Are Hate Crime Enhancements Used Equitably in the USA?

[Fisher]

Motive is, and always has been, a factor in charging and sentencing.

And the outcome is not the same. The outcome of a terrorist murdering a person is not the same as a robber murdering someone.

Technically no. Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon doesn't care why you had the gun. You did possess it or you didn't. That is all as far as the charging goes.

 

[sangha]

Technically no. Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon doesn't care why you had the gun. You did possess it or you didn't. That is all as far as the charging goes.

Petty

I should have said "Motive has always been allowed to be a factor...."

 

[Fisher]

Petty

I should have said "Motive has always been allowed to be a factor...."

Not petty--just clarifying. Your change in language still puts you off. It should be qualified with "With a lot of charges..." not "is and always have been" :2razz:

I am sort of conflicted on hate crimes so I go back and forth. The emotionless/rational libertarian streak in me says that the enhancements are wrong as people are free to think and be idiots; but the "don't wanna not use the law to pummel those who would tie a kid up to a snow fence, beat him into a coma and leave him to die because he was gay and they were bored or pissed off or who the hell the really cares why" side of me thinks they do not go far enough.

 

[sangha]

Not petty--just clarifying. Your change in language still puts you off. It should be qualified with "With a lot of charges..." not "is and always have been" :2razz:

I am sort of conflicted on hate crimes so I go back and forth. The emotionless/rational libertarian streak in me says that the enhancements are wrong as people are free to think and be idiots; but the "don't wanna not use the law to pummel those who would tie a kid up to a snow fence, beat him into a coma and leave him to die because he was gay and they were bored or pissed off or who the hell the really cares why" side of me thinks they do not go far enough.

Possibly, but the issue is wording, not meaning. I sense you understand the meaning, and that is what effective communication is about.

 

[ChrisL]

Chris...say a drunk driver ran over your sister while she crossed the street...and consequently she died. Now a drunk person was obviously unable to make good judgment calls while driving. But non-the-less, that is a form of murder.

On the other hand, lets say your sister's boyfriend had an argument with her...saw her walking across the street...purposely ran over her...then backed up and again ran over her...back and forth several times to make sure she was dead...should bear the same consequences as the above incident?

That is different forms of murder though, not "what is the person thinking when he/she is committing a murder." Those two different situations would be separate without hate crime legislation because they are on different levels.

 

[ChrisL]

Motive is, and always has been, a factor in charging and sentencing.

And the outcome is not the same. The outcome of a terrorist murdering a person is not the same as a robber murdering someone.

A terrorist attack is something else entirely. We are talking about individuals being charged with "hate crimes" which means that you are being punished for your thoughts and/or emotions during the crime as well as the crime itself. Hate is an emotion after all. I don't see how we can punish somebody for their personal thoughts and feelings. Basically, hate crimes punish someone because of how they feel.

 

[sangha]

That is different forms of murder though, not "what is the person thinking when he/she is committing a murder." Those two different situations would be separate without hate crime legislation because they are on different levels.

What's the difference in outcome?

It shouldn't be a factor when handing down the punishment because the outcome is the same regardless of the motive.

 

[sangha]

A terrorist attack is something else entirely. We are talking about individuals being charged with "hate crimes" which means that you are being punished for your thoughts and/or emotions during the crime as well as the crime itself. Hate is an emotion after all. I don't see how we can punish somebody for their personal thoughts and feelings. Basically, hate crimes punish someone because of how they feel.

And a hate crime is something entirely different than a non-hate crime.

And no matter how many times you repeat, saying that hate crimes punish people because of how they feel will always be a lie

 

[ThePlayDrive]

I was browsing a thread on Paula Dean and the "N" word when a series of questions came to mind about our views on racism in the U.S.A.

I have seen many examples in criminal trials around the nation of “hate crime” enhancements alleging a white defendant’s use of the word “nigger” during the criminal act amounted to a need for additional punishments as a racial hate crime. But..:

Has anyone ever seen “hate crime” enhancements used on a Black defendant for using racial epithets against a victim of another race?

