Is "Hate Crime" legislation necessary?

[barbarian_style]

I do not like hate crime laws, most states have like described in the OP is special circumstances. To trump up charges I just don't get convinced when it said that there should be special circumstances involved when charging people for crimes of hate. What would be the different between killing your neighbor for being a general douche bag or killing your neighbor for being something else that may fall under some special circumstance. After all how many people kill out of love vs. hate. Sure it does happen but usually you can determine that the person is mentally unstable. Then again most people are mentally unstable when they kill. These laws are to vague and open to abuse by trumping up charges over possibly nothing. Loosing penalties over crimes of passion are just as stupid.

 

[Thrilla]

I disagree.



"Motive" can turn murder into self-defense...pre-meditation can turn 2nd degree murder into 1st...hitting your wife's lover over the head witha lamp when you come home and catch them in bed can turn murder into manslaughter.

The justice system has always looked at motive. It's nothing new.

only your first example speaks to motive.. the 2nd speaks to intent, the 3rd, to state of mind.
oddly enough, your first example is used as a defense and a defense only.

now, i'm not saying motive is irrelevant in all cases ( it is , however, treated as irrelevant in most cases)
in the case of self defense versus murder.. motive can be used to determine criminal liability... sure thing.

motive, alone, is irrelevant to criminal law.. the 2 "big" question are material fact of a crime committed and state of mind... often, a jury is instructed to ignore motive ( as it is irrelevant to criminal liability)

hate crime laws have been successful at a few things... 1st, discriminating on a basic of motive. ( a poor man killing a rich man is, as far as motive goes, an acceptable motive... but killing over race,sexual orientation or gender, is an unacceptable motive.)
2nd, it has been successful at giving police extra investigatory powers... ( when a hate crimes statute is invoked, it allow police to do an incredibly deep investigation into areas that are irrelevant to the crime committed and would not otherwise be permissible in court.... and the findings of those investigation is meant solely to prove motive, not criminal liability.. it is , for all intents and purposes, investigated as a separate crime.. a crime that the defendant is not formally charged with)

and hate crimes laws have been unsuccessful in other areas.. like in preventing hate crimes, or crimes overall...or decreasing bias ( some headshrinks think they actually add to the bias problem, and don't help at all) and making motive the primary factor in determining criminal liability ( no other motive allegation, presented by the prosecution, does this)


the good news is that SCOTUS has decided that juries are to decide, based on a preponderance of the evidence, whether the motive is one of the bad motives for committing a crime.. or a good motive for committing a crime.. it was once in the judges hands to decide ( in some states)

I think the intent behind HCEs are noble and honorable... but i don't find their implementation to be just or consistent and I think they tread too far into areas they shouldn't be treading... and i think they put to high a regard on a select few motives( while being silent on all other motives) .

 

[cmakaioz]

yes, those thoughts are not illegal ( most are protected).... but you can be punished by the state for them nonetheless.

Show me an example of someone being punished by the state for a thought, and I'll show you an example of someone being punished by the state for being declared to have DONE something. Even political imprisonment of dissidents is still conviction based upon actions (like communicating dissident sentiments). That, too, is NOT a case of criminalizing thoughts.

 

[Ikari]

"Motive" can turn murder into self-defense...pre-meditation can turn 2nd degree murder into 1st...hitting your wife's lover over the head witha lamp when you come home and catch them in bed can turn murder into manslaughter.

The justice system has always looked at motive. It's nothing new.

Yup, and we already have all those laws on the books.

 

[Thrilla]

Show me an example of someone being punished by the state for a thought, and I'll show you an example of someone being punished by the state for being declared to have DONE something. Even political imprisonment of dissidents is still conviction based upon actions (like communicating dissident sentiments). That, too, is NOT a case of criminalizing thoughts.

while being motivated by acceptable thoughts... murder gets you ,say, 10 years.

while being motivated by unacceptable thoughts... murder gets you 10 years also.. plus a couple of years for those unacceptable thoughts.

