Are Hate Crime Enhancements Used Equitably in the USA?

[sangha]

But it matters mostly because that indicates the likelyhood of repeating the offense.

No, it's a reflection of the harm the crime causes to society as a whole. Likelihood of recidivism is not the only factor related to sentencing.

Never has been

 

[sangha]

Wrong. Someone who targets a specific group to terrorize is a special problem for a specific group of society.

No, those people are a special problem for all of us

 

[ttwtt78640]

And intent is what distinguishes a hate crime from a non-hate crime.

Pre-planning is irrelevant. Pre-planning is not necessary to sustain a murder a charge



Absolutely wrong. The law certainly does distinguish between the various type of murders you mention, and applies different charges and sentences based on that difference

You have completely missed my point. I have clearly stated that their are differences in "types" of murders, first degree, second degree and manslaughter. My point is that for first degree (premeditated) murder that no difference exists based on the motive's "particulars" whether it was a murder for hire, killing a rival lover or to collect an inheritance - the only thing required is proving the preplanning of the act.

 

[sangha]

You have completely missed my point. I have clearly stated that their are differences in "types" of murders, first degree, second degree and manslaughter. My point is that for first degree (premeditated) murder that no difference exists based on the motive's "particulars" whether it was a murder for hire, killing a rival lover or to collect an inheritance - the only thing required is proving the preplanning of the act.

You're right about what you said. I should have read it more carefully

However, pre-planning is considered important because of what it reveals about intent. Pre-planning essentially proves bad intent.

 

[ttwtt78640]

No, it's a reflection of the harm the crime causes to society as a whole. Likelihood of recidivism is not the only factor related to sentencing.

Never has been

I know that. Many crimes are now "invented" based largely on the "class of victim". A good example is carjacking being "invented" in the 1990's; it was already illegal as (at least) two separate felony crimes armed robbery and grand theft (sometimes with kidnapping also involved). Why it was made into a "super crime" is mostly because of its victim's "class" - they were often suburban housewives while visiting the mall/shopping center.

 

[sangha]

I know that. Many crimes are now "invented" based largely on the "class of victim". A good example is carjacking being "invented" in the 1990's; it was already illegal as (at least) two separate felony crimes armed robbery and grand theft (sometimes with kidnapping also involved). Why it was made into a "super crime" is mostly because of its victim's "class" - they were often suburban housewives while visiting the mall/shopping center.

I don't think that is it

I think it had more to do with the sensationalism of the crime by the media combined with the racial aspects of the typical car jacking (white victim, minority perp)

However, in spite of that reality a case could be made that the penalties were based on the effects of the crime (even if those effects were merely perceived and over-hyped)

I guess my bigger point is that hate crimes are not "thought crimes" (ie they require concrete actions such as statements, etc) and are based on things like motive and intent, which have always been considered factors that are legitimate to consider with respect to criminal behaviors.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You're right about what you said. I should have read it more carefully

However, pre-planning is considered important because of what it reveals about intent. Pre-planning essentially proves bad intent.

But is the motive for a beating (assault and battery) really important? Assault and battery would never be considered a "like" crime simply because the perp was not also proven to be a bigot. The same is true of pre-planned property crimes such as vandalism or arson. The fact that the property belonged to a "special" class of people, or that the perp is also a bigot should not matter in the least.

 

[sangha]

But is the motive for a beating (assault and battery) really important? Assault and battery would never be considered a "like" crime simply because the perp was not also proven to be a bigot. The same is true of pre-planned property crimes such as vandalism or arson. The fact that the property belonged to a "special" class of people, or that the perp is also a bigot should not matter in the least.

I think it's important. And most of society agrees (I'm talking in general here; not just about hate crimes)

For example, for a long time people didn't consider a man beating his wife to be as problematic as a man beating a woman during a robbery. Since then, societal norms have changed and we have laws which specifically protect people from spousal abuse.

I'd also like to point out that hate crimes do not protect any "special" classes. Everyone is protected from crimes motivated by "hate" (ie cries motivated by a hostility to members of groups based on certain types of characteristics like gender, sexual orientation, race, etc)

Even white people, heterosexuals, men, etc.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I don't think that is it

I think it had more to do with the sensationalism of the crime by the media combined with the racial aspects of the typical car jacking (white victim, minority perp)

However, in spite of that reality a case could be made that the penalties were based on the effects of the crime (even if those effects were merely perceived and over-hyped)

Nonsense. One could get an even higher penalty (longer sentence) with convictions for each separate felony involved, especially in states with a "three strikes" law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carjacking

I guess my bigger point is that hate crimes are not "thought crimes" (ie they require concrete actions such as statements, etc) and are based on things like motive and intent, which have always been considered factors that are legitimate to consider with respect to criminal behaviors.

