View Full Version : Hate Crime laws?
Here's an interesting story that just happened. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/24/man-who-threw-boiling-water-on-sleeping-gay-men-is-convicted-of-assault/
A truck driver was found guilty after pouring boiling water on a gay couple as they slept. The article itself clears up how that happened, but the short story is that the house was owned by the mother of one of the gay couple and the two were staying in the living room on a mattress, apparently asleep after a long day of work. The long haul truck driver stayed at the house when he was in town (this wasn't expanded upon further). When the truck driver got to the house, he saw the two men sleeping, so he went into the kitchen, boiled a pot of water, and poured it on them.
"They were stuck together like two hot dogs … so I poured a little hot water on them and helped them out," he said to police, according to the incident report. "… They’ll be alright. It was just a little hot water."
One of the two men has to now wear compression garments 23 hours a day for the next two years. The other was put into a medically induced coma for several weeks after suffering burns to 60 percent of his body and had to get skin grafts. Pictures of the burns (https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2016/03/marquez.png&w=1484).
The truck driver was sentenced to 40 years in prison. The jury only deliberated for 90 minutes and found him guilty of numerous counts of aggravated battery and two counts of aggravated assault. This case took place in Georgia, one of a couple states without hate crime laws.
Had it been in a state with a hate crime law, he likely would have gotten a longer sentence, although in this case it likely wouldn't matter since he's already in his mid-40s.
Do we need hate crime laws? They seem to me to be thought crimes and regardless of motivation, the crime itself should be what is punished. But I can also see the historical significance of them in reducing things like lynch mobs.
Averageman
08-25-16, 12:48
Do we need hate crime laws? They seem to me to be thought crimes and regardless of motivation, the crime itself should be what is punished. But I can also see the historical significance of them in reducing things like lynch mobs.
I'm not sure how you can have some aggravated battery and aggravated assault without some hate?
Do we need special laws for special people, or are we all supposed to be equal under the same laws?
Extra Special Justice for Special Snowflakes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_8IgydG4XY
As opposed to those "I really, really like you" crimes?
I was going to make an integer overflow joke, but remembered you're not actually a computer guy :p
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_8IgydG4XY
I believe they call that stalking.
I was going to make an integer overflow joke, but remembered you're not actually a computer guy :p
Yeah but I'm not completely stoopid either. Cut me some slack :p
Short answer IMO no we don't. I suppose it would be one thing if they were enforced equally but their not.
"Hate crime" criterion should be viewed as aggravating factors.
sevenhelmet
08-25-16, 13:57
Nope, it shouldn't matter who he poured boiling hot water on, he should go away for a long time, period. It amazes me that people favor stronger sentencing for people who fit in with the vogue issue of the day. "Hate Crime" laws just add to the feeling of entitlement and inequality.
Some animals are more equal than others, apparently. I wonder how many kids are growing up today wishing they weren't "normal" (or even pretending to fit into one of these LGBTXYZ-whatever groups) so they could have a handy excuse for the emotional and intellectual growing paints that everyone experiences at some point during childhood. The bleeding hearts have created a poser's paradise.
Averageman
08-25-16, 14:15
I have this picture in my mind.
Some sort of axe murderer lurking through the fog watching a young couple, stalking them stealthily closing the distance between him and his quarry. The gleaming edge of the double sided axe glistens in the moon light as begins its arch downward to cleave them in two.
He barley gets the axe blow stopped and says,"Oh my, so sorry, I can clearly see you are transsexual and therefore you sir are obviously gay, transgendered or bi, so excuse me, I don't want to commit a Hate Crime." and he slinks off in to the night in search of a more politically correct target for his fury.
Not everyone hates you because you are _______, they simply hate you because they are full of hate.
I dunno. I am split.
On one hand, I agree. I truly do.
But, what about the situation of, say, sugaring a gas tank.
Relatively minor offense, maybe destruction of property, tampering with a motor vehicle, give or take.
But, what if someone was targeting _____? Yes, blank. Fit any criteria you want here.
I feel that if someone has enough despising of a particular group of people, it's a bit different than some troubled teens who wanted to fVck with a couple cars.
Does that mean we need an asterisk attached to verdicts indicating "Hate Crime"? Maybe not. But, to be honest, if it's beyond a "Hey, we did it to do it." and it's like "We did it because those ____ had it coming." They're targeting a specific group of people for their crimes and therefore it should be held to a higher regard.