 

[Ikari]

while being motivated by acceptable thoughts... murder gets you ,say, 10 years.

while being motivated by unacceptable thoughts... murder gets you 10 years also.. plus a couple of years for those unacceptable thoughts.

That's pretty much what's going down here. I don't care why you murdered someone, just that you've done so. While we have designations for intent, that needs to be demonstrated in a court of law. Anything that could have proven perhaps premeditation over random crime is already set in the system and we don't need sets of additional laws to up the ante on crimes we think are motivated by "bad thinking".

 

[radcen]

That's pretty much what's going down here. I don't care why you murdered someone, just that you've done so. While we have designations for intent, that needs to be demonstrated in a court of law. Anything that could have proven perhaps premeditation over random crime is already set in the system and we don't need sets of additional laws to up the ante on crimes we think are motivated by "bad thinking".

Intent... as in planning, etc... is huge for me. While I would not classify DUI deaths as intent, it's also a bit more than something that "just happened".

 

[MaggieD]

After reading everyone's opinions on hate crime legislation, I've come 'round to thinking that we don't need it. But we do need the charge to properly reflect one's supposed motive so that sentences can be handed down that take that into account. Like, if you killed someone you caught him in bed with your wife, right then, right there, the motive makes the crime less heinous than if you killed someone because they were Jewish. Does that even make sense? I'm thinking that's what we have now.....? Or is there a specific charge for "Hate Crime Homocide"?

 

[cmakaioz]

while being motivated by acceptable thoughts... murder gets you ,say, 10 years.

while being motivated by unacceptable thoughts... murder gets you 10 years also.. plus a couple of years for those unacceptable thoughts.

Clearly, literacy is not a high priority for you. Criminal thought would carry a penalty ON ITS OWN, not as an enhancement for actually DOING something. You cannot currently be charged with thinking murderous thoughts. If someone is convicted of murder, the severity of the murder charge may be increased NOT according to your thoughts, but according to a prosecutor successfully demonstrating evidence consistent with such thoughts (i.e. you don't get an enhanced sentence for THINKING about planning something, you get an enhanced sentence for a prosecutor demonstrating to the satisfaction of the court that actions you have been shown to have taken prove that you planned ahead.) If you planned things all in your head, and those plans STAYED in your head (you didn't act on them), then there's no basis for any charge.

I'll spell it out for you. An applicable supporting example to back up your claim would be citing a case of someone convicted and punished for JUST the thoughts.

Given that law enforcement and courts of law don't even have a mechanism for assessing thoughts in isolation (let alone criminalizing them), it's obvious this hasn't happened.

But go ahead, knock yourself out and waste more time trying to prove something already known to be false.

 

[radcen]

After reading everyone's opinions on hate crime legislation, I've come 'round to thinking that we don't need it. But we do need the charge to properly reflect one's supposed motive so that sentences can be handed down that take that into account. Like, if you killed someone you caught him in bed with your wife, right then, right there, the motive makes the crime less heinous than if you killed someone because they were Jewish. Does that even make sense? I'm thinking that's what we have now.....? Or is there a specific charge for "Hate Crime Homocide"?

Yes, that makes sense. The proverbial "crime of passion" usually does not involve forethought. But, if you were to leave, then plan out that person's murder as revenge two weeks later... I'm sorry, that's a whole different story.

Using the Jewish example, if that is the reasoning, then usually some kind of forethought was involved. Maybe at a specific Jewish person, or just the first random Jewish person the come across. Either way, forethought and malice is present, and we already have laws to take that into account.

 

[cmakaioz]

After reading everyone's opinions on hate crime legislation, I've come 'round to thinking that we don't need it. But we do need the charge to properly reflect one's supposed motive so that sentences can be handed down that take that into account. Like, if you killed someone you caught him in bed with your wife, right then, right there, the motive makes the crime less heinous than if you killed someone because they were Jewish. Does that even make sense? I'm thinking that's what we have now.....? Or is there a specific charge for "Hate Crime Homocide"?

