What is a hate crime?

There have been a few threads about hate crimes recently. Many of the posters to these threads do not seem to understand the intent and purpose of hate crime legislation.

The concept is straightforward: If a criminal act targets an individual specifically because he is or is perceived to be a member of a "protected" group, the perpetrator can be charged with a hate crime "enhancement" and be sentenced to punishments beyond what the crime itself would normally merit. Many people seem to think this is unfair, as it seems to treat two otherwise identical crimal acts differently based only on intent. Opponents of hate crime laws claim that the laws are a slippery slope towards criminalizing thought and that hate, no matter how egregious, should not be subject to legislation.

What these people do not understand, however, is that hate crimes are actually two criminal actions, not just one. The first crime is the assault, robbery or whatever else was done by the perpetrators to their specific victim. The second crime is a very real threat of future continued acts of violence against others of the victim's group; in effect, an act of terrorism. The premise of hate crime laws is that this second crime deserves to be punished.

By way of example, look at a recent case in San Francisco (news story.) During the night between April 2 and April 3, 2007 -- the night before the start of Passover -- someone spray-painted a swastika onto the side of San Francisco's largest synagogue. There was one crime, certainly: vandalizing a building. If the purpose of this vandalization was to intimidate the members of the congregation, to put them on notice that neo-Nazis had an eye on them during one of Judaism's most important festival, then there was a second crime: terrorizing the city's Jewish community with the threat of worse action. It is that second crime which hate crime enhancements punish.

Let me make this clear. Had the grafitti been gang related, or a piece of unwanted street art, or a nutter who wrote a dirty limmerick, there would have been only one criminal act, and a pretty minor one at that. By using a symbol strongly tied to the systematized murder of more than 11 million people, most of them Jews, a case can be made that the second crime of terrorism also occured. Hate crime laws allow the police to make that case. Without these laws, these acts of terrorism would remain unpunished.

Likewise, if a woman is sexually assaulted because she was a good opportunity (sic) for the attacker or just in the wrong place at the wrong time, there was only one crime. If she is sexually assaulted because her assailant trailed her leaving a Lesbian bar or because he knew she was gay, then there is a second crime, one that targeted all Lesbians with the threat of sexual violence to "turn them straight." Except for hate crime laws, that second crime targeting all gay women would never be prosecuted, would never be punished.

Proponents of hate crime laws, such as myself, say that this second crime of terrorism exists; you may hold a different opinion. Fine, let us discuss that. But arguments about legislating intent or beliefs are ignorant and irrelevant. We here at Democratic Underground are (for the most part) progressives and intelligent; we should not need to rely on strawmen and red herrings to make our point.

:popcorn:

I completely agree with you, but it's always fun to watch who comes out to play. :bounce:

You have it in a nutshell - a hate crime is domestic terrorism, targetting the group to whom the victim belongs (or is perceived to belong). A second crime, on top of the original crime.

I wasn't part of the original threads, and off the cuff I don't agree with you about "hate crimes" requiring separate legislation. I'm certainly open to being persuaded otherwise, however.

Actually, the point I find confusing is your reference at the end "...arguments about legislating intent or beliefs are ignorant and irrelevant...".

Isn't that the exact point you're making as to why these hate crimes are a "second crime"? Because of the specific beliefs behind them?

Before I came out, I wasn't afraid to go out in public.

I can't make things any clearer for you than that.

Motive and intent are legally distinct. The premise of hate crime legislation is that if you beat someone up because he is black, and your motive is to threaten other blacks with future assaults, then a second crime has occured in addition to the assault itself, a crime similar to what is now classed as terrorism.

Again, we can argue on whether or not this second crime exists. But let's argue based on what the laws actually intend and not on common misunderstandings.

Wow. Guess I wasn't as clear as I thought :D

You could say, I'm affected directly by that second crime angle, as I've already been pretty well intimidated BY the people committing the hate crimes. So, absolutely yes, such laws are necessary, and I for one don't understand why anyone who says they're a progressive would be blind to the need for such laws.