My reasoning (and feel free to disagree) is that it's one thing to be an overall A-Hole and learn from your mistakes, but if you're somebody who intentionally targets a group of people, there is probably a more deep-seeded issue at play.
Now, neither of my "reasoning" can be 100% accurate about all types of people you will run into, but I wonder how many people have been roped in hate crimes for not, intentionally, doing so; and how many have gotten a lesser punishment by following the standard punishment rules. Remember, I am not just talking about murder, how about mail/mailbox tampering, graffiti, harassment, etc.
Big difference in impact to your personal image and safety for having "LOL" spray painted on your garage door compared to a racial slur or segregation based (race, politics, community, etc) threat. But, one would argue, "It's just spray paint, give them the standard penalty." When we are talking about two very different levels of victim impact.
ETA: Again, I am not saying I support "Hate Crime" laws.
I do, however, support increased punishment depending on the likelihood to recommit and severity of the case at hand (along with victim impact).
SomeOtherGuy
08-25-16, 14:48
1) That's a horrible, disgusting crime and the guy deserves his 40+ years (or life sentence) in prison.
2) He would deserve it the same if he had done it for any other reason. It's a premeditated maiming assault that could have killed them.
3) I don't support any "hate crime" laws. Define the wrongful conduct and punish it. The only motive that matters is whether the person had a lawful or unlawful motive for their actions.* If their motive is unlawful, I don't care whether it's a politically neutral or politically disfavored motivation.
4) Further, it seems obvious that "hate crime" laws are largely used against white defendants who attack deemed minority / deemed special classes. I constantly read about black defendants convicted of awful crimes against white people and none of them are EVER prosecuted for "hate crimes". I cannot support a law or legal concept that seems to be used solely in a discriminatory manner. (I still wouldn't support "hate crime" laws if they were used in all instances where there was a racial motivation, but the one-sided use is an additional reason I don't support them.)
(*This is probably obvious to most M4C readers, but there are many actions that are either lawful or unlawful based on your intent. For example, grabbing someone and shoving them aside for spite is assault, but doing the same action to prevent them from getting run over by a truck is lawful.)
titsonritz
08-25-16, 14:53
Hate crimes...because reverse discrimination isn't.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-25-16, 14:56
Guess who is in hot water now.....
HeruMew made an interesting point about recidivism.
If person A threw boiling water on person B because he specifically hated person B, the recidivism might be low because of little or no interaction after the prison sentence is served.
If person A threw boiling water on person B only because person B is fits a category that's not extremely rare, recidivism might be high because it's a general hatred of an entire group of people and the inability to control impulses.
Should the later case incur a longer prison sentence to possibly reduce recidivism?
I still don't know.
There is no such thing as a hate crime. The stoopidity of liberal pseudo intellectuals is responsible for that nonsense.
the left needs hate crimes so if you do not AGREE with them they have legal recourse against you !!!!
as said current laws cover the real problems like this guy
ramairthree
08-25-16, 18:46
100% against the concept.
If I punch you in the face because you are black, gay, pretending to be a former delta ranger seal sniper, drive a Prius, have a man bun, hate Berettas,
Or whatever,
The charge and punishment should be the same for punching someone in the face that did not have it coming.
It is especially loathsome that groups that are protected lay waste to unprotected groups on purpose in massive numbers, but they face no punitive hate trumping up.
Jest leave the playing field level.
1) That's a horrible, disgusting crime and the guy deserves his 40+ years (or life sentence) in prison.
2) He would deserve it the same if he had done it for any other reason. It's a premeditated maiming assault that could have killed them.
3) I don't support any "hate crime" laws. Define the wrongful conduct and punish it. The only motive that matters is whether the person had a lawful or unlawful motive for their actions.* If their motive is unlawful, I don't care whether it's a politically neutral or politically disfavored motivation.
4) Further, it seems obvious that "hate crime" laws are largely used against white defendants who attack deemed minority / deemed special classes. I constantly read about black defendants convicted of awful crimes against white people and none of them are EVER prosecuted for "hate crimes". I cannot support a law or legal concept that seems to be used solely in a discriminatory manner. (I still wouldn't support "hate crime" laws if they were used in all instances where there was a racial motivation, but the one-sided use is an additional reason I don't support them.)
(*This is probably obvious to most M4C readers, but there are many actions that are either lawful or unlawful based on your intent. For example, grabbing someone and shoving them aside for spite is assault, but doing the same action to prevent them from getting run over by a truck is lawful.)
