Why Hate Crime Laws are Stupid

[Burp]

So an ex husband who spray paints "Move you fucking bitch" is less accountable, and less of a threat, and has less of an effect, than someone who spray paints "Honky" on someone's garage?

What a joke. THe thought police have arrived and they aren't going any time soon.

Move you fucking bitch is a hate crime.

...and. just for added effect it might be also be construed as credible threat, which is still another crime.

As to

THe thought police have arrived and they aren't going any time soon.

Though crimes have always been with us.

Remember the various red scares this nation went through?

Remember black listing?

If a white guy painted "Move you honkey" on another white guys garage door, I doubt there would be grounds for a hate crime.

Move you fucking bitch is only a hate crime if it can be proven she is a bitch.

 

[Father Time]

Move you fucking bitch is a hate crime.

...and. just for added effect it might be also be construed as credible threat, which is still another crime.

As to



Though crimes have always been with us.

Remember the various red scares this nation went through?

Remember black listing?

If a white guy painted "Move you honkey" on another white guys garage door, I doubt there would be grounds for a hate crime.

Move you fucking bitch is only a hate crime if it can be proven she is a bitch.

But that wouldn't that then be an accurate statement then and not a hate crime?

 

[Burp]

If a white guy painted "Move you honkey" on another white guys garage door, I doubt there would be grounds for a hate crime.

Move you fucking bitch is only a hate crime if it can be proven she is a bitch.

But that wouldn't that then be an accurate statement then and not a hate crime?

I'm thinking the prosecutor would step way from the hate crime charge if both guys were white.

Since whites aren't allowed to use the "n" word, but blacks are...I wonder how that would come across if one black guy painted the "n" word on another black guys house. Could the DA go for a hate crime?

I'm not so sure the truth matters. If a white person painted "Move your black ass out of here;" well, that is technically a true statement.

 

[Father Time]

But that wouldn't that then be an accurate statement then and not a hate crime?

I'm thinking the prosecutor would step way from the hate crime charge if both guys were white.

Since whites aren't allowed to use the "n" word, but blacks are...I wonder how that would come across if one black guy painted the "n" word on another black guys house. Could the DA go for a hate crime?

I'm not so sure the truth matters. If a white person painted "Move your black ass out of here;" well, that is technically a true statement.

I meant the bitch one. If you could prove that a women was in fact a bitch then calling her a bitch wouldn't really fall in the same sphere as most hate crimes.

 

[Burp]

But that wouldn't that then be an accurate statement then and not a hate crime?

I'm thinking the prosecutor would step way from the hate crime charge if both guys were white.

Since whites aren't allowed to use the "n" word, but blacks are...I wonder how that would come across if one black guy painted the "n" word on another black guys house. Could the DA go for a hate crime?

I'm not so sure the truth matters. If a white person painted "Move your black ass out of here;" well, that is technically a true statement.

I meant the bitch one. If you could prove that a women was in fact a bitch then calling her a bitch wouldn't really fall in the same sphere as most hate crimes.

Parading all the people to the stand to simply determine if she is a bitch or not.

I'd like to see that trial.

 

[Father Time]

I'm thinking the prosecutor would step way from the hate crime charge if both guys were white.

Since whites aren't allowed to use the "n" word, but blacks are...I wonder how that would come across if one black guy painted the "n" word on another black guys house. Could the DA go for a hate crime?

I'm not so sure the truth matters. If a white person painted "Move your black ass out of here;" well, that is technically a true statement.

I meant the bitch one. If you could prove that a women was in fact a bitch then calling her a bitch wouldn't really fall in the same sphere as most hate crimes.

Parading all the people to the stand to simply determine if she is a bitch or not.

I'd like to see that trial.

So would I, it would be the only time I would ever watch court TV, just because it would be so funny.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Thanks for your honesty. You don't give a shit about oppressed groups. May you never be a member of one.

Wait a second. How does thinking murder should be murder regardless of the excuse indicate a lack of giving shit for oppressed groups?

So there are what we refer to as mitigating circumstances on one hand and aggravating factors on the other. Mitigating circumstances might be stealing to survive as opposed to greed, or killing your wife after you catch her doing your brother as opposed to just killing her. Aggravating factors can be victim-dependent, like killing a Black pregnant cop because you hate cops and Black people would make you more likely to be sentenced more harshly.

These are certainly factors that should be considered upon sentencing, but we have judges and juries partly because each case is unique. Why do we want to limit their discretion in sentencing with things like hate crime laws and mandatory minimums?

 

[Diuretic]

Motivation is actually taken into account when charging someone for a crime in some cases. At least intent is taken into account. It is the difference between manslaughter (not premeditated) vs. murder (premeditated). It is also considered in cases of accidental death through negligent behavior (involuntary manslaughter) and direct cause of death due to actions (voluntary manslaughter). I believe this is correct, but I am not a lawyer.

If a man walks in on his wife having an affair and in a rage grabs her and shoves her resulting in her falling, striking her head, and dying- he can be charged with manslaughter. If he leaves, gets a weapon, and goes back to the house and kills her, he will likely be charged with murder. Results are the same- she is dead. He is the cause in both scenarios. It is intent that makes the situations different. Isn't this similar to hate crime laws?

I'm not a lawyer either. I haven't got the mind for it (I don't do details).

Motivation isn't intent. Intent is a required state of mind. Motivation is what triggers action.

No, it's not similar to hate crime laws.

 

[N4mddissent]

Not to me it isn't. In both cases the guy is motivated by anger, no?

So which is it that matters in hate crime laws, the motivation or the intent?

I'm not sure. As I said, I am no lawyer and as yet, I am undecided on hate crime laws. Would you find it acceptable if hate crime laws were based on intent rather than motivation? For example, if someone assualted an individual with the intent of intimidating other members of that individual's social group, it could be charged differently? Would evidence of intent, including the suspect's ideological views or statements which indicated a desire to intimidate the group be permissible? What about the lack of a clear motivation? If it is a random beating that cannot be attributed to anger, but it is a beating that could only serve purposes of intimidation? Would this constitute premeditated intent to intimidate?

How can you prove that was the intent? In the other example, the intent was clearly to kill the person. And that should certainly be reflected in sentencing. But how can you ever be certain about the intent to intimidate? What if it wasn't the intent at all, but it was the effect?

This would be no different than manslaughter vs. murder, right? For example, a man walks in and sees his wife having sex with another man. He has a gun because he heard a noise and thought there was an intruder. When he sees the real cause of the noise, in a blind rage he shoots his wife. Another man sees his wife having an affair, goes and gets a gun, sits outside the bedroom door, and when she walks out he shoots her.

In both of these, the intent at the moment of the crime was to kill the wife. However, in the first case it may be viewed as a crime of passion in which he was not rational and results in a lesser charge than the second example which was calculated murder. So the overall intent and state of mind is considered in our current legal system. If there is a fight following an argument and slurs are exchanged, then it seems to me more likely to be a crime of passion in which anger prompted the action. However, if a group of individuals who have expressed hate or anger toward a particular social group pick out an individual which they had no prior contact with who is a member of the group they hate, and beat him then it is much more likely that it was a calculated act of aggression on the basis of the victim's social group.

I guess what I am trying to determine is if the argument against hate crime laws is on the basis that it is impossible to infer whether a crime is intended to intimidate and motivated by hate rather than any other motive or intent.