Of course, maybe the people against hate crime laws here at DU are only saying they're progressives. I could be wrong, of course.

:)

Of course, maybe the people against hate crime laws here at DU are only saying they're progressives.

Many of us who call ourselves (perhaps falsely, by your standards) "progressive" are very very cautious about going down the slope of saying this or that intent or belief makes a given crime worse.

I'm not against hate crime laws, I'm just very cautious about the precedent they set.

It isn't about intent, it's about the two things that are done when a crime like this is committed. Someone is violently attacked, and a community is terrorized. And if someone asks, "how do you define 'terrorized'" - it has to be proven in court that terrorism was part of what was going on. It's like lynchings were - part of the reason for a lynching was to kill someone, but the other part was to scare the rest of the community because it might happen to them if they didn't stay "in their place".

If I ever expand the OP into a full essay, I will shamelessly steal your example. :hi:

woman leaving a lesbian bar, but attacked her several blocks away and, for the sake of argument, didn't realize that she was a lesbian, just that she was a "target of opportunity?"

The lesbian community may indeed consider itself to be "terrorized" by the attack, but do we not have to prove an intent to terrorize on the part of the attacker in order to prosecute him under hate crimes legislation or just that he is a bad guy who, perhaps unwittingly, terrorized a protected group?

typical in hate crimes. Like calling her names based on her sexual identity, or sexually mutilating her, or writing "dyke" on her body, etc. These kinds of crimes have markers of that nature. If those markers don't exist, the hate crime didn't happen.

Lesbians aren't terrorized every time a lesbian gets mugged.

Edited to add: it's usually very obvious that it was about the person's sexual identity. And it has to be proven in court.

To get a hate crime enhancement, prosecutors must provide evidence that the second crime occured. As you wrote, that evidence is usually abundant.

If a rock is thrown through my window, it is an act of malicious vandalism. If attached to the rock is a note saying that gay people will be wiped off the face of the earth when "right thinking people" finish taking control of the government, it becomes a hate crime. The rock itself is evidence of the first crime; the note is evidence of the second crime.

Likewise, if a woman is raped after leaving a gay bar, it is only rape (sic.) If her assailant uses anti-gay epithets and claims she only needs a "real man" (sic) to turn her straight, it becomes a hate crime. The physical evidence of the rape is evidence of the first crime; the assailant's comments are evidence of the second crime.

I know you're using that with some irony, but I'd argue your underlying point as well.

Rape is a hate crime against women, as a class. It's an attack on a person because of their gender. Just like any hate crime, the result is fear not only within the direct victim, but in other members of that class as well. It's a form of terrorism, and finding any woman who is unaffected by it - even if she hasn't personally been a direct victim of an attack - is very rare.

Hate crimes, by definition, target a community through the proxy of a direct victim. I have heard of cases where prosecutors have tried to get rapists charged with a hate crime against women, but they ran smack into the law: they have to show that the rape was not just an assault on the individual woman but was at the same time a general attack targeting all women. So far, that has not yet been done successfully (as far as I know) in a rape case.

Another complication is that most hate crime laws are based on the idea of a "protected class," typically race and religion. Even if a criminal action picks a target to "send a message" to a larger group, these types of laws specifically do not apply unless that larger group is one of the enumerated protected classes. Beating up a person because of her race or religion is a hate crime. Beating up a person because he owes you money is not a hate crime, even if the assailant's intent is to "send a message" to all people who owe him money. Because sex is not usually listed as a protected class with regards to hate crimes, raping a woman because she is a woman is not a hate crime, either. And even when sex is listed as a protected class, you run into the problem of proving the rape was a general attack.

I do not much care for the use of protected classes, but that is the way the laws are written.

I wasn't implying I thought it actually WOULD protect women, as a class. I'm not that naive. We're in a system that does the opposite, whenever possible.

I was arguing the philosophy of it as domestic terrorism. We can barely get a 2% conviction/imprisonment rate of actual rapists in this country; even if it were listed as a hate crime (which it should be), the odds of anyone convicting a rapist of that, even if it were the law, would be less than negligible.