^This. Spelled out my feelings on the matter entirely.
My wife's cousin was convicted of a "hate crime" because after he beat a guy's ass who assaulted him he uttered the intended insult "faggot…" under his breath as he walked away. Guess what? … I don't even have to say it, do I?
Outlander Systems
08-25-16, 19:00
http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-thoughtcrime-is-death-thoughtcrime-does-not-entail-death-thoughtcrime-is-death-i-have-winston-smith-73-43-99.jpg
Properly applied hate crimes prosecution has a narrow focus - crimes in which the person is targeted because of their membership, or perceived membership, in one of the categories.
An example, a group of robbers has been targeting victims at ATM machines in the central portion of the city. There are a large number of Hassidic Jews living in the area. One night a Jewish gentleman is accosted as he steps away from an ATM. His assailant shoves the man to the ground saying 'give me the money you Jew bastard.' This should not be classified as a hate crime - robbery was the apparent overriding motive.
Viewed in the context intended, hate crimes, as defined, are essentially terrorist acts - think 1968 burning crosses and kidnapped civil rights activists.
Unfortunately, some folks overcharge in order to bargain, etc.
SomeOtherGuy
08-25-16, 21:31
An example, a group of robbers has been targeting victims at ATM machines in the central portion of the city. There are a large number of Hassidic Jews living in the area. One night a Jewish gentleman is accosted as he steps away from an ATM. His assailant shoves the man to the ground saying 'give me the money you Jew bastard.' This should not be classified as a hate crime - robbery was the apparent overriding motive.
I agree with this. However, at least in some cases it would be prosecuted as a "hate crime."
Properly applied hate crimes prosecution has a narrow focus - crimes in which the person is targeted because of their membership, or perceived membership, in one of the categories.
Viewed in the context intended, hate crimes, as defined, are essentially terrorist acts - think 1968 burning crosses and kidnapped civil rights activists.
Kidnapping is a major felony and has been for at least a century; it's hard to increase the penalties for it. Burning a cross on someone's lawn to scare them would probably be treated as arson, and in any event it can be criminalized without requiring a specific racial motive. It would be pretty easy to make a case for it being assault, for example. Burning your own cross on your own property (as seen in that infamous hollywood movie that resurrected the KKK) is probably protected free speech, no matter how abhorrent it may be. If someone doesn't think it is, explain why flag burning is deemed to be protected free speech, and describe the size of cross and/or size of flag at which each action crosses the line between free speech and crime. (To be blunt: is burning a 1" cross on your own property free speech or crime? Is burning a 100' long flag speech or crime?)
Unfortunately, some folks overcharge in order to bargain, etc.
And this is inevitable with almost any criminal law, and a reasonable person must account for this when deciding what a law should be. My personal standard is that a law must still be fair and just if it is fully prosecuted against every last person who may be guilty of it, in every incident, without any hope of wise prosecutorial discretion. If a law is unjust in a foreseeable case, the law itself is defective.
brushy bill
08-25-16, 21:51
Imbecilic, unidirectional, and blatantly racist in implementation. These edicts serve only to undermine respect for the rule of law by making it arbitrary and capricious. But perhaps that is the intent. Anything to drive a wedge and undermine peace and civility seems to be the mantra of the democratic party and its adherents, particularly within the FSA. It is wearisome that people struggle to be part of a privileged or protected class and then want to be treated "equally" (if that is even still a goal).
Naturally, the adverse effect of this, for those who try to play both sides of the issue (or actually strive to excel), is that people automatically perceive any accomplishments of protected/assisted people as attributable to their protected/assisted affiliation rather than any innate ability or due diligence of effort. Thus, even the most accomplished member of a protected class is judged as arriving/benefitting primarily through bureaucratic handouts or privileged treatment. Additionally, resentment amongst the group repressed by the associated political correctness and lopsided punishments for "hate" (especially when others get a free pass for the same or even more grievous infractions) eventually reaches a boiling point where they have had enough of the charges foisted upon them by their accusers and none on the other side and respond in kind.
Here's just a single example of how hate crime legislation only works one way: http://www.people.com/article/jessica-chambers-suspect-quinton-tellis-pleads-guilty-credit-card-unauthorized-use. Habitual offending black man burns 19 year old white girl to death. See what he gets charged with and ask yourself if it would be the same if the races were reversed. Of course not. Without fail, the question of race would take center stage in the equation, just as it does in policing incidents.
