Hate Crimes Legislation

[Bloodcinder]

Is hate crimes legislation good or bad? For now I'll just say that I think it's misguided, ineffective, and illogical. But, as usual, I prefer to let other people start out before I explain my own reasoning.

[Arainach]

I disagree with it. Punish the actions, not the thoughts and motivations.

[deathofcheese]

Sounds like gun control: attack the symptom, not the cause.

Briefly skimming the Wikipedia on Hate Crime, I see that I don't know a whole lot about hate crime or the repercussions of hate crime or legislation against it. So, apologies if I say something really wrong.

To me, the arguments for and against special punishment for hate crimes make sense. I agree with those for it because it's like a special slap on the wrist for something you were supposed to learn early on (be nice to everybody). I also agree with those against it because I can see where it could be abused drastically.

Real world example: when my dad worked for Bendix in Florida, he had to fire a black person because the guy sucked at his job. That person turned around and sued my dad for discrimination his reason being that dad picked on him because he was black and eventually fired him, again because he was black. However, my dad, being the astute businessman he is, had kept careful records that showed that the man had been written up many times (not always by dad) for discipline problems and had always been a problem employee. When the court date came around, dad handed all his records over, the judge read them and then dismissed the case without any further ado. To tie this in with what I was saying earlier, it seems that quite a lot of black attention in the media (particularly Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson) comes from people using "hate crime" as an excuse to lash back at non-blacks. I hate to sound like an ass by generalizing, but it seems quite popular for blacks to behind discrimination lawsuits when similar action taken against a white person wouldn't bat an eye.

[Bloodcinder]

You don't sound like an ass, Sechoes. I think "hate crime" is used far too much by gays as an excuse to lash out at straights, so the concept is similar. Motive matters when somebody dies (murder? manslaughter?), but if the intent is to destroy a life it shouldn't matter why they had that intent.

Hate crimes laws basically legislate acceptable thought rather than acceptable action, and that is wrong.

[RonDo]

The term "hate crime" makes for some good jokes..but I agree that the actions are what ultimately need to be punished.

So-an-so killed a person because he was a serial killer..or so-an-so killed a person because he hated a particular minority group. It's still a killing. I don't count something like involuntary manslaughter in this..is there an involuntary manslaughter hate crime out there?

"He killed that guy accidentally, but he doesn't like those types of people either from witness accounts..."

[Bloodcinder]

The problem, RonDo, is that, for example, if a minority is involved in what otherwise might be seen as a simple manslaughter, people start asking questions. Was it motivated by hatred? Then a manslaughter could get blown out of proportion into a murder. Ideally such a charge would fail in court, but it's quite feasible.

[Killer_Man_]

A crime is a crime, the only reason I could see why they had that such law for 'hate crimes' was back in the 60s or earlier. To show it was wrong to hurt those of anther race.

Nowadays, it doesn't matter. A murder is a murder, regardless if they just kill for pleasure or want to be kill off a race. Killing is killing.

[RonDo]

IMO, I don't particularly care for the motivation..though for the media, it can make a storyline a little more eyecatching. A deliberate murder, to me, is still just that..a murder. Why should one person's motivation for killing be any greater/lesser than some other person's motivation, whether it is hate or not. Now I'd rather go on to whether it was a deliberate killing or not.

[Bloodcinder]

It shouldn't. That's prescription of thought.

[deathofcheese]

What about in case of crimes where the victim was picked because of ethnicity, culture or race? If a crime was deliberately committed as a hate crime, shouldn't that be punished in a special way? I see where you're concerned about labeling a crime as a hate crime, even though it probably was coincidental (that is to say, it wasn't a specific target because of ethnicity, culture or race). But what if someone walked out of their house and walked up to and killed the first black person he saw, simply because he didn't like black people. Wouldn't something like that deserve to be handled differently than just a regular murder?

[Bloodcinder]

That is what is defined as a hate crime, Sechoes. Statistically random crimes against minorities are not. And I don't see how it should matter whether you kill that person because you hate a minority or because you're just angry that you spilled your latte.

[deathofcheese]

You're right: killing is killing. It just seems weird that it's bad to not want a little something extra for deliberately killing someone because they're a minority.

[Jasmin Jaquine]

Okay, you guys are all going like...the way far out there crime of murder. All well and good, but go down a notch. Let us consider the act of vandalism for instance.

Teenagers are teenagers, so sometimes they get the urge to spray paint a neighbors fence, vehicle, or whatever. Most of the time, this may be cuss words or something vulgar of that nature or maybe just...squiggles and lines. Who knows.

Consider than the same instance where a black family is the one taking the vandalism to their home in a predominately white community. Now the words painted on their property are not just squiggles or vulgarities, but instead racist language and threatening them to get out of the white neighborhood, clearly showing that the action was done because they are black.

Now, yes, we might say, well, both are just vandalism, likely teenagers, we'll just punish them as juveniles.

Just some thought there.

The other is that you must remember there are generally two kinds of trials for each crime committed. The first is generally the criminal trial, in which the defendant is charged solely on the crime itself, which is guilt beyond doubt (something along those lines, I cannot remember the exactly phrasing). Meaning the evidence must clearly show the person is guilty.

The second trial is often a civil trial, where the family or the victim themselves can file suite against the person for all the other injuries (not necessarily physical) caused by the crime of the said person. In the case where a person was doing a hate crime, it gives the family more leverage if the act was done because of a hate that is prejudice. In this area, that is more where your hate crime law is really going to hit because this isn't just about the crime, it's about the effects, and a hate crime can have drastically more effects on a community and people's lives than a crime not done in hate can.

Just a few thoughts to consider.

[Bloodcinder]

But in the case of the vandalism, it's still a prosecutable crime. I don't understand why the motive or message of the vandalism matters.

I don't think somebody should be punished more for spraying "fag" on my car than for spraying "loser" on it.

[deathofcheese]

Why not? It then becomes a more personalized attack. Maybe if you weren't gay or that wasn't your car, that person wouldn't have sprayed anything on it.

[Jasmin Jaquine]

Then take a crime that was not prosecuted - where the only black family in a neighborhood of whites could do nothing when nooses and such were left on the tree of their front yard.

[Bloodcinder]

Why not? It then becomes a more personalized attack. Maybe if you weren't gay or that wasn't your car, that person wouldn't have sprayed anything on it.
Maybe they wouldn't. What if they sprayed it on my car because they thought I was rich? Either way, they sprayed it because they had a misguided sense of justice. Or what if they sprayed it only because they wanted to be bad-asses? It doesn't matter to me: my car has spray-paint on it.

Then take a crime that was not prosecuted - where the only black family in a neighborhood of whites could do nothing when nooses and such were left on the tree of their front yard.

That can still be prosecuted. (Maybe it didn't used to be, but that had more to do with prejudiced police failing to investigate and prejudiced judges failing to indict.) That's still vandalism of property or trespassing.

[deathofcheese]

What about whites hanging nooses in a rather sturdy tree on their own property, in full view of a rather significant number of blacks that pass by or live in the area? (This has happened several times in my town since I've lived here and it even happened at least once at the high school I went to.)

[Arainach]

Distasteful, but shouldn't be illegal.

People don't seem to grasp the fundamental point that the entire reason we have freedom of speech is so that people are allowed to have and express opinions that go contrary to what the majority feels. If we deny freedom of speech and opinion to those who we detest, than no one has freedom of speech.

[Bloodcinder]

What about whites hanging nooses in a rather sturdy tree on their own property, in full view of a rather significant number of blacks that pass by or live in the area? (This has happened several times in my town since I've lived here and it even happened at least once at the high school I went to.)

Sue them. Don't need to have hate crimes laws to complain about duress.

[RonDo]

What about whites hanging nooses in a rather sturdy tree on their own property, in full view of a rather significant number of blacks that pass by or live in the area? (This has happened several times in my town since I've lived here and it even happened at least once at the high school I went to.)


Depending on what occurs because of it, could there be prosecution such as inciting a riot, public nuisance...

[Seegtease]

For the most part, pretty stupid. Motive hardly matters in a crime. Like Bloodcinder said, if they kill him because he's black or because he spilled your drink, it shouldn't matter. Motivation should only matter in certain cases where you can turn it to a possible insanity. "I killed him because he raped my sister and was enraged" or something - that should be considered. But for the most part, motive shouldn't affect the consequences.

As for jobs, they're also terrible. It's terrible that an employer must be afraid to fire a lousy worker that happens to be part of a minority due to the risk of lawsuit. Sure, they can debunk it in court, but it's still a ridiculous risk to have to worry about.

[deathofcheese]

Watching CSI: Miami last night, I think I have a pretty good example. Rather than explain the episode, I'll try to explain the outcome of what happened. A white supremacist married a woman that he later found out was half-black. Enraged, he starts sleeping with another woman (who was presumably 100% white). This paramour gives him the idea to murder his wife and cover it up. Divorce would be ugly and be a stain on his record forever, whereas murdering his wife and hiding it would both get rid of her and (I guess, although this wasn't covered on the show) allow him to get a 'hate release': killing someone who wasn't pure to make way for the good of the white race (entirely something I came up with).

So, having said this, in a case like this where the crime was ONLY committed because of someone's race, those of you who are against hate crime legislation don't think that this case should be treated any differently than a regular guy who was sleeping around and killed his wife because he didn't want her as his wife anymore? How about sentenced differently?

[Bloodcinder]

So, having said this, in a case like this where the crime was ONLY committed because of someone's race, those of you who are against hate crime legislation don't think that this case should be treated any differently than a regular guy who was sleeping around and killed his wife because he didn't want her as his wife anymore? How about sentenced differently?
Correct, I don't think it should matter. I can't really explain why not, but I don't really understand why so.

[Arainach]

Correct as well. Other than determining the difference between murder and manslaughter, killing for a reason such as race, gender, whatever, should have no effect on the sentencing or level of punishment.

[Seegtease]

Agree 2x. His reason is irrelevant. One could say in a scenario where the reason for murder was her cheating that "he wouldn't have murdered her if she didn't cheat on him, cheating was the only reason." So either way, he still had a reason. What's it matter what the reason is?

[deathofcheese]

Well, in the white supremacist case, it seems that that was the only reason or the primary reason he murdered her. It wasn't that his girlfriend wanted him to kill her - he probably wouldn't even have met his girlfriend if his wife was 100% pure. He wanted his wife gone because her heritage was "tainted" with non-white blood.

I guess at this point I should point out that I fail to see how motive is irrelevant for murder or other crimes.

[Bloodcinder]

And I think this is an impasse.

[Killer_Man_]

A life is taken out of malice, regardless, the sentence should be the highest regardless of motive.

[Bloodcinder]

I think KM hit the nail on the head. It's about the difference between a malicious crime and a non-malicious one... and no more.

[SomaticCorpse]

Malicious crimes should seek the higher, prevalent, sentence... There needs to be a standard set, or precedent, that certain types of malicious intents are quite intolerable, in today's society.

Just because I think that people shouldn't exist, because they're stupid, ignorant or just won't be productive to society, much less should they reproduce, doesn't mean that I should do anything about it.

[Killer_Man_]

If people want equality in society, they need to stop holding onto things like racism, hate crimes, sexist crimes and etc.

If I were to murder a woman, I should get the same sentence as if someone was a serial killer who murdered a black person and it was deemed a 'hate' crime.

No matter who you are, what creed you are, sexuality you are and etc. A murder is still a murder and should have the same sentence.

Much like I still pitch a fit when I hear about teacher/student relationships when they get busted. A man who gets busted in WI, gets more time + is registered sex offender. A woman, well gets less time, can still teach and I think does or does not get registered as a sex offender. Cause you know, a young guy scoring with an older woman is 'ok.'

Sorry just a bit of a rant.

[deathofcheese]

There already exists a special charge for assault and battery called "assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature". Battery itself is already divided into different levels of severity (simple batter, criminal battery, sexual battery, family violence battery, and aggravated battery), ....

I find that as I try explaining my reasoning to myself in a case like a battery charge, I might be beginning to see why you guys are so against a special hate crime designation. I still think that there should exist the qualifier of hate crime, but I think I'm starting to get a salmon of doubt.

As for equality of peoples, hate crime charges can work both ways. Suppose a black man begins mowing down white pedestrians in the predominantly-black side of town. To me, that would be a hate crime that should carry a little extra "oomf" of a couple extra years to his sentence, or revoking the possibility of parole (assuming he didn't already get life without parole or the death sentence).

Keeping hate crimes on the books doesn't seem like it keeps racial or cultural differences. Rather, it provides an additional punishment for those that choose to pick on racial/cultural differences, and the extra punishment would be the government's way of giving an additional punishment as a way of saying, "not only is x crime bad, but doing it only because you don't like y people is even more wrong".

[Arainach]

But that's the thing. Doing it only because you don't like y people SHOULDN'T be even more wrong in the eyes of the law. People should have the right to like and/or dislike whoever they want. Everyone has people they don't like; it's our duty to keep our opinions just that and not act on them.

[Killer_Man_]

There already exists a special charge for assault and battery called "assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature". Battery itself is already divided into different levels of severity (simple batter, criminal battery, sexual battery, family violence battery, and aggravated battery), ....

I find that as I try explaining my reasoning to myself in a case like a battery charge, I might be beginning to see why you guys are so against a special hate crime designation. I still think that there should exist the qualifier of hate crime, but I think I'm starting to get a salmon of doubt.

As for equality of peoples, hate crime charges can work both ways. Suppose a black man begins mowing down white pedestrians in the predominantly-black side of town. To me, that would be a hate crime that should carry a little extra "oomf" of a couple extra years to his sentence, or revoking the possibility of parole (assuming he didn't already get life without parole or the death sentence).

Keeping hate crimes on the books doesn't seem like it keeps racial or cultural differences. Rather, it provides an additional punishment for those that choose to pick on racial/cultural differences, and the extra punishment would be the government's way of giving an additional punishment as a way of saying, "not only is x crime bad, but doing it only because you don't like y people is even more wrong".


It doesn't though, every time I defended myself against a black person in highschool, I was charged for not only fighting but then later was being sued for damaged cause I was being 'hateful' though they all got dismissed cause of people who saw it, showing he was trying to strike/attack me first and I merely defended myself within reason.

Opinions should not be in law, it's the mere facts.

If I mowed down 100 black people for hate or whatever the reason maybe should not be a heavier sentence then someone who kills 100 random people.

[Bloodcinder]

If hating someone enough to kill him because he's white is worse than hating someone enough to kill him because he screwed your girlfriend, that's just the prescription of what kind of hate is worse than another kind of hate.

[Seegtease]

If people want equality in society, they need to stop holding onto things like racism, hate crimes, sexist crimes and etc.


KM provides a very good point here.

People of a minority who advocate hate crime punishments are really shooting themselves in the feet. By continually making a distinction between the races, and crimes relating to them, they are forever enabling racism (or sexism, or w/eism).

[deathofcheese]

Are you addressing considering crimes against a particular race/culture or crimes against a singular race/culture? I think I've been arguing for the latter while it seems that everyone's been against the former.

[Seegtease]

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

[Bloodcinder]

I'm not quite sure what you mean.
QFT?

[Arainach]

QFT x2. I don't care if it's hatred against a particular or a singular. I don't care if it's hatred of if you just get a high from killing. It SHOULD. NOT. MAKE. ANY. DIFFERENCE.

[Killer_Man_]

I'm just addressing that people are hurting themselves more by making distinction between their own races regardless of color.