, and likely more concisely as well.

...that hate crime legislation ONLY works to defend minorities?

I see no reason, for example, that a group of bigotted gay people could not go hunting for straight people to beat up and be charge with committing a hate crime.

The notion that it only works one way is simply because most people don't think of the issue except what we are most familiar with (people burning crosses, anti-semitism, gaybashing).

People don't seem to understand that BIAS crimes don't specifically say homosexual, they say "sexual orientation" which could go either way.

Therefore you are not creating a protected class.

Such arguments have been made before the court. Again, from the ADL website:

"Finally, several litigants have argued that state penalty enhancement or bias-motivated crimes statutes violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. These parties have suggested either that the statutes unconstitutionally benefit minorities, because minorities are more likely to be victims of bias crimes, or that the statutes unconstitutionally burden majority members because majority members are more likely to be prosecuted. In each case, the state court has rejected the argument, noting that the statute is neutral on its face and that the state has a legitimate interest in punishing hate crimes more severely. As previously noted, the defendant in Mitchell was Black and his victim was white."

We see that hate crimes legislation may have nothing to do protecting minorities.

From the ADL website, cited above:

"However, in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a Wisconsin statute which provides for an enhanced sentence where the defendant "intentionally selects the person against whom the crime because of the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person." The defendant in Mitchell had incited a group of young Black men who had just finished watching the movie "Mississippi Burning" to assault a young white man by asking, "Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people," and by calling out, "You all want to fuck somebody up? There goes a white boy; go get him."

Man, there must have been an incredibly large terrified community, considering the victim was white AND IN WISCONSIN :-)

which is not quite the same thing as a separate crime. I have no problem with judges' discretion to enhance (or diminish) sentences based on the particulars of the case.

. . so the presence of the law itself can act as a deterent - rather than rely on some judge's take on it. He could be homophobic himself, like I suspect several members of the SCOTUS are.

Then why not codify it so the presence of the law itself can act as a deterent - rather than rely on some judge's take on it. He could be homophobic himself, like I suspect several members of the SCOTUS are.

From reading this sentence, am I wrong to suggest that your support for hate crimes legislation is (in part at least) a response to perceived homophobia in the judiciary.

You realize that the judge who presides over a trial has access to all of the particulars in the case, and is in a better position to pass a sentence than the legislature? This is after guilt is determined by the jury, of course.

Should we also do away with juries because it is possible for racists or homophobes to serve on them?

My basic argument is for deterrence.

By stating that a particular act "assaulting a group of people by attacking one of their members in order to intimidate the others" is a crime, you are creating a class of behavior that the people agree is reprehensible enough to be codified in law. That in itself helps to lessen the emotional damage cause by the crime.

Carried to the extreme, you could just have one law as in it is a crime to initiate the use of force against others - then let the judge sort it all out in court.

Instead we codify things so that justice will be more uniform and fair. It doesn't always happen perfectly but we should still try in areas where we can to improve the system. That's what hate crimes legislation does IMHO.

Good thread B-)

There are permutations of law that classify all sorts of things and the punishment ranges for those crimes.

Simply put, our society finds a sexual crime against a minor to be particularly more heinous than the same act might be against adult.

Than the class of victim

Or is it just mandatory maximums?

. . is to specifically codify behavior that we think is criminal - and then give the judge a reasonable amount of leeway within established standard sentence ranges.

There probably should be maximum limits on certain crimes. Especially victimless crime, which I generally believe is a oxymoron.

Because somebody gets to determine what race is, what sexual orientation is, what religion is etc.

i.e. I do not believe in a God; our current Attorney General does not recognize that as a religious choice, I can not be a victim of a hate crime.

It allows either or both the judge of law, and the police too much latitude.
--------

Marrying a Jew was a hate crime against the German race and Christ

Or is it something more insidious that our law should address?

since he initiated this hit-and-run thread... yes.

Edited... I guess he made one appearance afer all.

I guess they're back to the old "Divide and Conquer" strategy. I'll bet you a buck that in the next week we'll see an increase in the number of posts that instigate sexism, South bashing and racism.

But it won't work because the CIA outing and prison abuses ain't going away folks!!!!

First of all to quote a recent Senate hearing, "With all do respect, your feelings Mr. Secretary are not law" - most of the discussion is about Law and our opinions.

It is the diversity of opinion that makes progressives what they are, otherwise we are little more than enlightened leftist ideologues. "Next predictable sound bite please."

I need to disagree with people on a whole litany of items before they fall into that "other" category.

I think this has been a great discussion, and for some, an educational one - whether they come away with a changed opinion is not relevant to me.

...but in general it's potentially motivated vandalism. In my state, it would be reported as a "hate crime" for federal purposes, but there would be no added charge or penalty.

If in this same town, every time a swastika went up on a jewish place of worship or business a bombing followed, an implied threat MAY be there, but it is a weak case.

Wouldn't putting a swatika on a synagogue already be a more serious crime than just a graffiti tag? It implies a threat, IMO - same for burning a cross in front of a black church.