There are no separate categories of criminal offense created by HCE's. For an HCE to obtain, someone must first be convicted of a crime -- like vandalism, assault, arson, etc.), and a prosecutor must successfully pursue an HCE by meeting a heavy additional burden of evidence demonstrating BOTH that the perpetrator bears specific animus against a protected class of victim (protected classes are general axes of treatment or perception, like "racial" animus, anti-religious animus, etc.)...AND that this animus motivated the crime:

Cliff's Notes version:

• no conviction of a crime = no possibility of obtaining an HCE
• conviction of a crime, but no pursuit of an HCE = no HCE
• conviction of a crime, pursuit of an HCE, but failure to meet the additional burden of evidence = no HCE
• conviction of a crime, pursuit of an HCE, demonstration that offender harbors animus, but no demonstration that the offense was motivated by the animus = no HCE
• conviction of a crime, pursuit of an HCE, demonstration of animus, demonstration of motivation by animus = HCE

There are no separate categories of crime based upon the specific "race", sex, religion, or sexual orientation of the perpetrator or victim. Protected classes are general, not specific, so ANYONE may potentially be a perpetrator or victim of a crime with an HCE based upon their actions and motivation, not upon any ascribed identity. In your hypothetical of someone killing someone "because they were Jewish", a potential HCE might obtain, but based upon demonstrated animus and motivation from animus against religious affiliation generally or "race" generally. In other words, legally speaking there is a provision for HCEs NOT based upon a victim being Jewish, but rather upon the legal recognition of Judaism as a religion and/or "Jewish" as a "race".

 

[cmakaioz]

Yes, that makes sense. The proverbial "crime of passion" usually does not involve forethought. But, if you were to leave, then plan out that person's murder as revenge two weeks later... I'm sorry, that's a whole different story.

Using the Jewish example, if that is the reasoning, then usually some kind of forethought was involved. Maybe at a specific Jewish person, or just the first random Jewish person the come across. Either way, forethought and malice is present, and we already have laws to take that into account.

The form and severity of damage caused by specifically targeting victims based upon "race", sex, sexual orientation, religion, and nationality -- vs. the forethought and malice of the criminal act itself -- are substantially different. The additional harm from such selective targeting is distinct from the additional harm from forethought and malice generally.

Opposing the practice of accounting for (and enhancing sentences based upon) additional harm is one thing. Flatly denying the additional harm (in one or both of the forms mentioned above) is dogmatism and superstition.

Malice and forethought are factors which increase the efficacy and damage of a hostile act generally: a planned attack like burning down a home or bombing a high-traffic public area is more lethal than an unplanned one. But above and beyond the baseline damage of a planned, malicious hostile act, such an act shown to be specifically aimed at harming someone based upon their perceived membership in a protected class bears the additional harm of leading people to question -- quite reasonably -- whether or not the basic protections of people to live and exist both as individuals and as members of communities (including the big presumed community of a city, state, or country living under common laws) are actually upheld for all. This differential confidence (or lack of confidence) in being able to rely upon basic protections is what makes it possible to maintain continuity and stability for anything worth being called a society.

This tenuous relationship -- between the state and everyday constituents -- is largely either ignored or presumed by members of the privileged on a given axis (i.e. men rarely consider the state's need to be seen as substantive defenders against sexist oppression, "white" people rarely see the importance of a state's needs to be seen as working against racist oppression, straight people often don't see the worth of the state being seen as defending against homophobic oppression, etc.). That tendency to not see such need, or to trivialize it, however, doesn't magically make such needs go away.

 

[Tettsuo]

After reading everyone's opinions on hate crime legislation, I've come 'round to thinking that we don't need it. But we do need the charge to properly reflect one's supposed motive so that sentences can be handed down that take that into account. Like, if you killed someone you caught him in bed with your wife, right then, right there, the motive makes the crime less heinous than if you killed someone because they were Jewish. Does that even make sense? I'm thinking that's what we have now.....? Or is there a specific charge for "Hate Crime Homocide"?