Remember Ferguson, where a policeman doing his job is attacked by a very large, nearly 300b man (not a 12 year boy liked portrayed in the media) who just robbed a store, is under the influence of narcotics, and tries to take his gun? Race came into that one post haste, and destroyed a man's career and his family's livelihood, while lionizing the original perpetrator. Why doesn't race matter or the cases become main stream media fodder for Jessica Chamber's or any one or a multitude of others where race is inexorably neglected such as the face shooting of an innocent white toddler by blacks (http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/us/georgia-baby-killed/)? Black lives matter when a white officer is involved, but do white lives matter when they are snuffed out by blacks?
Liberals typically excuse shoddy reporting with, "If it bleeds it leads." But, this is only true when the situation fits a certain political narrative. The disparity is simply undeniable when it does not: There is little to no coverage.
Finally, look at crime stats for which race actually victimizes which race most (based on percentage of population) and then look at hate crime prosecutions and see if things line up accordingly. I'd wager the two will be surprisingly inconsistent.
Moose-Knuckle
08-26-16, 02:27
Hate crime charges sound great on paper, but in reality it's just another mechanism of Cultural Marxism as they are not applied equally to all people. If your white and straight and your alleged victim(s) is not it's an automatic hate crime. Not true in the reverse.
Let's say a black man rapes a white woman, different race and gender . . . why he is not charged with a double hate crime since he obviously targeted his victim for her gender and her race. The DoJ data is there to show how much of a discrepancy there really is in this field.
The_War_Wagon
08-26-16, 06:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_8IgydG4XY
FOR the win!!!
/thread
If you try to kill someone that seems pretty "hateful".
I'm 100% against creating special classes of citizens with BS like "hate crimes".
Assault is assault, murder is murder. Make the punishment fit the crime.
I do not agree with "hate crime" laws. Any act associated with a hate crime is already a crime in and of itself. Attaching hate to them is some stupid emotional response.
Everyone realizes that the simple fact that the suspect and victim are of different races does not automatically make it a hate crime, right? There has to be actual demonstrable proof that the crime was motivated by a bias. The hate crimes aspect of the law in NY (one of the most liberal of places) does not create any special classes of people at all, it merely states that if the crime is motivated by, for example, racial bias the charge goes up in class. We consider motivation and intent for all kinds of crimes, not just when it comes to bias. I tend to think that violent crimes should be punished pretty harshly and that if you're the victim of a violent crime it's going to be pretty traumatic for you regardless of the motivation so I'm not sure about them in that context, but like the other poster mentioned, I think they probably have their place in areas where there is often little to no real punishment like criminal mischief (vandalism). If someone spray painted a picture of a dick on my house I would be pretty pissed, but I think if I were, for example, the only Jew in my neighborhood and someone spray painted a swastika on my house it would take on a different level of menace.
SomeOtherGuy
08-27-16, 13:38
Everyone realizes that the simple fact that the suspect and victim are of different races does not automatically make it a hate crime, right?
Yes, I think we all realize that.
There has to be actual demonstrable proof that the crime was motivated by a bias.
Yes, that may be how the laws are written and how they are theoretically supposed to be applied. Anyone familiar with the US criminal justice system knows that theory and practice are not always the same. Moreover, many of us think that the decisions of whether to prosecute a given crime as a hate crime, or not, seem to be influenced by political considerations slanted in a single direction, and as has been posted above, there seem to be many examples of blatant "hate crimes" against white victims that were not prosecuted as such.
Yes, I think we all realize that.
Yes, that may be how the laws are written and how they are theoretically supposed to be applied. Anyone familiar with the US criminal justice system knows that theory and practice are not always the same. Moreover, many of us think that the decisions of whether to prosecute a given crime as a hate crime, or not, seem to be influenced by political considerations slanted in a single direction, and as has been posted above, there seem to be many examples of blatant "hate crimes" against white victims that were not prosecuted as such.
"Law enforcement agencies identified 5,814 known offenders in the 5,928 bias-motivated incidents. Of these offenders, 52.4 percent were white and 24.3 percent were black or African-American."
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/latest-hate-crime-statistics-report-released
From the comments I don't think everyone is aware. Also, statistics don't seem to support the idea that it's a one direction prosecution. What might seem obvious might not be provable but it certainly seems that prosecutors are quite willing to prosecute blacks for hate crimes.
