Hate crime haters

[Tech_Esq]

It's just an example to consider.

Say someone was a known proud neo-nazi skinhead white supremacist who spoke of burning down that damn {insert slur here} "black" church if Obama won the presidency. And then the day after the election the church goes up in flames and they can prove he did it and what motivated him to do it. Is that crime equal to the owner burning it down for insurance money?

That's why there is a range in the sentencing guideline. If the judge feels that this was an especially bad case of arson, then he gives him the max, say 25 years in prison (which, in Virginia because of "truth in sentencing" laws gets him a minimum of 23.5 years in prison). The guy that burnt down his property for money may get 10 years under the same statute. What's the problem?

In that particular case, the hate crime status might be redundant, so I guess there is no problem. What's the problem with expanding the sentencing guidelines, if we agree a range of sentencing guidelines make sense, then what's the problem with giving the judge even more leeway in the case of a particularly heinous or malicious crime? Essentially just one more notch on the spectrum of punishment, so to speak.

I think most violent crimes have a pretty good range on them already. Of course criminal laws and their punishments are determined on a state by state basis. Is there some particular crime in your state where you don't think the judge has the appropriate latitude to deal with something that might in other circumstances be considered a hate crime?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Does that mean you disagree with stiffer sentences for differing motives for murder?

Motive is not an element of the crime of murder. Here is a statute on first degree and second degree murder from two different states:



Don't be confused by the legal term of art "malice." This is an element that goes to mens rea this is the mental element of the crime that means they did not accidentally do the crime, but intended to do the crime. See here:

The mental component of criminal liability. To be guilty of most crimes, a defendant must have committed the criminal act (the actus reus) in a certain mental state (the mens rea). The mens rea of robbery, for example, is the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property.

Isn't it true though that sentencing can be reduced or added to depending on motive?

Here is fairly succinct discussion of the uses of motive in the criminal case.

Proof of motive is not required in a criminal prosecution. In determining the guilt of a criminal defendant, courts are generally not concerned with why the defendant committed the alleged crime, but whether the defendant committed the crime. However, a defendant's motive is important in other stages of a criminal case, such as police investigation and sentencing. Law enforcement personnel often consider potential motives in detecting perpetrators. Judges may consider the motives of a convicted defendant at sentencing and either increase a sentence based on avaricious motives or decrease the sentence if the defendant's motives were honorable—for example, if the accused acted in defense of a family member.

Motive

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

How do you feel about laws against terrorism and do you see them as different than hate crime law?

What laws against terrorism? We've got laws against murder and conspiracy to commit murder, and we've got law enforcement and military intelligence to investigate groups believed to be inclined to commit these crimes.

Got no problem with using the same methods to infiltrate and monitor groups that are inclined to commit murder, rape, assault, arson, and vandalism against other people for any reason-- including reasons pertaining to race, religion, or sexuality. I just think that making new laws for this purpose, that criminalize opinions and turn beliefs into either additional charges or aggravating conditions for a crime is a dangerous slippery slope.

You're seeing these laws as a way of forcing Nazis to agree with you. I may not be a liberal, but I do believe in freedom of belief-- and freedom of expression with limits-- and the same laws that could force Nazis to agree with you could also be used to force you to agree with them.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

U.S. jurisprudence is centered around the crime itself. Sentencing guidelines should be, and largely are, guided by the severity of the crime under the applicable statute(s). Focusing on the who of the crime so to speak, in addition to the crime itself, is redundant, little more than an accommodation to a political cause, and serves no useful purpose to society as a whole when compared in benefit to the current construct.

 

[Valerie]

U.S. jurisprudence is centered around the crime itself. Sentencing guidelines should be, and largely are, guided by the severity of the crime under the applicable statute(s). Focusing on the who of the crime so to speak, in addition to the crime itself, is redundant, little more than an accommodation to a political cause, and serves no useful purpose to society as a whole when compared in benefit to the current construct.

It just seems to me this is another of those issues where some people have a knee jerk reaction to be adamantly against it, thus successfully creating another wedge issue.

Since it is based on reasoning that already exists within the law -- "Judges may consider the motives of a convicted defendant at sentencing and either increase a sentence based on avaricious motives or decrease the sentence if the defendant's motives were honorable" -- Although in some cases it might be redundant, the notion that it is some sort of slippery slope seems rather far fetched.