You (normally) must have motive/criminal intent for any crime to be considered a felony. The addition of "being a bigot" should not be considered outside of the fact that it indicates a much stronger likelyhood of a propensity for committing like future crimes. Those that commit crime simply for financial gain are also very likely to repeat.

 

[captainawesome]

Then to make the penalty harsher for one ad not the other, says that one was worth more than the other.

Do you truly think it matters to someone who's life has been taken from them as to the why of it? It's not a deterrent, and IMO, it's a feel good policy to sell to groups that they are being watched out for.

The phrase 'terrorist' is grossly overused and has lost it's value, IMO, just as the word 'hero' has.

If you target a group for crime to make the group afraid your a terrorist and shiuod recieve a harsher sentence.

 

[GottaGo]

If you target a group for crime to make the group afraid your a terrorist and shiuod recieve a harsher sentence.

And I disagree.... let's look at the Boston Strangler... was what he did 'terrorism' because he went after women?

IMO, and I repeat, it does not deter, it puts the value of one life over another, and serves no purpose other than to make that group feel special.

All men are created equal

 

[YoungConserv]

Because intent matters in crime.

But intent is shown through planning and matters to the diffrent degrees of crime why does wether ths guy killed a guy because he was black matter?

 

[YoungConserv]

Yes, why do we punish "murder for hire" more severely than "manslaughter". Dead is dead, right? :roll:

I'm not arguing intent here as its something crucial to our justice system but why do you care what the killer was thinking or saying while he killed the person?

 

[sangha]

Nonsense. One could get an even higher penalty (longer sentence) with convictions for each separate felony involved, especially in states with a "three strikes" law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carjacking



You (normally) must have motive/criminal intent for any crime to be considered a felony. The addition of "being a bigot" should not be considered outside of the fact that it indicates a much stronger likelyhood of a propensity for committing like future crimes. Those that commit crime simply for financial gain are also very likely to repeat.

Being a bigot is not a crime under the hate crimes laws. Commiting a theft while being a bigot is not subject to more severe sentencing under the hate crimes laws if the motive is financial.

While you certainly free to think that the potential for recidivism should be the #1 concern when it comes to sentencing, that is merely your opinion.

 

[captainawesome]

And I disagree.... let's look at the Boston Strangler... was what he did 'terrorism' because he went after women?

IMO, and I repeat, it does not deter, it puts the value of one life over another, and serves no purpose other than to make that group feel special.

All men are created equal

No it is to deter hateful people from being terrorists.

It is just that simple.

 

[sangha]

I'm not arguing intent here as its something crucial to our justice system but why do you care what the killer was thinking or saying while he killed the person?

Because motive and intent (both matters of the perps mental state) have always mattered when it comes to criminal law. Why do you want to suddenly ignore those issues?

 

[captainawesome]

But intent is shown through planning and matters to the diffrent degrees of crime why does wether ths guy killed a guy because he was black matter?

Because intent matters.

KKK terrorists deserve a harsher sentence than a drunk who killed a guy in a bar fight.

 

[captainawesome]

I'm not arguing intent here as its something crucial to our justice system but why do you care what the killer was thinking or saying while he killed the person?

Becaise state of mind is intent.

 

[GottaGo]

No it is to deter hateful people from being terrorists.

It is just that simple.

And we've seen just how well that works as a deterrent, haven't we?

 

[captainawesome]

And we've seen just how well that works as a deterrent, haven't we?

Yes we have there hasnt been lunchings in a while. So it has indeed worked.

 

[GottaGo]

Yes we have there hasnt been lunchings in a while. So it has indeed worked.

Those that would do harm to others have moved on to bigger and better methods, so no, I don't see it as a deterrent. They've also found other outlets for their anger, other groups to attack.

 

[YoungConserv]

Because intent matters.

KKK terrorists deserve a harsher sentence than a drunk who killed a guy in a bar fight.

Why? Then aren't you saying that a black life killed by the kkk is more important than than a white life killed in a bar fight?

 

[YoungConserv]

Becaise state of mind is intent.

It has nothing to do with degree of murder.

 

[captainawesome]

Why? Then aren't you saying that a black life killed by the kkk is more important than than a white life killed in a bar fight?

No I am saying intent matters.

 

[captainawesome]

It has nothing to do with degree of murder.

It has everything to do with it. Its what determines the charges.

Negligence vs premeditated. Or in a heat of rage vs murder for hire. Intent is the deciding factor.