Hate crimes are complete BS. A crime is a crime. All it is is a way for the progressives to even more hinder the actual function of this country. If a conservative goes against their program it is just another tool for them to make people submit to their will. I thought that justice in this country was supposed to be blind, or has she just become stupid?
"Law enforcement agencies identified 5,814 known offenders in the 5,928 bias-motivated incidents. Of these offenders, 52.4 percent were white and 24.3 percent were black or African-American."
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/latest-hate-crime-statistics-report-released
From the comments I don't think everyone is aware. Also, statistics don't seem to support the idea that it's a one direction prosecution. What might seem obvious might not be provable but it certainly seems that prosecutors are quite willing to prosecute blacks for hate crimes.
I looked at that but could not find any real cases where a black man was charged and convicted with a hate crime. There is this one: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/01/brooklyn_man_faces_assault_counts_in_knockout_case_but_da_drops_hate_crime_charg.html
I saw several that were charged with Hate Crimes but none that showed convictions of hate crimes. If you read that FBI article closely it doe not say anything about convictions or even hate crime that a DA has charged. It is all about hate crimes that LEO report. That is totally different and can bee seen at the bottom of the page where it talks about: "Recent Investigative Successes Against Hate Crime Perpetrators".
Unless someone can find some real cases I will chalk that FBI article to the current DoJ racist BS.
That's a good point. IBR and UCR data don't line up with prosecutions for just about any crime. Prosecutors are, of course, notorious for dropping all kinds of things. For example, in my ten years as a cop I've seen a lot of criminal histories yet I can recall maybe two where someone was charged with resisting arrest by the police and the charge wasn't dropped as part of a plea deal. I guess my point being that my use of the word prosecution was premature. On the other hand, finding what anyone is actually prosecuted for via a Google search is very difficult since our news coverage tends to be sensational, lacking in details and very, very short lived. In the quick searching I was able to do last night I did at least find this example where it appears that prosecutors pursued a hate crimes charge. http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/20150605/fontana-man-charged-with-murder-in-fatal-baseball-bat-beating That guy also proceeded to murder his cell mate so I'm not sure if it was lost in all the murder charges but he was at least brought to court on it.
Oh, and there's also this, the seminal case which the Supreme Court found the statutes to not violate the first amendment. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-515.ZO.html
That's a good point. IBR and UCR data don't line up with prosecutions for just about any crime. Prosecutors are, of course, notorious for dropping all kinds of things. For example, in my ten years as a cop I've seen a lot of criminal histories yet I can recall maybe two where someone was charged with resisting arrest by the police and the charge wasn't dropped as part of a plea deal. I guess my point being that my use of the word prosecution was premature. On the other hand, finding what anyone is actually prosecuted for via a Google search is very difficult since our news coverage tends to be sensational, lacking in details and very, very short lived. In the quick searching I was able to do last night I did at least find this example where it appears that prosecutors pursued a hate crimes charge. http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/20150605/fontana-man-charged-with-murder-in-fatal-baseball-bat-beating That guy also proceeded to murder his cell mate so I'm not sure if it was lost in all the murder charges but he was at least brought to court on it.
Valid points about finding what they were convicted on. I was just looking for convections. I did see that baseball bats guy, but he did kill a black man in jail before he was convincted and the last thing I read was that his trial was stopped so he could get a mental evaluation....... I am sure he was found not fit for trial........
Once I booked in a female inmate whose crime was inserting a pipe cleaner saturated with Super Glue into her drunk husband's penis. Why? He had previously beaten her so severely that the bones in her face were broken, and she required long term hospital care. I think he got what he deserved and never saw the reason for her being indicted.
I don't think they're necessary. Much like gun laws. Let's make it illegal to have a thirty round mags and scary black guns. That way people won't kill each other. Great idea. Why don't we just out law murder so people stop killing each other.
I don't think they're necessary. Much like gun laws. Let's make it illegal to have a thirty round mags and scary black guns. That way people won't kill each other. Great idea. Why don't we just out law murder so people stop killing each other.
So are you saying murder shouldn't be illegal?
So are you saying murder shouldn't be illegal?
No, he's saying that laws don't really deter those committed to breaking them. Nobody is going to "rethink their crime" because it's not just a regular crime, but a super duper extra prison time hate crime. If they're breaking the law it's because they have chosen to do so, consequences be damned.