 

[manu1959]

all crimes are hate crimes.....

 

[Ravi]

How do you feel about laws against terrorism and do you see them as different than hate crime law?

What laws against terrorism? We've got laws against murder and conspiracy to commit murder, and we've got law enforcement and military intelligence to investigate groups believed to be inclined to commit these crimes.

Got no problem with using the same methods to infiltrate and monitor groups that are inclined to commit murder, rape, assault, arson, and vandalism against other people for any reason-- including reasons pertaining to race, religion, or sexuality. I just think that making new laws for this purpose, that criminalize opinions and turn beliefs into either additional charges or aggravating conditions for a crime is a dangerous slippery slope.

You're seeing these laws as a way of forcing Nazis to agree with you. I may not be a liberal, but I do believe in freedom of belief-- and freedom of expression with limits-- and the same laws that could force Nazis to agree with you could also be used to force you to agree with them.

There are federal laws against terrorism.

 

[Valerie]

all crimes are hate crimes.....

Right, people who burn down property for insurance money just HATE being too poor to legitimately refurbish their property, so instead they commit arson!

 

[KittenKoder]

all crimes are hate crimes.....

Right, people who burn down property for insurance money just HATE being too poor to legitimately refurbish their property, so instead they commit arson!

Well, they would have to hate something to destroy it so easily.

 

[Tech_Esq]

U.S. jurisprudence is centered around the crime itself. Sentencing guidelines should be, and largely are, guided by the severity of the crime under the applicable statute(s). Focusing on the who of the crime so to speak, in addition to the crime itself, is redundant, little more than an accommodation to a political cause, and serves no useful purpose to society as a whole when compared in benefit to the current construct.

It just seems to me this is another of those issues where some people have a knee jerk reaction to be adamantly against it, thus successfully creating another wedge issue.

Since it is based on reasoning that already exists within the law -- "Judges may consider the motives of a convicted defendant at sentencing and either increase a sentence based on avaricious motives or decrease the sentence if the defendant's motives were honorable" -- Although in some cases it might be redundant, the notion that it is some sort of slippery slope seems rather far fetched.

I think the issue, which you may view as technical, but I would argue is fundemental, is that currently aggravating circumstances are considered after the determination of guilt has been made. Under "hate" crimes laws, hate is an element of the crime to be proven.

(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--

So, instead of properly being charged under one or another of the crimes contained above (arson, murder, malicious wounding etc.), now we're trying someone on if they did something to someone based on their "actual or perceived" race etc.. So, if I'm white and you are white, but I think you are Asian and shoot you because I think you are Asian, I committed a hate crime under this legislation.

This is truly dumb shit.

We need to punish me for shooting you. Period. If it was especially aggravating the way I did it, bring it up at sentencing for the trier of fact to consider.

Creating this type of legislation is just asking for strife and division.

 

[Tech_Esq]

How do you feel about laws against terrorism and do you see them as different than hate crime law?

What laws against terrorism? We've got laws against murder and conspiracy to commit murder, and we've got law enforcement and military intelligence to investigate groups believed to be inclined to commit these crimes.

Got no problem with using the same methods to infiltrate and monitor groups that are inclined to commit murder, rape, assault, arson, and vandalism against other people for any reason-- including reasons pertaining to race, religion, or sexuality. I just think that making new laws for this purpose, that criminalize opinions and turn beliefs into either additional charges or aggravating conditions for a crime is a dangerous slippery slope.

You're seeing these laws as a way of forcing Nazis to agree with you. I may not be a liberal, but I do believe in freedom of belief-- and freedom of expression with limits-- and the same laws that could force Nazis to agree with you could also be used to force you to agree with them.

There are federal laws against terrorism.

I'm not sure I understand your point about terrorism.

 

[Ravi]

I'm not sure I understand your point about terrorism.

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

It seems to me this isn't much different in meaning than a hate crime law, though (ii) may be difficult to prove...but it could be difficult to prove in any case.

 

[midcan5]

There is an old saying by some of narrow mind that when it comes to law, if you didn't do the crime then why worry about the law. You know what they say, no need for me to repeat it. But enter hate crimes and suddenly they take on a different complexion, or are oriented differently - words are such fun. But I'm not going to go there, instead I think this piece summarizes the issue well. This is one time as I look at the screen I am on the right.

