Can someone explain the value of "hate crime" legislation?

[element94]

My intention is to call out intellectual dishonesty where I see it, and I have no problem with anyone knowing that.

After the Holocaust (and slavery), there was definitely a need to acknowledge ethnic, religious and racial hatred and clarify basic human rights. The designation of hate crimes is just an extension of that, and sadly needed because some just can't accept equality among all human beings. It is a sickness of the mind that continues to fester worldwide. Unless that all ends, the U.S., for example, will be paying for slavery indefinitely.

 

[NatMorton]

After the Holocaust (and slavery), there was definitely a need to acknowledge ethnic, religious and racial hatred and clarify basic human rights. The designation of hate crimes is just an extension of that, and sadly needed because some just can't accept equality among all human beings. It is a sickness of the mind that continues to fester worldwide. Unless that all ends, the U.S., for example, will be paying for slavery indefinitely.

How do hate crimes laws either achieve or advance the concept of equality? Please be specific.

 

[element94]

How do hate crimes laws either achieve or advance the concept of equality? Please be specific.

That enough legislators felt a need for the designation, going back to 1968, I would say it was necessary as, at least, a deterrent, but as history has shown it's been more of an indictment of hate. As for advancement, I would say the racial hate in the U.S. has grown exponentially, to the country's eternal shame.

 

[NatMorton]

That enough legislators felt a need for the designation, going back to 1968, I would say it was necessary as, at least, a deterrent, but as history has shown it's been more of an indictment of hate. As for advancement, I would say the racial hate in the U.S. has grown exponentially, to the country's eternal shame.

And this is what I said earlier. Beating someone up or killing them is already illegal. If someone is willing to risk serving time for pre-1968 penalties for these crimes, why would the the consequences of hate crime law change their mind about vomiting the act?

 

[element94]

And this is what I said earlier. Beating someone up or killing them is already illegal. If someone is willing to risk serving time for pre-1968 penalties for these crimes, why would the the consequences of hate crime law change their mind about vomiting the act?

Americans love Christianity, so maybe it has something to do with that since specific crimes against groups of people are usually anti-Christian. I say that, though, with a very jaded view of hypocrisy in this country.

 

[NatMorton]

Americans love Christianity, so maybe it has something to do with that since specific crimes against groups of people are usually anti-Christian. I say that, though, with a very jaded view of hypocrisy in this country.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, though it does help prove my point. When pushed, no one can make a rational case for why hate crimes laws are needed.

 

[roguenuke]

An interesting take, and I'll give it some thought, but I'm not sure it will hold. If my neighbor is beaten during a home robbery, I have every reason to fear for my safety as well yet such a crime is not a "hate" crime. Very few violent crimes are so singular in purpose as to leave no one else wondering if they could be next.

It could be a hate crime though. If your neighbor was beaten because he caught the robber in the act or was simply there, that is more likely to be related to the robbery, whereas if he was specifically beaten because of the color of his skin or maybe he was in an interracial relationship, that is a different case and can cause more fear than just getting robbed.

In most cases, circumstances matter. Just like we have laws that make hitting a child worse than hitting an adult, most of the time. In general, motivation and circumstances matter when it comes to what punishment a person receives for a crime. In the case of hate crime legislation, it simply codifies an expectation of higher punishment for crimes committed based on "hate" for another person related to a specific characteristic of that person (normally a demographic type characteristic) rather than simply that person as an individual.

 

[roguenuke]

First of all, consider the absurdity of what you just wrote. Don't you find it just a little bit dangerous for the rotten government to be punishing people for their feelings? Hate is an emotion. Never mind the fact that the government has know way of knowing what the person was truly feeling at the time of the crime.

I know, but the political left also wants hate speech laws, which are a new and ridiculous "crime". This stupid progressive shit about punishing people for the politically incorrect thoughts and feelings needs to be fought on every front.

Have you never heard of "crime of passion"? Emotions have been part of our justice system since it's inception.

Few on the political left want "hate speech laws". Some do, but they are not a majority. Just as some on the right want laws that would make Christianity our national religion, force members of Congress to swear in on a Bible, deem burning a flag or Bible as illegal, and many other things that they find wrong. They are not a majority of the right either, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, the same way as those few on the left who want similar.