Or a member of another faith against a Christian church?

Or a member of a “democratic” political party against a communist, socialist, or fascist party member?

Is it only a “hate crime” when the victim is a member of a certain class or a minority or is there any evidence it is used equitably for all citizens, faiths, and political groups?

Any examples and your thoughts on the matter?

Yes, hate crime law is used equitably. It may appear less equal because there are less hate crimes against whites than non-whites and less hate crimes against Christians than non-Christians. But that is just evidence that our history leans sharply towards certain types of hatred over others not that hate crime law is used unequally.

Also, political leans and parties are protected groups so there can't legally be a hate crime against a socialist - to my knowledge.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Why do we need to punish people for what's in their heads and not just the crime itself?

You think terrorism should just be prosecuted as murder then? That 1st degree murder should not be distinguished from 2nd degree or manslaughter. Interesting.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

I am not sure of the validity of using victim class (race, sexual orientation, ethnicity or religion) alone as an enhancement for the charge/sentence. I like the idea of using the likelyhood of future crimes (victims) in setting that sentencing bar higher, the basic intent/motive. But why limit it to the class of victim selected based only on those "hate" factors? One that commits robbery/forcable rape, for example, has shown that their greed/desire for power/control threatens the safety of a far larger pool of society (potential future victims) than one that selects their victims based on a much narrower pool of "hated" individuals.

No, hate crimes like terrorism have a particular impact on society and have a greater tendency to lead to social unrest. Therefore, you distinguish both of them so that the people trying to advance a society-wide message of hate are dealt with in a way that not only punishes them for the specific act of violence, but for the violence against society that they committed.

 

[ChrisL]

And a hate crime is something entirely different than a non-hate crime.

And no matter how many times you repeat, saying that hate crimes punish people because of how they feel will always be a lie

It isn't a lie. Hate is an emotion or a feeling. "Hate" crime legislation is an additional punishment because a person perhaps "hates" a specific group.

 

[sangha]

It isn't a lie. Hate is an emotion or a feeling. "Hate" crime legislation is an additional punishment because a person perhaps "hates" a specific group.

The law doesn't punish anyone's feelings. No one has ever had additional punishment because they hate a specific group.

No matter how many times you say it, it will always be a lie.

 

[ChrisL]

The law doesn't punish anyone's feelings. No one has ever had additional punishment because they hate a specific group.

No matter how many times you say it, it will always be a lie.

Derp. That's what "hate" crime legislation is, punishing hate. :lol:

 

[Removable Mind]

That is different forms of murder though, not "what is the person thinking when he/she is committing a murder." Those two different situations would be separate without hate crime legislation because they are on different levels.

Ok. Try: your brother in law thinks your sister is having an affair and runs over her multiple times.

Your brother in law tortures and kill a boy dating your niece because he's not the same color.

?????

Same Consequence?

 

[sangha]

Derp. That's what "hate" crime legislation is, punishing hate. :lol:

Derp

No, it's not.

Next you'll be telling us that Amber Alerts are about looking for someone named Amber

 

[ChrisL]

Derp

No, it's not.

Next you'll be telling us that Amber Alerts are about looking for someone named Amber

Is hate not an emotion/feeling? Yes it is.

 

[ChrisL]

Ok. Try: your brother in law thinks your sister is having an affair and runs over her multiple times.

Your brother in law tortures and kill a boy dating your niece because he's not the same color.

?????

Same Consequence?

See, you are adding in things to one that are not included in the other to make them not equal. Of course torture and making a person suffer would/should come with a higher penalty because that is torture. But that has nothing to do with the thought process of the perp.

If he tortured and murdered his wife because he thought she was cheating or if he tortured and murdered someone because he "hated" that person, the penalty should be the same because it is the same crime with the same results, regardless of what his thought process was during the commission of said crime.