Hate Crime Legislation is neccessary to provide federal enforcement of state laws that may go unpunished in certain localities. I definitely subscribe to the argument, though, that a crime is a crime: if I kill a man because I believe he slept with my wife, aren't I just as guilty of killing out of hate as someone who kills a gay man because he's gay? Why is the gay man's murder more horrifying and deserving of greater punishment than that of the man whom I alone believed had slept with my wife? Both are innocent men murdered by morons who felt a slight against themselves: the first being a slight against me and my marriage, the second a slight against the killer's sexual identity and/or religion.

The argument that a "hate crime" is worse because it terrorizes an entire group is just moronic, for all unsolved murders terrorize a large group. Yes, if five gay men are killed in a string of murders, it would send a wave of fear through the gay community. But if five random people die at the hands of a serial killer running free, wouldn't that result in the entire city being terrified? Do purveyors of this lunacy believe random acts of violence should be included in Hate Crimes Legislation? Wouldn't it kind of destroy the whole definition of a Hate Crime being the murder (or assault, etc) of someone because of the group they belong to?

The only logical reason to have Hate Crimes Legislation is to ensure that the murders of unwelcome minorities are solved if and only if the local police force fails to do so. If a gay man is killed because he's gay, but the state authorities treat it with the same care and attention as every other murder in their area, the Federal government has no place in the investigation. It is not the nature of the crime that determines Federal involvement, it is the fervency with which the state authorities investigate the crime.

The penalties in the Legislation should simply be those of the state where the crime accured. That way, there is no question that murder is murder, regardless of the race, gender, or sexual orientation of the victim; only the enforcing body has changed because the first failed to do its job.

If I kill someone and it just so happens that my victim was a member of an unliked group in the community and the local police don't really care that my victim's dead, the Feds should take over the job of investigation and prosecution. However, if the state penalty is ten years in prison, I should spend ten years in prison (only now in Federal instead of State). Murder is a state crime; murder that goes unpunished for reasons of local prejudice is a federal crime.

Lastly, I think we should stop using the term "Hate Crimes," because it is a stupid phrase for the reasons many people have mentioned. (I've only been using it because that's the only way I can talk about it and have everyone understand what issue I'm discussing.) I'm not a great meme creator, so I'll leave it up to the more creative types to come up with a phrase that is less idiotic and redundant.

Isn't a person you killed in a moment of anger just as dead as the person you plotted over a period of time to kill?

Are you truly trying to state that your motive and state of mind ARE NOT taken into consideration in those circumstances?

As I explained exhaustively upthread, motive is entirely different from "state of mind." The former has no bearing on a criminal prosecution (except sometimes to convince a jury that the defendant did the deed), whereas the latter is crucial to what the person is charged with or guilty of.

Now, in sentencing, on the other hand, motive can and does play a role.

But not in the crime charged or the defendant's guilt or innocence.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure to what in my post you are referring.

Are you saying that the degrees of murder are dependent upon the motive? Degrees of murder are at their respective levels due to the intent of the assault that ended in death. Murder in the first is "in-the-first" because the crime was the result of deliberate planning to murder the victim, and so on. The question of "motive" does not influence the degree of murder.

You might be confusing "motive" with "intent." Motive is the "why," and intent is, well, pretty self-explanatory.

Motive is used by the prosecution to prove its case, and then possibly in sentencing if the motive were truly heartless or cold.

Still, regardless of the motive, if the state is willing and capable of prosecuting all murders regardless of the minority group to which the victim belongs, why should the Federal Government be at all involved? (Of course, if the local authorities could care less that a gay man--or black man, etc.-- is dead, they need to cede authority to the Feds.)

I might just be missing the point of your criticism. Please quote the parts of my original post whose reasoning leads to degree-less murders.

If you're against hate crime laws then you're Pro Hate Crime. Why do you support hate crimes?

(a possible example of how we can frame this ridiculous "debate")

but for my two cents if you disagree with hate crime legislation then surely you have to disagree with terrorism legislation.

If one blows up a building for Osama then you can be charged with all the destruction of property charges and various counts of murder, assault, attempted murder etc. Terror need not come into it - it is generally argued that the crime has wider ramifications though and therefore wider sanctions.

If it can be a crime to belong to a terrorist group, while NEVER actually taking part in any violent activities then hate crime seems to be justified too

... I'll take it one step further. I am also against the "battered wife" defense. It's either self-defense, or it isn't. Of course immediate mental state plays a part in many of these cases, but to support "battered wife" is like endorsing "homosexual panic"

Crime is the crime. Intent forms the crime (or lack there-of)

Merely belonging to a particular group should not be a crime. To me, that's a clear violation of the first amendment. The minute you say "belonging to a terrorist group" is a crime, you open the door to all sorts of mischief - do you want people like John Ashcroft determining what is or is not a "terrorist group?"

You should have to actually DO SOMETHING to get thrown in jail, in my humble opinion. (With the understanding that that "something" could be planning or conspiring to commit a crime, even where it doesn't go through.)