That's what the hate crime laws are for.. so I'm not sure why you'd be against it. The person that kills because of some arbitrary reason like religion, sex, color or sexual preference should be treated to a harsher penalty. How can we have a person like that in society? I can understand killing someone who did something to you. That makes sense to me. But to kill someone who's done nothing except be born within a particular group that different than yours deserves a special h3ll.

 

[radcen]

That's what the hate crime laws are for.. so I'm not sure why you'd be against it. The person that kills because of some arbitrary reason like religion, sex, color or sexual preference should be treated to a harsher penalty. How can we have a person like that in society? I can understand killing someone who did something to you. That makes sense to me. But to kill someone who's done nothing except be born within a particular group that different than yours deserves a special h3ll.

Take what you just said, and rephrase it thusly...

The person that kills because of some arbitrary reason like they want your wallet/money. How can we have a person like that in society?

Is the motivation distinction really necessary? No, it's not. Neither reason... being born part of a group, or it being "just business" because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time... is any more or less repugnant than the other.

 

[cmakaioz]

Take what you just said, and rephrase it thusly...

The person that kills because of some arbitrary reason like they want your wallet/money. How can we have a person like that in society?

Is the motivation distinction really necessary? No, it's not. Neither reason... being born part of a group, or it being "just business" because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time... is any more or less repugnant than the other.

Setting aside the normative question of whether you (or I, or anyone) personally considers one or the other offense to warrant a lighter or heavier sentence, we can at least look at an empirical question, namely:

Does one offense cause more harm than the other? The answer to THAT question is yes. Since the basis of HCE's is the additional harm, and animus crimes do incur more harm, then HCE's are consistent.

Your rephrasing is not a rephrasing at all, but a failure to distinguish the relevant substantial difference in harm. People (including legislators, jurors, and legal counsel) readily recognize the difference in both motive and damage between killing someone for a wallet (clear motivation of material gain through violence) vs. killing someone due to animus against a real or perceived membership of the victim in a group targeted by such animus.

The logically consistent basis at hand is whether or not one supports or opposes the principle of heavier sentencing for crimes which cause greater harm. It is inconsistent to support heavier sentences based upon premeditation (which are in turn based upon the additional efficacy and harm of planned crimes)...while making a special exception for HCE's (which are also based upon recognizing additional harm through heavier sentencing).

If one supports enhanced penalties for premeditation (for example, first degree murder as opposed to homicide or manslaughter), but opposes HCE's, then you're either logically inconsistent, or working from a principle OTHER THAN recognition of additional harm as a basis for degree of severity in sentencing. While the latter is plausible, no such alternate principle-- one which would involve support for enhanced penalties for premeditation but opposition for HCE's without contradiction -- has yet been articulated in this thread.

 

[Thrilla]

Clearly, literacy is not a high priority for you. Criminal thought would carry a penalty ON ITS OWN, not as an enhancement for actually DOING something. You cannot currently be charged with thinking murderous thoughts. If someone is convicted of murder, the severity of the murder charge may be increased NOT according to your thoughts, but according to a prosecutor successfully demonstrating evidence consistent with such thoughts (i.e. you don't get an enhanced sentence for THINKING about planning something, you get an enhanced sentence for a prosecutor demonstrating to the satisfaction of the court that actions you have been shown to have taken prove that you planned ahead.) If you planned things all in your head, and those plans STAYED in your head (you didn't act on them), then there's no basis for any charge.

I'll spell it out for you. An applicable supporting example to back up your claim would be citing a case of someone convicted and punished for JUST the thoughts.

Given that law enforcement and courts of law don't even have a mechanism for assessing thoughts in isolation (let alone criminalizing them), it's obvious this hasn't happened.

But go ahead, knock yourself out and waste more time trying to prove something already known to be false.

clearly, acting like an asshole is still a high priority for you...

too bad, you seem intelligent.. a bit too intelligent to keep acting like an asshole.