 

[Removable Mind]

See, you are adding in things to one that are not included in the other to make them not equal. Of course torture and making a person suffer would/should come with a higher penalty because that is torture. But that has nothing to do with the thought process of the perp.

If he tortured and murdered his wife because he thought she was cheating or if he tortured and murdered someone because he "hated" that person, the penalty should be the same because it is the same crime with the same results, regardless of what his thought process was during the commission of said crime.

One more time Chris....

So if the brother in law just kills the boy because he's a racist...and in the other scenario runs over his wife multiple times for suspecting her of having an affair...should carry the same penalty.

 

[sangha]

Is hate not an emotion/feeling? Yes it is.

Yes, it's an emotion

It's not a crime

 

[ecofarm]

Derp. That's what "hate" crime legislation is, punishing hate. :lol:

No, it's punishing organized terrorism. Last I checked, a hate crime conviction required:

1. Targeting by race/gender/etc as the only motive in the crime.
2. The person is a member of a hate group that targets the victim, or the person possesses published hate material targeting the victim.

In this way, it's really organized terrorism. It's much more damaging to society than common crime, as it is intended to strike fear into a demographic and is driven by forces outside the perpetrator. As you can plainly see, crime committed through organization and with the intent of terrorizing a group is more serious than a common crime.

There have been hate crime convictions for crimes against white males. It's not about protecting a group, it's about dealing with organized terrorism.

 

[ChrisL]

No, it's punishing organized terrorism. Last I checked, a hate crime conviction required:

1. Targeting by race/gender/etc as the only motive in the crime.
2. The person is a member of a hate group that targets the victim, or the person possesses published hate material targeting the victim.

In this way, it's really organized terrorism. It's much more damaging to society than common crime, as it is intended to strike fear into a demographic and is driven by forces outside the perpetrator. As you can plainly see, crime committed through organization and with the intent of terrorizing a group is more serious than a common crime.

There have been hate crime convictions for crimes against white males. It's not about protecting a group, it's about dealing with organized terrorism.

Well then why isn't rape considered a hate crime against women? It usually targets women and can terrorize a community of women.

Why isn't child abuse a hate crime against children?

Where do you draw the lines with such laws?

 

[sangha]

Well then why isn't rape considered a hate crime against women? It usually targets women and can terrorize a community of women.

Why isn't child abuse a hate crime against children?

Where do you draw the lines with such laws?

You just proved that your claim that the laws punish people who hate is wrong.

As your questions show, it takes more than just feeling hate in order to be charged with a hate crime.

 

[ecofarm]

Well then why isn't rape considered a hate crime against women? It usually targets women and can terrorize a community of women.

Terrorizing women in general is generally not the motive. If it was, then it could be prosecuted as such and the two standards would need to be met.

Why isn't child abuse a hate crime against children?

If the child is being abused in order to put fear into other children, and that is the only motive, then it could be prosecuted as such and the two standards would need to be met.

Where do you draw the lines with such laws?

1. The perp is a member of a group or possesses hate speech material from a recognized hate organization, in which the victim is targeted.
2. The only motive is to terrorize the target population.

No so complicated.

 

[ChrisL]

Terrorizing women in general is generally not the motive. If it was, then it could be prosecuted as such and the two standards would need to be met.

What about in the case of a serial rapist, who breaks into women's homes and rapes them in the night, threatening them with harm. That is terrorizing women.

If the child is being abused in order to put fear into other children, and that is the only motive, then it could be prosecuted as such and the two standards would need to be met.

Again, same as above, what if it's a repeat offender who targets specifically children.

1. The perp is a member of a group or possesses hate speech material from a recognized hate organization.
2. The only motive is to terrorize the target population.

No so complicated.

So what you are saying that there has to be an INTENT to scare a certain segment of the population, but whether a person's actually DO scare a certain segment of the population is really NOT taken into account, such as in the case of the serial rapist.

I agree that in certain instances it might be appropriate, such as a KKK lynching or something to that effect, but I believe I've heard it applied (or tried to be applied) in other situations where the "intent" might not be so clear.