Is this a robbery or a hate crime?

[PratchettFan]

No, motive makes it different.

Why? Is the bread less stolen? Does the owner of the store have less of a loss? Why does the motive make the act any different?

Now, I have no problem if the jury or the judge takes extenuating circumstances into account. However, stealing a loaf of bread is stealing a loaf of bread regardless of the motive.

If I was judging somebody for stealing bread motive would definitely play into the sentence handed down, if bread was stolen to feed starving children the judgement would be (and should be) less harsh than if the bread was stolen for a malicious reason like hatred for the baker.

That is a different thing. You are talking about judging someone who broke the law. Certainly the judge should consider the motive. But a hate crime differentiates between the same actions based solely upon feelings. It is based upon the rather peculiar notion that hate is worse than greed and should be treated differently. This is what I am objecting to. Hitting you over the head with a club is assualt with a deadly weapon, or murder, or attempted murder. My motive may well affect how the judge approaches the crime, but the crime should be the same regardless of the motive. Someone who is willing to kill for money is no less a danger than someone willing to kill for hate.

 

[Katzndogz]

No. It isn't. It is exactly the same crime.

No, motive makes it different.

Why? Is the bread less stolen? Does the owner of the store have less of a loss? Why does the motive make the act any different?

Now, I have no problem if the jury or the judge takes extenuating circumstances into account. However, stealing a loaf of bread is stealing a loaf of bread regardless of the motive.

Nevertheless, motive in an important part of any crime and with hate crimes is the basis for the charge.

 

[noose4]

Why? Is the bread less stolen? Does the owner of the store have less of a loss? Why does the motive make the act any different?

Now, I have no problem if the jury or the judge takes extenuating circumstances into account. However, stealing a loaf of bread is stealing a loaf of bread regardless of the motive.

If I was judging somebody for stealing bread motive would definitely play into the sentence handed down, if bread was stolen to feed starving children the judgement would be (and should be) less harsh than if the bread was stolen for a malicious reason like hatred for the baker.

That is a different thing. You are talking about judging someone who broke the law. Certainly the judge should consider the motive. But a hate crime differentiates between the same actions based solely upon feelings. It is based upon the rather peculiar notion that hate is worse than greed and should be treated differently. This is what I am objecting to. Hitting you over the head with a club is assualt with a deadly weapon, or murder, or attempted murder. My motive may well affect how the judge approaches the crime, but the crime should be the same regardless of the motive. Someone who is willing to kill for money is no less a danger than someone willing to kill for hate.

I disagree, motive can be taken into consideration regarding crime, they have different degrees of murder and even manslaughter based on the motive regarding killing somebody.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, motive makes it different.

Why? Is the bread less stolen? Does the owner of the store have less of a loss? Why does the motive make the act any different?

Now, I have no problem if the jury or the judge takes extenuating circumstances into account. However, stealing a loaf of bread is stealing a loaf of bread regardless of the motive.

Nevertheless, motive in an important part of any crime and with hate crimes is the basis for the charge.

Which is precisely the problem. It should not be the basis for the charge. It might be a factor in the sentencing, but the charge should be for the action not the motive.

 

[PratchettFan]

If I was judging somebody for stealing bread motive would definitely play into the sentence handed down, if bread was stolen to feed starving children the judgement would be (and should be) less harsh than if the bread was stolen for a malicious reason like hatred for the baker.

That is a different thing. You are talking about judging someone who broke the law. Certainly the judge should consider the motive. But a hate crime differentiates between the same actions based solely upon feelings. It is based upon the rather peculiar notion that hate is worse than greed and should be treated differently. This is what I am objecting to. Hitting you over the head with a club is assualt with a deadly weapon, or murder, or attempted murder. My motive may well affect how the judge approaches the crime, but the crime should be the same regardless of the motive. Someone who is willing to kill for money is no less a danger than someone willing to kill for hate.

I disagree, motive can be taken into consideration regarding crime, they have different degrees of murder and even manslaughter based on the motive regarding killing somebody.

The difference between murder and manslaughter is not motive. It is intent.

 

[Katzndogz]

Let's just get rid of all hate crimes.

 

[PratchettFan]

Let's just get rid of all hate crimes.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Ravi]

Tampa teen Tavares Spencer charged with hate crime for shooting transgender woman | wtsp.com

You should all be disturbed by this, even though I doubt many if any would actually commit an act of violence on here.. If they can get your cell phone and use a text message from 1 hour within the crime to argue what you were thinking at the exact time you committed the crime, because that's the only time that matters, you can be charged with a hate crime.

It doesn't matter if he posted that before the crime, or after the crime. A hate crime, or any crime, the proper mens rea that is relevant is what were you thinking at the exact second the crime took place.

That's why intoxication, even voluntary is a defense to burglary. You may not have been thinking about committing a further felony when you were entering someone's house if you were drunk. You'd only get busted for tresspass, breaking and entering, but not burgarly.

IMO, the guy hates himself for being sexually interested in what turned out to be someone with male equipment. What a fucking idiot.

As for it being an actual hate crime I'd say no, more of a crime of passion.

 

[Ravi]

Wait, was the perp you novasteve? You sure do obsess about transgendered people.

 

[Noomi]

Tampa teen Tavares Spencer charged with hate crime for shooting transgender woman | wtsp.com

You should all be disturbed by this, even though I doubt many if any would actually commit an act of violence on here.. If they can get your cell phone and use a text message from 1 hour within the crime to argue what you were thinking at the exact time you committed the crime, because that's the only time that matters, you can be charged with a hate crime.

It doesn't matter if he posted that before the crime, or after the crime. A hate crime, or any crime, the proper mens rea that is relevant is what were you thinking at the exact second the crime took place.

That's why intoxication, even voluntary is a defense to burglary. You may not have been thinking about committing a further felony when you were entering someone's house if you were drunk. You'd only get busted for tresspass, breaking and entering, but not burgarly.

The kid lured the woman to his home, where he shot her. He planned to shoot her.
Its a hate crime.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Transgender or not, a human being she remains. Prosecute this kid to the fullest extent allowed be the law. He is a murderer, his motives at this point are irrelevant. Should be tried as an adult.

 

[Polk]

I have never thought the concept of a hate crime was appropriate. He shot someone - do we think he did it for love? Who cares whether it was hate or not. It was the shooting that was illegal, not the emotion behind it.

We mitigate or increase penalties based on the offender's state of mind in a lot of cases.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Transgender or not, a human being she remains. Prosecute this kid to the fullest extent allowed be the law. He is a murderer, his motives at this point are irrelevant. Should be tried as an adult.

Incorrect.

Judges have always been given the latitude to take intent into consideration when determining sentencing. Consequently, laws that authorize enhanced sentencing when the crime was motivated by hate toward an individual because of his race, religion, or sexual orientation are perfectly appropriate and Constitutional. See: Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993).