Hate crime legislation: Ethics and civil rights concerns

 

[KittenKoder]

I'm not sure I understand your point about terrorism.

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

It seems to me this isn't much different in meaning than a hate crime law, though (ii) may be difficult to prove...but it could be difficult to prove in any case.

The second part of that is what the law focuses on, using intimidation or coercion has always been against the law and can be proven. Now I fail to see your point and I don't like the whole terrorism scare myself.

 

[Ravi]

I'm not sure I understand your point about terrorism.

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

It seems to me this isn't much different in meaning than a hate crime law, though (ii) may be difficult to prove...but it could be difficult to prove in any case.

The second part of that is what the law focuses on, using intimidation or coercion has always been against the law and can be proven. Now I fail to see your point and I don't like the whole terrorism scare myself.

That's what hate crimes are by definition...an attempt to intimidate or coerce. I'm not comfortable with terrorism law, btw. Especially when the President can declare anyone a terrorist for no discernible reason.

 

[Tech_Esq]

There is an old saying by some of narrow mind that when it comes to law, if you didn't do the crime then why worry about the law. You know what they say, no need for me to repeat it. But enter hate crimes and suddenly they take on a different complexion, or are oriented differently - words are such fun. But I'm not going to go there, instead I think this piece summarizes the issue well. This is one time as I look at the screen I am on the right.

Hate crime legislation: Ethics and civil rights concerns

It's reasoning like this:

Protecting a group under hate crimes legislation will make the public aware that the group is vulnerable

That is precisely why the legislation is bad. It will drive wedges and create a perception that some groups are protected while others are not as important. Rightly or wrongly, this mentality will grow up. It is a grossly destabilizing influence in society. So, if your intent is destabilization, rock on....you got a bead on it.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I'm not sure I understand your point about terrorism.

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

It seems to me this isn't much different in meaning than a hate crime law, though (ii) may be difficult to prove...but it could be difficult to prove in any case.

I see a definition of "domestic terrorism" but I don't see elements of the crime of terrorism. Or, domestic terrorism if that's the charge. Do you have that? I'm not sure what to do with the definition only.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

U.S. jurisprudence is centered around the crime itself. Sentencing guidelines should be, and largely are, guided by the severity of the crime under the applicable statute(s). Focusing on the who of the crime so to speak, in addition to the crime itself, is redundant, little more than an accommodation to a political cause, and serves no useful purpose to society as a whole when compared in benefit to the current construct.

It just seems to me this is another of those issues where some people have a knee jerk reaction to be adamantly against it, thus successfully creating another wedge issue.

Since it is based on reasoning that already exists within the law -- "Judges may consider the motives of a convicted defendant at sentencing and either increase a sentence based on avaricious motives or decrease the sentence if the defendant's motives were honorable" -- Although in some cases it might be redundant, the notion that it is some sort of slippery slope seems rather far fetched.

The central issue in my mind, besides needlessly complicating the application of criminal law, is losing resistance to politicizing (further) the adjudication of criminal cases. If our legal institution, as flawed as it is, comes to be seen by the public as a political arena or one which favors one group over another a priori, we will indeed be headed down the slippery slope of social disorder.

The other issues are technical and, IMHO, irresolvable if one wishes to maintain some semblance of legal neutrality in the courtroom: How does one set about the task of determining worthiness of the "who", who makes that decision, is it permanent, what specifically should be altered from a legal statute standpoint, and what should those alterations be. Focusing on the "what" avoids this tar pit. And again, I do not think it is even feasible to head down the who road.

 

[garyd]

Hat crimes are a Pc type idea that further tends to divide people along raqcial gender and socio economic lines. As such the are detrimental to society large and for all practical purposes valueless for purposes of rehbilitation, punishment or much of anything else.

This especially true at the upper end of the criminal justice scale where capital murder is concerned. What are you going to do hang the bastard twice? Give him two life sentences without parole?

 

[Pyrite]

The purpose of committing a "hate crime" is to do more than simply cause harm to the person involved, but to create a threatening atmosphere to those who share the characteristic on which the crime is based. So essentially a hate crime is, as has been mentioned, an act of intimidation, threat, and terrorism.

And most of these laws protect a white man from a black woman who wants to harm him for being white, just as much as they protect a black woman from a white man who wants to harm her because she is black.