Once I booked in a female inmate whose crime was inserting a pipe cleaner saturated with Super Glue into her drunk husband's penis. Why? He had previously beaten her so severely that the bones in her face were broken, and she required long term hospital care. I think he got what he deserved and never saw the reason for her being indicted.
First of all, that is really drunk.
Second, it takes a degree of planning and preparation to gather the materials, wait for hubby to get drunk and then act. Payback is not a lawful motive.
IMO she would have been more likely to have escaped charges if she had killed him in his sleep out of fear for her life.
No, he's saying that laws don't really deter those committed to breaking them. Nobody is going to "rethink their crime" because it's not just a regular crime, but a super duper extra prison time hate crime. If they're breaking the law it's because they have chosen to do so, consequences be damned.
Murder is often a crime of passion. It is also a crime that is committed by people who are in a irrational state because of their response to stress - fight or flight. The consequences of their actions are generally far from these folks' thoughts. Enhanced penalties probably are not much deterrent for such crimes.
Enhanced penalties MAY impact crimes which are planned in advance, and if the actors are aware of the enhanced circumstances. DV is not often planned in advance, but guys that know 'if I slap my wife and she reports, I'm going to jail' are less likely to do such acts.
Hate crime wise, if I know that instead of the normal misdemeanor beef for vandalism, I'm going to get a felony for painting that swastika, or punching that gay, then I'm less likely to do so. In that respect, hate crime laws may not be so much about increasing punishment, as they are about prevention.
But you do go to jail for "punching that gay," and he/she/whateverthegayswanttobecalled is no more special in regards to their right to go about their life than anyone else. Laws should apply to all people equally, plain and simple.
So are you saying murder shouldn't be illegal?
No I'm being sarcastic. It's already illegal to kill someone a mag ban or black rifle ban will not keep anyone safer. Neither will a hate crime statue. It's a feel good thing. That's a waste of time and money. Throw the book at them. Or maim someone as in this case. The guy got forty years. I'm all for that. Throw the book at him. He deserves it. Making it a hate crime is not necessary and doesn't keep us any safer. Just like new gun laws will not keep us safer. If something is already illegal making new laws to make it more illegal to kill or maim is stupid.
No, he's saying that laws don't really deter those committed to breaking them. Nobody is going to "rethink their crime" because it's not just a regular crime, but a super duper extra prison time hate crime. If they're breaking the law it's because they have chosen to do so, consequences be damned.
Exactly. I didn't see your answer before I posted.
My local rep (Leahy) is looking to make straw purchase illegal. When I pointed out it is already illegal to lie on the form and asked how often that was prosecuted they replied it's another took in the tool box. Bull Shit. It's a waste of time and money and they already don't prosecute the people who lie on the forms. Making it double illegal is t going to make us twice as safe. It's all BS and a dog and pony show for votes. Not for safety. Enforce the laws we have as appropriate.
But you do go to jail for "punching that gay," and he/she/whateverthegayswanttobecalled is no more special in regards to their right to go about their life than anyone else. Laws should apply to all people equally, plain and simple.
Maybe where you live people go to jail for punching each other but it's pretty damned rare around here. Also, at least as written, the law still does apply equally to all people. In practice I suppose we don't have very much data to go on but at least on the police end, it's even being reported roughly equally. The point of the laws is to address the intent of the perpetrator just like many laws do. For example, here in lovely NY, if you intentionally damage property causing over $250 in damages it's a felony but if you recklessy damage someone's property and cause over $250 in damage it's a misdemeanor.
Averageman
08-29-16, 12:16
Well we can watch the case develop in regards to the Two Nuns who were Nurse Practitioners. There is a lot going on that would make it appear to be hate, be that hate based upon race or religion.
You know there was an imam killed in New York recently, immediately the local muslims were quick to proclaim it a "Hate Crime".
So perhaps your answer might be to see how this shakes out and compare the two cases?
Hate Crime Laws = Different Laws for Different People.
Just the plain brass tacks of the matter.
You are either okay with that concept or you are not.
Well we can watch the case develop in regards to the Two Nuns who were Nurse Practitioners. There is a lot going on that would make it appear to be hate, be that hate based upon race or religion.
You know there was an imam killed in New York recently, immediately the local muslims were quick to proclaim it a "Hate Crime".
So perhaps your answer might be to see how this shakes out and compare the two cases?