 

[roguenuke]

Merely intending to commit murder isn't a crime. You can intend anything you want. You have to actually act on it. If I sit here at my desk so mad at you that I secretly intend to murder you but don't do anything, I haven't committed a crime.

We punish assault with intent to murder (a distinct crime) worse than assault because the intent to murder makes whatever the person did morally worse. We want to punish it more. We want to deter it. Yadda yadda, look into the philosophy of punishment. There are multiple and sometimes contradictory arguments about why we punish.

If I walk up to you, empty a gun at you but miss, then we have a brawl because I cannot reload in time, there's a good chance I'm either going down on assault with intent to murder or attempted murder, even if all I ultimately did was bloody your nose. Those are two different ways in which the evil intent is punished more severely. They modify the assault. Now I'm not sure if what Doc said is true in every jurisdiction, but frankly the difference between a sentencing enhancement and a distinct separate crime, both of which punish an evil intent, is semantic for lay purposes.

​

(I say that because there is a body of law about which enhancements must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and which can be imposed if a judge finds something by a preponderance of evidence after conviction by a jury on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Start with US v. Booker and work your way forward 15ish years or whatever it's been).​

​

If you think hate crime laws are wrong, you are necessarily bound to also think the distinction between manslaughter and first degree murder is unfair.

Case 1: Joe gets in a bar fight and punches Bob. Bob is drunk, so he slips and falls, hits his head, dies 14 days later from the injury.

Case 2: Joe hates Bob. Joe gets his shotgun and lies in wait behind bushes in Bob's house, knowing Bob stumbles home most nights because he's an alchie. He pops out of the bush and blows Joe's chest to bits one night, killing him.

If we ignore intent, as would be the case if you have a principled issue with using intent in any way to measure culpability, you should say these should be treated the same. After all, as you say, the victim doesn't give a shit - he's dead.

The rest of us would think "hey, but in the first case all he did was punch the guy. He didn't plan to kill him. He didn't want to kill him. He didn't even expect to kill him. He was just having a brawl." From that we would conclude that maybe he shouldn't be punished as severely. Sure, it should be more than a simple A&B. Someone died. Eggshell skull rule. Yadda yadda. But it's still not as bad as plotting to kill someone then doing it methodically because in the latter case, Joe wanted that death to happen.

Hate crimes just focus on a different sort of intent. Rather than intent about the scope of injury, it's an intent about a specific class of people to injure.

One of my instructors in criminal justice explained it like this.

Let's say a person is thinking about killing a specific person. They are driving around in their car in this person's neighborhood (at night, dark out) and accidentally hit a person with their car. They then get out of the car and try to save the person who just ran out in front of them, but it is too late. The person dies. They find out later this was the person they actually "intended" to kill. They still shouldn't legally be charged with a crime because the act that resulted in harm/death to the person was not itself intentional. It doesn't matter if they actually "intended" to kill that person some time in the future, the act itself that did kill the person was not intentional.

He did note though that other people's emotions and political motivations may still play a part in the matter, and get that person arrested and charged, and possibly even convicted, so don't do that. The scenario is purely from a position of knowing the person's intentions and the laws.

 

[element94]

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, though it does help prove my point. When pushed, no one can make a rational case for why hate crimes laws are needed.

If Christianity doesn't float your boat, how about as a society we deem crimes of hate particularly heinous. You still seem to be looking for a way out, oh and by the way, hate crime designation is not going away, so your quest is futile.

 

[NatMorton]

It could be a hate crime though. If your neighbor was beaten because he caught the robber in the act or was simply there, that is more likely to be related to the robbery, whereas if he was specifically beaten because of the color of his skin or maybe he was in an interracial relationship, that is a different case and can cause more fear than just getting robbed.

In most cases, circumstances matter. Just like we have laws that make hitting a child worse than hitting an adult, most of the time. In general, motivation and circumstances matter when it comes to what punishment a person receives for a crime. In the case of hate crime legislation, it simply codifies an expectation of higher punishment for crimes committed based on "hate" for another person related to a specific characteristic of that person (normally a demographic type characteristic) rather than simply that person as an individual.

That makes no sense. Beating your neighbor is illegal without it being a hate crime. Unless it's a matter of self-defense, or possibly defending another, the reason why you're beating your neighbor is immaterial.

