Questions About Hate Crimes

I understand the need for hate crime statutes. Or at least I think understand why they are necessary, but I would like to read what others reasoning is before I state my own thoughts.

Why do you think hate crimes laws came about?
Were they necessary? Are they still necessary?
What in you opinion qualifies as a hate crime?

I would like other's thoughts without them countering my opinions.

A hate crime is a crime committed with the intent to "send a message" (typically threatening) to a certain demographic. A motive of a hate crime is publicly communicated to be completely or partially fueled by the demographic of victim. The victim of the crime is not the only one effected by the crime, but the an entire community is threatened. The classification, and more severe punishment, of hate crimes exist because the crime not only has intent to harm the immediate victims, but also has intent to send a terrorizing message to the victim's demographic.

For example:
White guy beats up a black guy for unknown reasons... not a hate crime.
White guy beats up a black guy and claims the guy deserved it (partially or wholly) because he was black... Hate crime.

The latter is a crime against a community. A real materialized threat that may be likely to inspire similar violence.
A hate crime effectively victimizes an entire community, destroying social order in the process.

I had never thought about it in that light until I saw a post on another thread about hate crimes. And that definition makes sense in today's world. And I find that I totally agree with using that definition.

It seems that many stories we read/hear that there is a call for hate crime prosecution fall short of this level of motivation and I wondered how people were deciding some of these crimes reached that level.

So often there is a call for hate crime prosecution when there doesn't appear to be any terroristic motive. IMO a person using a slur during a crime doesn't automatically raise a crime to a level requiring further charges. The Cracker Barrel case for example. From everything I have read and seen this nut job would have very likely beat anyone that, in his opinion, "mouthed off" to him. Or the beating on the high school bus for one the right wingers are calling for hate charges, these kids would have beat any "geek" that dared question there "authority".

A Federal hate crimes law means the federal government can step in and prosecute, even if the local sheriff thinks it was just "some good 'ol boys messin' around."

There are many people out there who sincerely believe that the FBI hate crimes stats are meaningful and scientific, when in fact they are nearly useless. They completely misrepresent the demographics of some crimes, and in my opinion grossly misrepresent the scope of bias crimes against gay people.

Case in point was Trev Broudy in West Hollywood. Yes, I keep bringing him up. Whether his assailants were attacking him because he is white, or gay, or both, the bottom line is that his attackers stole a car and drove a long way to a to choose their victim, but because they didn't call him "whitey" and/or "faggot" the LA DA said it wasn't a hate crime. Bullshit.

I understand the rationale, but the stats on its use seem to vary widely. If its truly against a readily definable group, I can see it, but if its just across race/gender/orientation, is it hate? Language at the time gets a lot of play in the media, but should it really figure in hate crime charges? Is it a kind of thought crime? I would really like to see tighter standards and consistent enforcement since based on what you see in the media, its use seems to be almost capricious. Like I said, mixed feelings.

The difference between first-degree and second-degree murder is a "thought crime" because you're punishing someone for INTENT to commit murder?

Should prosecutors and judges stop looking at motives in all crimes?

Don't give me that shit.

If you have "mixed feelings" about this stuff, you don't belong here.

Hate crimes are relatively new law that really need to be better defined and standardized. That many are unsure about it reflects both its newness and the unevenness of its application. A crime intended to terrorize group X is pretty clear. Its when it moves away from there that things become less clear. The apparent capriciousness of its application should bother all of us.

When I brought up as thought crimes, its was a question, not a statement. Some of the cases in the media make that a concern, but it could just be spin. Not to consider that question shows a serious lack of understanding of how prosecutorial side of the justice system works.

I support hate crime enhancements in the the first case I gave, my questions start well below that where things are much less clear. Current usage stats seem to bear out the unevenness in application. If you are a liberal of any stripe that should concern you too.

Nuance and thoughtfulness are seriously out of vogue right now, but they have their merits. You might try it some time.

1. The ability to have the crime considered worse, or compounded, upon conviction, and therefore resulting in more serious punishment than otherwise, and

2. The ability of the prosecution to bring into evidence the hate part of the crime, to show that it was the motivating factor, and not some other reason.

Why?

Gay man gets beat up because he's gay. Some teens jump him on a street near a bar, while gay bashing him verbally. Having a HATE crime aspect of the case will allow prosecutors greater latitude to discuss the things they said, and to inquire more fully into their personal histories where homophobia might have played a role.

The whole reason we have HATE crimes is so it isn't treated like just another Saturday night fight by a bar when someone gets their ass kicked for some bigoted reason.

Makes sense.

:eyes:

I'm sure you're well aware that the race of the victim is NOT what decides whether or not a crime is considered to be a hate crime. It's the intent of the perpetrator of the crime. But I'm sure you knew that, right?