His intent has to be "proven".

I would say that you can't simply dismiss concerns about legislating beliefs by saying they are a red herring. But this is a very clear and persuasive statement on the issue.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

...if you were Jewish and woke up and saw that someone had spray painted their initials on your garage door you would be mildly upset over this petty act of vandalizing. But if you were Jewish and you woke up to a swastika on your home you would be filled with an entirely different set of feelings.

And consider the effects of the lack of hate crime legislation. Entire groups can be targeted for crime, yet really have no protection against that crime.

When someone watches a gay bar, then follows someone from that bar and beats them up or kills them because they are gay, there is more to it than just an assault or a murder, although alone those are serious crimes. The existing law is still not good enough, though. It doesn't address the motivation for committing those crimes at all.

Preachers turn to the bible to hate homosexuals and spread their venom from the pulpit and yet they don't want their hate speech called hate speech; and if per chance one of their flock takes the hate speech to heart and does harm to a homosexual(s) or worse why of course, the preacher is not responsible because conservatives aren't responsible for anything. If you commit a crime based on hate, then that fact should be considered in our judiciary system.

What do conservatives HATE and fear?

- Hate crimes legislation
- The FAIRNESS Doctrine
- Swearing to tell the Truth

If you have any question whether hate crime legislation is legitimate just listen to those opposed to it. They are more apt to convince you of the need for such laws then proponents of such legislation.

It can be the basic crime of assault, murder, kidnapping. It can be communication of a hateful message. It can be threatening words. But aside from the obvious, the intended targets are the victim and the group to whom the victim has an affiliation. The whole concept of a hate crime is to instill a perpetual sense of threat (not paranoia, but a real threat) of harm in the future to the victim and to the group. The group is essentially a victim because with the member victimized, they are "on notice" that any of THEM could be the next victim. And now the group has the perpetual sense of foreboding and threat, real or imagined. That's what separates a hate crime from an arbitrary crime on any particular individual.

:applause:

Hate crimes don't just target an individual. They target a whole community.

thought crimes. Oh, motivation needs to be considered in sentencing. Hate crimes are especially hideous, focusing on people for who they were born to be. Their nature is random, they can hit anyone at any time for no other reason than some sort of difference from the perpetrator, and being reminded that there are people out there who hate who you are and want to hurt you for being who you are is terrifying. However, all this can be addressed by tacking time, a lot of it, onto the sentence for the crime of assault or vandalism or by specifying "no parole" on a sentence for murder.

However, if they want to start criminalizing hate, perhaps they need to change the focus from the occasional screwball who acts it out to the screwballs who push it on the airwaves and from the pulpits.

That's where the real danger lies, IMO, in legitimizing hate and giving screwballs targets for hate.

I assert that with hate crimes, there are two distinct victims: the individual target, and the community of which the target was perceived to be a member. Both are subject to criminal actions: the assault, robbery and/or rape of the individual target or the destruction or vandalization of the individual target's property, and a message of immediate danger to and continued criminal actions against other members of the community of which the target was perceived to be a member.

Two victims, two sets of criminal actions; why not two penalties? Hate is not being criminalized. Thought is not being criminalized. Action is being criminalized.

with additional time imposed.

However, if anyone is serious about hate crime, they need to focus on getting hate off the airwaves and out of the pulpit.

I'm sick to death of cretins saying all feminists/Democrats/Liberals/Atheists should be executed.

Where are the thought police?

This is about adding unprotected groups to legislation that has been around for almost 40 years.

The intent of a crime should definitely be a factor in sentencing (and I dislike how much discretion has been removed from judges regarding sentencing) -- an act of vandalism with the intent of terrorizing a community needs to be punished more severely than an act of vandalism done out of boredom. But that's already allowed without hate crime laws.

I don't know. Like I said upthread I'm not in principle opposed to hate crime laws, I just see a very easy and dangerous path from there to thought crime.