Yeah, there seems to be a little bit more going on in the nun case in that he also stole their car and went into their home and they were women so that opens up an entire world of possibilities when it comes to motive. Perhaps there is more to indicate that it was bias related than the simple fact that he was black and they were white than I'm aware of, but I haven't found anything yet. On the other hand, in the imam case he was simply shot in the street by an apparent stranger and nothing was taken making other motive a little bit harder to come up with, but we really don't know one way or another at this point. On the other hand, even here in ultra liberal NY, that guy has not been charged with a hate crime. Sure, local Muslims were quick to proclaim it, but that doesn't mean anything since police and prosecutors still would have to prove it.
For example, here in lovely NY, if you intentionally damage property causing over $250 in damages it's a felony but if you negligently damage someone's property and cause over $250 in damage it's a misdemeanor.
Emphasis Added
The critical parts of what you said. It doesn't matter if the owner is gay, straight, purple, whatever... The law applies to whether something was due to intent or "by accident."
If you intentionally punch someone in the face, they should press charges and you should be looking at jail/fines/etc... It doesn't matter the reason behind your intent.
If you accidentally slip and fall, striking someone in the face and causing damage, the punishment would be less severe... You're probably going to be on the hook for some medical bills due to negligence, or maybe even nothing at all.
There shouldn't be some EXTRA rule that if you hit them because they're someone you don't like for some social reason you get more punishment than if you hit them because they scuffed your Pumas...
Moose-Knuckle
08-30-16, 02:09
Hate Crime Laws = Different Laws for Different People.
Just the plain brass tacks of the matter.
You are either okay with that concept or you are not.
Bingo bango . . .
Emphasis Added
The critical parts of what you said. It doesn't matter if the owner is gay, straight, purple, whatever... The law applies to whether something was due to intent or "by accident."
If you intentionally punch someone in the face, they should press charges and you should be looking at jail/fines/etc... It doesn't matter the reason behind your intent.
If you accidentally slip and fall, striking someone in the face and causing damage, the punishment would be less severe... You're probably going to be on the hook for some medical bills due to negligence, or maybe even nothing at all.
There shouldn't be some EXTRA rule that if you hit them because they're someone you don't like for some social reason you get more punishment than if you hit them because they scuffed your Pumas...
Under most hate crimes laws it doesn't matter if the victim is gay, straight, purple or whatever either, what matters is the intent of the perpetrator. If someone thinks I look Jewish and tells all his buddies he's going to "spray paint that f@#*ing Jew's house tonight" and then paints swastikas all over my house the fact that I'm actually an atheist of Italian Catholic descent has no bearing on it. Also looking back I actually wrote negligent where I meant reckless and it is more than just accident, it involves a conscious disregard so we don't go locking up every poor sap who has a car accident. Like with hate crimes, different punishments for different states of mind.
If you simply think that everyone should be punished the same for the same outcomes and that the potential injury to society should never figure into sentencing that's fine. As I said before, I'm not totally sold on it but I think there may be some validity to enhanced punishments in those cases. What I do take issue with is the argument being based on the false perception that these laws are somehow and anomaly within our legal system because different punishments for different states of mind or intents is quite common, or that they're merely a device used only for punishing white people because no one has presented any evidence to support that theory.
SomeOtherGuy
08-30-16, 11:56
Under most hate crimes laws it doesn't matter if the victim is gay, straight, purple or whatever either, what matters is the intent of the perpetrator. If someone thinks I look Jewish and tells all his buddies he's going to "spray paint that f@#*ing Jew's house tonight" and then paints swastikas all over my house the fact that I'm actually an atheist of Italian Catholic descent has no bearing on it. Also looking back I actually wrote negligent where I meant reckless and it is more than just accident, it involves a conscious disregard so we don't go locking up every poor sap who has a car accident. Like with hate crimes, different punishments for different states of mind.
If you simply think that everyone should be punished the same for the same outcomes and that the potential injury to society should never figure into sentencing that's fine. As I said before, I'm not totally sold on it but I think there may be some validity to enhanced punishments in those cases. What I do take issue with is the argument being based on the false perception that these laws are somehow and anomaly within our legal system because different punishments for different states of mind or intents is quite common, or that they're merely a device used only for punishing white people because no one has presented any evidence to support that theory.