 

[NatMorton]

If Christianity doesn't float your boat, how about as a society we deem crimes of hate particularly heinous. You still seem to be looking for a way out, oh and by the way, hate crime designation is not going away, so your quest is futile.

No, I'm not looking for a "way out." I'm looking for an answer to my question: what purpose does hate crime legislation serve? I can only come up with one: emotional satisfaction for those who advocate for those laws.

 

[roguenuke]

That makes no sense. Beating your neighbor is illegal without it being a hate crime. Unless it's a matter of self-defense, or possibly defending another, the reason why you're beating your neighbor is immaterial.

The reason why is not immaterial, at all. It is very important to any case. It even makes the difference in what sort of crime it is charged, before even getting into hate crime laws.

Note how you aren't addressing the actual content of most arguments here, rather skirting that for "well reason why shouldn't matter". That is not a logical argument in relation to any crime. A reason why someone does something does matter when it comes to crimes. Someone who slams on their brakes for a squirrel and causes an accident is going to be different legally than someone who slams on their brakes for a person or someone who slams on their brakes to intentionally cause an accident or someone who slams their brakes because they are having a medical emergency. The circumstances and reasons why someone takes any action that could be considered a "crime" or cause someone else harm or damage to their property does matter when it comes to the law.

Just like it is important to find out the actual reasons for a police shooting incident rather than to jump to the conclusion "race" or some other discriminatory reason, because the actual circumstances of each individual case, the reasoning behind the actions involved do matter.

 

[element94]

No, I'm not looking for a "way out." I'm looking for an answer to my question: what purpose does hate crime legislation serve? I can only come up with one: emotional satisfaction for those who advocate for those laws.

I think the ultimate hate crime was what the Nazis did to the Jews, yet just as heinous, but on a much smaller scale, is what Robert Bowers did at the Pittsburgh synagogue for instance. Bowers hated Jews and went to a place Jews congregated and murdered them. The crime was driven by hate alone, since Bowers previously used hate speech toward Jews online.
A guy who robs a bank, then gets in a shootout with Police and kills a few of them and maybe some bystanders is not a hate crime, but more a crime of desperation.
They're both murder of course, but a murder rampage driven by hate I think needs to be singled out for the utter senselessness of it; an inability to control prejudices that leads to mass murder is premeditated by hate and particularly heinous for something someone else cannot control: their race/ethnicity, or in some situations average people's choice of religion, which should be a private and personal thing that has nothing to do with anyone else.

 

[NatMorton]

The reason why is not immaterial, at all. It is very important to any case. It even makes the difference in what sort of crime it is charged, before even getting into hate crime laws.

Note how you aren't addressing the actual content of most arguments here, rather skirting that for "well reason why shouldn't matter". That is not a logical argument in relation to any crime. A reason why someone does something does matter when it comes to crimes. Someone who slams on their brakes for a squirrel and causes an accident is going to be different legally than someone who slams on their brakes for a person or someone who slams on their brakes to intentionally cause an accident or someone who slams their brakes because they are having a medical emergency. The circumstances and reasons why someone takes any action that could be considered a "crime" or cause someone else harm or damage to their property does matter when it comes to the law.

Just like it is important to find out the actual reasons for a police shooting incident rather than to jump to the conclusion "race" or some other discriminatory reason, because the actual circumstances of each individual case, the reasoning behind the actions involved do matter.

You're mischaracterizing my position. Of course intent matters, but we're talking about various forms of malice, i.e. bad intent.

If I beat you because of your skin color, I have bad intent. If I beat you because I don't like whom you voted for, I also have bad intent. Why is one worse than the other?

 

[NatMorton]

I think the ultimate hate crime was what the Nazis did to the Jews, yet just as heinous, but on a much smaller scale, is what Robert Bowers did at the Pittsburgh synagogue for instance. Bowers hated Jews and went to a place Jews congregated and murdered them. The crime was driven by hate alone, since Bowers previously used hate speech toward Jews online.
A guy who robs a bank, then gets in a shootout with Police and kills a few of them and maybe some bystanders is not a hate crime, but more a crime of desperation.
They're both murder of course, but a murder rampage driven by hate I think needs to be singled out for the utter senselessness of it; an inability to control prejudices that leads to mass murder is premeditated by hate and particularly heinous for something someone else cannot control: their race/ethnicity, or in some situations average people's choice of religion, which should be a private and personal thing that has nothing to do with anyone else.

That's as close to a good answer as I've come across thus far, but I still don't see a meaningful difference.

Let's take your example. I kill someone because of their skin color. You kill someone who was trying to apprehend you while you were robbing a bank. We are both murderers. Why is my crime worse than yours?

 

[Robertinfremont]

Acts committed with worse intent are punished more severely.

We punish assault with intent to rape and assault with intent to murder more severely than simple assault or assault and battery.

We punish premeditated murder more harshly than we do various non-premeditated murder s(second and/or third degree, depending on the state).

On and on the list goes. But then, these threads are never really about whether or not hate crimes are anomolous in criminal law (they're not, as I just noted; far from it). They're just people pretending to engage in intellectual rumination when really they just plain don't care about hate crimes.

Then why were Democrats so lax on fighting crime during 2020?

 

[Robertinfremont]

No, they don't. Having hateful thoughts is not a crime anywhere - its only a crime when it relates directly to a criminal action.

Hate crime laws don't create new crimes - they are sentence enhancements.

I think Biden supported those causing far more blacks to be put into prisons.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Murder is illegal regardless of the motive.

And has never carried a universal punishment throughout human history.

 

[element94]

That's as close to a good answer as I've come across thus far, but I still don't see a meaningful difference.

Let's take your example. I kill someone because of their skin color. You kill someone who was trying to apprehend you while you were robbing a bank. We are both murderers. Why is my crime worse than yours?

Well the bank robbery/murder thing has more going on and more charges, so I don't think the Hate Crime is worse. I think a Hate Crime that is a mass murder would be worse if the bank robbery/murder was a single murder.
I think it's more of an attempt as a deterrent in a country that values the freedoms of all its citizens. I agree with the designation.

 

[Sietske22]

Then why were Democrats so lax on fighting crime during 2020?

Meanwhile you justify the murder of George Floyd, cause had some counterfeit money.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Meanwhile you justify the murder of George Floyd, cause had some counterfeit money.

I speak English. Why don't we locate Canadians who speak English.

I have never justified murder. And if you excused him of for counterfeit money, talk to our treasury department and see if the treat it as a joke.

 

[joko104]

This is true of any home robbery though. As a result, there's no reason to make a distinction since that is already because all home robberies are fairly random and therefore have this impact on the whole neighborhood.
Maybe if you found out it was your neighbor's ex-boyfriend that committed the robbery you'd feel a sie of relief. But in general, any random crime like that impacts the whole community as a result no distinction is really necessary.

Try and imagine for a minute that you were a Red Sox fan and heard a story about another Red Sox fan wearing a Red Sox hat and jersey walking through New York and a bunch of Yankees fans jumped out of a car and beat the shit out of him.
Because you are also a Red Sox fan living in New York this makes you think twice about whether or not you want to walk downtown in your Jersey. The fan who was beaten was obviously injured badly, but you yourself now feel as though you must
restrict your own freedom.

Now in the case of a sports team, you could easily just take your Jersey or hat off and not worry. But what if you were a Muslim who heard about some white guys beating up another Muslim wearing a turban or a Hijab?
A few years ago when Dylan Roof shot up the AME church in Charleston, SC he was clearly a racist targetting African Americans. To think that that type of thing could happen in today's world had to send a shiver down the spine of any African American churchgoers or any groups of African Americans. White people on the other hand had no additional reason to live in fear.

That is completely false.

White people have been attacked and assaulted by black people solely because they are white. Statistically as a percentage of population, blacks kill more white people than white people kill black people, and black people have far more reason to fear other black people than to fear white people.

 

[joko104]

Meanwhile you justify the murder of George Floyd, cause had some counterfeit money.

He died of a drug overdose due to taking a lethal quantity of an illegal drug not to be caught with it. He was not murdered.

 

[NatMorton]

And has never carried a universal punishment throughout human history.

How is that relevant? And how does creating a special class of crime -- a "hate" crime -- foster uniform sentencing? In fact, the very existence of special hate crime laws does precisely the opposite.