It used to be that painting a swastika on the front door of a synagogue was only vandalism.

Some few actions, such as burning a cross in someone's yard, have been individually criminalized, yes. But other actions of similar scope and intent were not crimes, or could only be prosecuted as minor offenses. Changing this light slap-on-the-wrist approach to justice is whole point and purpose of hate crime legislation.

Say vandalism in a certain jurisdiction has a sentence that can range from a fine to 364 days in jail. In theory, the judge is supposed to way the factors in the crime and determine the appropriate sentence, right? A bored kid who tagged a synagogue with no particular cause but self-expression might have to pay a fine, pay for the cleanup, and do community service. A neo-nazi who was trying to terrorize the community could be given the maximum. That's the whole point of ranges of sentences, right? Some crimes are more "punishment-worthy" than others.

...my (equally unpopular here) caution on gun control.

In themselves, they seem like good ideas. The problem is that people like Gonzo and Ashcroft become Attorneys General. I'm very very worried that the precedent of hate crime laws would end up putting me in jail for a "hate crime" by posting an anti-Christianity screed somewhere.

Hate crimes require either physical evidence of intent to terrorize (a swastika painted on the front door of a synagogue, a cross burned in the front yard of a black family) or comments made during the commission of a crime which indidate the victim was selected specifically as a representative of a group ("We're gonna bash you good, queer!") If your screed meets the very tough criteria of being criminal, such as incitement to commit violence, then there is a chance it could be "enhanced" to hate crime status. If it does not meet the criteria of being criminal, it can not by definition be a hate crime.

Much scarier is the possibility that folks like Gonzo and Ashcroft would make "defamation of Jesus" a crime, much as defamation of Muhammad is punishable by death under Muslim law. But that has nothing to do with hate crime legislation.

if it made a stitch of sense.

Why do people not attempt to learn whereof they speak before speaking?

I'm very very worried that the precedent of hate crime laws would end up putting me in jail for a "hate crime" by posting an anti-Christianity screed somewhere.

Do you have the least clue what a hate crime is? Let me try to help you.

A hate crime is an act that is already a crime and that is motivated, in a particular instance, by bias or hate.

Beating someone to a pulp because s/he is a Christian has nothing remotely in common with writing a page of prose vilifying Christians. Can you really not distinguish between the two?

Hate speech and hate crimes are not related.

Do you really not stop to think, occasionally, that something you say might actually influence a stranger's thinking, when what you have said is false, baseless, irrelevant or otherwise not worth saying and potentially harmful to the public discourse and the policies that come out of it?

Ah, I love the smell of patronizing smugness in the morning...

a message board post a hate crime?

it really is not in any way accurate to say that there are "two crimes" involved in a hate crime.

Starting with what you said, here's what I would say:

Opponents of hate crime laws claim that the laws are a slippery slope towards criminalizing thought and that hate, no matter how egregious, should not be subject to legislation.

What these people do not understand, however, is that hate crimes are not like the crime they might look like on the surface.

When someone vandalizes a group's property because of who the group is, and specifically because the group is a vulnerable minority, the crime is not merely vandalism, it is indeed vandalism with intent to terrorize, or at least intimidate.

Hmm, here's an example. Breaking into a dwelling with the intent to catch a nap is not the same crime as breaking into a building with the intent to commit a serious crime. The law does recognize the difference, and does punish the second more severely than the first -- even though both offenders may have done exactly the same thing.

Here's another one, also from the Criminal Code of Canada:

403. Every one who fraudulently personates any person, living or dead,
(a) with intent to gain advantage for himself or another person,
(b) with intent to obtain any property or an interest in any property, or
(c) with intent to cause disadvantage to the person whom he personates or another person,
is guilty of ...

-- in that case, the act itself isn't a crime unless it is done with a particular intent.