1) Different punishments depending on intent is absolutely common. It also has its own set of issues, many of them unresolved, between specific intent vs. general intent vs. strict liability crimes. However, an important factor is that intent, in other criminal law settings, involves either (A) the intent to commit an action or (B) the intent for a certain harm to result. So-called hate crimes involve MOTIVE, not intent. The intent is crook X punching victim Y using crook's fist to inflict a physical injury. The "hate crime" determination depends on whether X was motivated by general hatred of everyone, hatred of an individual, or hatred of a perceived class with the individual just the convenient target.
2) Perceived protected groups under "hate crime" laws may change from time to time, and those changes may happen without legislative involvement. Twenty years ago transgenders were considered strange even by gay rights groups, and a crime against a transgender person back in the early 90's would likely not have been prosecuted as a hate crime in most areas, even if they would otherwise have prosecuted a racially motivated crime as a hate crime. This doesn't make it right, it just means that the charging decision and the potential sentence could be arbitrary and capricious, based on perceived social views that are not reflected in positive law or a history of common law. (All or nearly all states have gone to purely statutory law in criminal matters.)
3) Who makes the list of protected classes? Who updates it? Do proxies matter? What if thug W has an extreme hatred of people with pink hair. He doesn't care at all about race, gender or sexual orientation, but he hates pink hair. Should pink hair be a protected class for hate crime purposes? What if we can show that pink hair is more common among gays? Does it matter that W is attacking people based on a neutral characteristic that is more common among a specific protected class? Should we have greater punishments for people motivated by reasons that are both stupid and rare, or those motivated by reasons that are stupid but common?
4) Questions of motive can be complex. If white guy C attacks white person D on the false belief that D is black and with C's hatred of blacks, should it be prosecuted as a racial attack? If this sounds silly, put Rachel Dolezal as victim D. What if C attacks D on the false belief that D is black, but C also hates gays and D is white and gay. C was not actually motivated by an accurate belief relating to their bias. What if C attacks D on a purely individualized dislike unrelated to class, but C is known to hate blacks and gays and it comes out later that D is both, even though it had no effect on C's motivation at the time of the attack? Tell me that won't be used in either prosecution or sentencing, resulting in a person being punished extra solely due to their personal beliefs and not due to actual motive
5) What is the moral basis on which we punish certain illegal motives more than others? There was a question earlier about recidivism chances. What if attacker E is just a really awful violent person and attacks anyone he thinks he can beat, regardless of protected class membership? Should we punish randomly violent E less than bigoted attacker C, based on C having motives that some politicians at a snapshot in time considered especially ugly? Isn't E actually more dangerous to society?
6) Is there a religious excuse? Does it matter if thug W's bias against gays is secular or based on some kind of "fundamentalist" uprbringing? Is it religiously discriminatory to punish someone more for a crime, which is a crime regardless, if it is motivated by a bias that derives from their religion?
SomeOtherGuy, good post questions and I appreciate you taking the actual issues head on rather than relying simply on feels as some others have. While, as I mentioned, I'm not really the biggest hate crimes law advocate out there, in some respects I suppose I'll play devil's advocate and try to reply.
1. I think the issue here is that the hate crime has the intent to attack more than just the individual victim, but the group as a whole with the individual victim as the representative of the group, thus perhaps justifying a greater punishment. Personally, as I mentioned, I see this being more applicable to things like property crimes, but no one who's ever written a law gives one shit what I think.
2. Where has this occurred? New York defines the factors which are at play as being, "intentionally selects the person against whom the offense is committed or intended to be committed in whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct."
3. Good question. Legislators would have to as they do. I know there has been talk of adding homelessness to the mix. Other laws like this, such as those that specifically elevate the offense in assaults on police officers in the course of their duty are modified frequently. I think the most recent addition here is transit workers. As an aside, those laws exist all over, are rarely questioned and actually do protect certain specified classes of people more than others.
4. This doesn't sound silly at all and, at least here was addressed from the beginning. See above or my post that you quoted.
5. What is the moral basis for any of our punishment schedule? Why is it a violation if I punch you but don't cause injury and a felony if I break your windshield? If I said I was going to punch you on the phone it's a misdemeanor, still worse than if I do it. Why do I know a drug dealer who was only convicted of selling drugs who is serving 20 years and a guy who stabbed another guy to death who got 12? In the case of hate crimes at least there is the damage done to the group as a whole that may exist beyond just damage to the individual victim. Your point about recidivism is quite valid though and its yet another example of why these enhancements may be better applied to nonviolent offenses while we should consider harsher punishments for violent offenses in general.
6. No.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.