 

[Thrilla]

The form and severity of damage caused by specifically targeting victims based upon "race", sex, sexual orientation, religion, and nationality -- vs. the forethought and malice of the criminal act itself -- are substantially different. The additional harm from such selective targeting is distinct from the additional harm from forethought and malice generally.

Opposing the practice of accounting for (and enhancing sentences based upon) additional harm is one thing. Flatly denying the additional harm (in one or both of the forms mentioned above) is dogmatism and superstition.

Malice and forethought are factors which increase the efficacy and damage of a hostile act generally: a planned attack like burning down a home or bombing a high-traffic public area is more lethal than an unplanned one. But above and beyond the baseline damage of a planned, malicious hostile act, such an act shown to be specifically aimed at harming someone based upon their perceived membership in a protected class bears the additional harm of leading people to question -- quite reasonably -- whether or not the basic protections of people to live and exist both as individuals and as members of communities (including the big presumed community of a city, state, or country living under common laws) are actually upheld for all. This differential confidence (or lack of confidence) in being able to rely upon basic protections is what makes it possible to maintain continuity and stability for anything worth being called a society.

This tenuous relationship -- between the state and everyday constituents -- is largely either ignored or presumed by members of the privileged on a given axis (i.e. men rarely consider the state's need to be seen as substantive defenders against sexist oppression, "white" people rarely see the importance of a state's needs to be seen as working against racist oppression, straight people often don't see the worth of the state being seen as defending against homophobic oppression, etc.). That tendency to not see such need, or to trivialize it, however, doesn't magically make such needs go away.

pertaining to the bolded portion... what "additional harm" are you talking about?

 

[cmakaioz]

clearly, acting like an asshole is still a high priority for you...

too bad, you seem intelligent.. a bit too intelligent to keep acting like an asshole.

The ongoing failure -- whether by choice or by inability -- or your stance, which fails to accurately recognize the difference between a sentencing enhancement vs. a criminal offense, is duly noted.

 

[Henrin]

That's what the hate crime laws are for.. so I'm not sure why you'd be against it. The person that kills because of some arbitrary reason like religion, sex, color or sexual preference should be treated to a harsher penalty. How can we have a person like that in society? I can understand killing someone who did something to you. That makes sense to me. But to kill someone who's done nothing except be born within a particular group that different than yours deserves a special h3ll.

Why should they be treated to a harsher penalty? Is the crime any different because its done for reasons such as religion, sex, color or sexual preference? Why should racism or some other factor make charges greater?

 

[Henrin]

pertaining to the bolded portion... what "additional harm" are you talking about?

There is no greater harm. Thoughts don't change the nature of the crime. Its all just emotional garbage that they are using to sentence people.

 

[Thrilla]

The ongoing failure -- whether by choice or by inability -- or your stance, which fails to accurately recognize the difference between a sentencing enhancement vs. a criminal offense, is duly noted.

that is your perception, not truth, not fact.


note that too...

 

[Thrilla]

There is no greater harm. Thoughts don't change the nature of the crime. Its all just emotional garbage that they are using to sentence people.

I tend to agree.

 

[Ikari]

How can we have a person like that in society?

It's part of the standard distribution of human beings.

 

[Ikari]

Like, if you killed someone you caught him in bed with your wife, right then, right there, the motive makes the crime less heinous than if you killed someone because they were Jewish. Does that even make sense?

I think those are both rather heinous and demonstrate a disregard for human life and complete lack of empathy.

 

[Thrilla]

I think those are both rather heinous and demonstrate a disregard for human life and complete lack of empathy.

killing someone when you find them in bed with your spouse speaks to state of mind ( heat of passion)..... killing someone for being Jewish goes to motive.( bias)

it's unreasonable to expect empathy during "heat of passion".

anyways, motive is irrelevant in a 'heat of passion" case.. state of mind , however, is.