212. (1) Every one who
... (i) applies or administers to a person or causes that person to take any drug, intoxicating liquor, matter or thing with intent to stupefy or overpower that person in order thereby to enable any person to have illicit sexual intercourse with that person, ...
is guilty of ...

and then there's

245. Every one who administers or causes to be administered to any person or causes any person to take poison or any other destructive or noxious thing is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years, if he intends thereby to endanger the life of or to cause bodily harm to that person; or
(b) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, if he intends thereby to aggrieve or annoy that person.

No analogy is perfect, but I think these are more more like pears than oranges, if we're talking apples.

However, hate crimes legislation is seldom framed that way -- with express reference to the dual nature of the intent (the intent, not the crime -- although also the effects, if the intent is achieved).

Usually they refer to motivation, which is framed as "hate". That is, I would say, somewhat unsophisticated. And it commonly applies as a sentencing consideration. Again, my Criminal Code says:

718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor,
(ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s spouse or common-law partner,
(ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years,
(iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim,
(iv) evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, or
(v) evidence that the offence was a terrorism offence
shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances; ...

Yikes. I did not realize that we had included sex in the list. Hurray us!

I just find it hard to think of an act as being "motivated by" hate. I see it as being motivated by a desire to exert power, control the behaviour of all members of the group, and like that. But then, I suppose that many people who do such things are hardly articulate or self-aware enough to know that's why they're doing them; they just hate those _______.

Anyhow. One offence, same intent -- to cause whatever harm is to be caused to the direct victim -- but a different motivation for causing the harm.

And one reason for addressing the motivation is that it distinguishes the act committed by the fact that it is not impulsive. It is calculated. And that is something that may make it more amenable to general deterrence: to the threat of severe punishment actually operating to prevent people from committing the crimes.

We do, after all, generally regard homicide for profit as somewhat more heinous than homicide committed in a drunken fit of rage, and reflect that opprobrium in our sentencing -- but also partly because people committing homicide for profit may be more likely to think twice than drunks in fits of rage.

Suppose a person commits a crime simply because of a trait possessed by the victim. Let's say the victim's wealthy, and a criminal breaks into the house or mugs the person wearing an expensive watch or jewelry. After all, in the absence of the trait--being wealthy, perceived or real--the crime would not have occurred.

This has to be construed as an implicit threat against others possessing that attribute. They're in terror; therefore they hire security guards or set up neighborhood watch committees. And the only reason that the thief isn't accused of a hate crime is because ... the wealthy aren't a protected class?

One could equally use serial murderers or gang bangers or serial rapists as an example. But in those cases the victims may *well* be protected classes. By definition rape has to be a hate crime, right? It targets, one has to believe, all women (or men, depending on the nature of the rape).

The problem I see is that the argument crucially depends upon observers being considered victims, and projects the observers' perceived communal risks back onto the perpetrator. Just because a guy bashes a lesbian, or somebody kills a black, doesn't necessary mean--even if the criminal did it out of burning racial or sexual animus--that he's targeting the community the victim belongs to. He may be; but he equally well may just have intended to rape that particular lesbian. In other words "terror" can be intended or perceived--and just because it's intended doesn't mean it'll be perceived (and yet it could still be a hate crime), and just because it's perceived doesn't mean it's intended (and yet it's still a hate crime). If you're going to criminalize intent to terrorize the community, make sure it's intent to terrorize the community and not the intent to terrorize an individual that's being penalized ... that you're not penalizing the criminal for things incidental to the crime. The difficulty is that intent is hard to prove; so as with other racial/gender issues, the standard of evidence is lowered so as to make sure the guilty are easily caught so as to make the "protected groups" feel better. I dislike this practice, and always have; if something's hard to prove, fine, it's hard to prove.

Personally I believe this--and a few others things--constitute an odious slide towards communalism. That should be avoided at all costs.

it all still looks so danged ... familiar ... somehow ...

:applause:

BRAVO!

I hope no one thinks the passing of the recent legislation is going to fix anything, and that at least some fraction of the energy spent in seeking vengeance against offenders can be mustered to actually stop offenses in the first place. History says most people will forget about the issue now until they're personally involved.

--then why do we bother to distinguish between 1st and 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide?