Hate crimes: How do you feel?

[Jerry_Westerby]

Westerby,

Your thoughs are all nice and good until YOU wind up on the list of ‘bad’ people who need to be sent to camps to be re-programmed.

This is the problem with playing games with the first ammendment.

Investigating people involved in actual acts of violence and theft are another matter and one I support. But as I said before, if the gov’t starts playing games encroaching on the 1st ammendment it won’t be too long until I wind up on the short list of ‘dangerous’ people in need of ‘reprogramming’ since I am an open advocate against government. I prefer for that NOT to happen, thank you very much.

we all support the first amendment, but in what way has the government encroached on anyone’s first amendment rights in this area?

Westerby

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

I think everyone understands the attributes but what we are disagreeing on is whether belonging to a certain class of people is sufficient to make the application of the law different. If a while man murders another white man isn’t it just as horrible as a white man murdering a black man or a black man murdering another black man? And if different race is the criteria, wouldn’t a black man killing a white man also be a hate crime?

And since you mentioned religion, these hate crime laws when defined as you have, should really concern Catholics and other Christians. It would seem that any crime committed by a Christian on a person of a different religion would be dealth with more harshly than the same crime committed against the Christian.

As far as I’m concerned, the historical victimization of a class of people by another class is irrelevant when meeting out justice for a certain specific violent (or non-violent) act.

I gave this a lot of thought trying to see this point, and the similar thoughts Ender expressed. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the legal system works and what its goals are. historically, there was no clear distinction between criminal and civil law, and early legal codes did, in fact, consider the status of the victim in assigning fines for conduct that injured society or the individual. fines were, themselves, replacements for blood feuds (see Deuteronomy). these fines were both punitive in nature (what would become criminal law) and compensatory (civil). someone of noble blood might be “worth” 3 times the value of a commoner. a Frankish noble was worth 2x the value of a Gallo-Roman in the service of the Frankish court under a Merovingian legal code.

obviously, treating people of different value is and remain inimical to Christian teaching, so it appears superficially that a modern criminal code that makes this distinction is also repugnant.

however – modern legal systems use both a penal and a civil code and the concept of punishment and compensation are different. a jury would receive the same instructions for determining the value of life in a wrongful death suit, regardless of whether the victim were black or white, Catholic or protestant.

the modern penal code does more than redress individual wrongs. crimes offend public interests, as well as private ones (which do not necessarily or usually include compensation for the crime). the public interest in a peaceful society is offended when its members are targeted on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity or age. when these people are being systematically targeted then the public has a valid interest in rooting out the problem by making the offenders easier to prosecute and punishing crimes more harshly.

Westerby

 

[Ender]

hate crime laws are proper when B is in a class of people that’s been demonstrably victimized by A and the particular assault on B is due to whatever attributes of B that A hates. this is done to discourage the conduct of other A types from victimizing B types, a legitimate exercise of legislative power that’s been challenged and found constitutional.

The dispute is not over whether hate crime laws exist it is over whether they are appropriate. I also understand the rationale given in defense of such laws but in the end what it comes down to is claiming that A attacking B is worse than B attacking A. I find that assertion nonsense. Nor is it convincing that we need stiffer sentencing in one case to deter attacks on one class of people. If attacks need to be deterred then everyone should be equally protected from them. The fact that such laws have been found constitutional is depressing but not convincing.

To argue that the feds may need such laws to deal with states turning a blind eye to discrimination would have made sense fifty years ago but that claim seems pretty bogus today. In any event, that’s a different question than whether two people who commit the same crime should be treated differently. Even if I believed in the objective you put forth (which clearly I don’t) I have no confidence that having given such discriminatory power to the government they would use it properly.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I voted for the second option because I feel that crimes motivated by hate really exist.

I’m sure hate crimes are committed today; that isn’t the relevant issue. Pick any hate crime you can imagine and then explain why the person who commits that crime should be punished more harshly than another person who commits the exact same crime but used a different rationale for choosing his victim.

Ender

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

The dispute is not over whether hate crime laws exist it is over whether they are appropriate. I also understand the rationale given in defense of such laws but in the end what it comes down to is claiming that A attacking B is worse than B attacking A. I find that assertion nonsense. Nor is it convincing that we need stiffer sentencing in one case to deter attacks on one class of people. If attacks need to be deterred then everyone should be equally protected from them. The fact that such laws have been found constitutional is depressing but not convincing.

To argue that the feds may need such laws to deal with states turning a blind eye to discrimination would have made sense fifty years ago but that claim seems pretty bogus today. In any event, that’s a different question than whether two people who commit the same crime should be treated differently. Even if I believed in the objective you put forth (which clearly I don’t) I have no confidence that having given such discriminatory power to the government they would use it properly.

Ender

(emphasis added)

argument by personal belief is generally considered a flaw in reasoning. what you believe is or is not bogus isn’t important.

however, this is: FBI hate crime statistics for the year 2010, complied as directed by federal law.

there’s no quick summary of this, but since this is the internet …

The Uniform Crime Reporting Program collects data about both single-bias and multiple-bias hate crimes. For each offense type reported, law enforcement must indicate at least one bias motivation. A single-bias incident is defined as an incident in which one or more offense types are motivated by the same bias. A multiple-bias incident is defined as an incident in which more than one offense type occurs and at least two offense types are motivated by different biases.

In 2010, 1,949 law enforcement agencies reported 6,628 hate crime incidents involving 7,699 offenses.

There were 6,624 single-bias incidents that involved 7,690 offenses, 8,199 victims, and 6,001 offenders.

The 4 multiple-bias incidents reported in 2010 involved 9 offenses, 9 victims, and 7 offenders. (See Table 1 and Table 12.)

as I’ve said before, I’m not going to argue opinion with you.

Enderby.

 

[Ender]

the modern penal code does more than redress individual wrongs. crimes offend public interests, as well as private ones (which do not necessarily or usually include compensation for the crime). the public interest in a peaceful society is offended when its members are targeted on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity or age. when these people are being systematically targeted then the public has a valid interest in rooting out the problem by making the offenders easier to prosecute and punishing crimes more harshly.

This is a better argument, although I disagree with you that it is only modern penal codes that address the public interest rather than merely the private harm. Aquinas made this point in the 13th century.

In any event, give some thought to the idea that the government should be able to make some offenders “easier to prosecute.” Again, if we make laws that are considered just then what is the argument that we need special laws that are special because they are clearly less just? Is it really appropriate to have laws that have lower standards of proof for one class of citizens than for others? I don’t oppose the objective of “rooting out the problem” but I do oppose these particular means for doing it.

Ender

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

This is a better argument, although I disagree with you that it is only modern penal codes that address the public interest rather than merely the private harm. Aquinas made this point in the 13th century.

In any event, give some thought to the idea that the government should be able to make some offenders “easier to prosecute.” Again, if we make laws that are considered just then what is the argument that we need special laws that are special because they are clearly less just? Is it really appropriate to have laws that have lower standards of proof for one class of citizens than for others? I don’t oppose the objective of “rooting out the problem” but I do oppose these particular means for doing it.

Ender

penal codes sometimes require compensation, but compensation issues are not elements of the crime (they are sometimes of the punishment).

am I correct in assuming you see penal codes more as expressions of natural law rather than instruments of social policy? because that seems to be a core difference in how we see things.

Westerby

 

[Ender]

argument by personal belief is generally considered a flaw in reasoning. what you believe is or is not bogus isn’t important.

This criticism would apply equally to your personal belief that hate crime laws are necessary. Or is this another example of where different laws apply to different people?

there’s no quick summary of this, but since this is the internet …

I didn’t suggest that hate crimes didn’t exist - which is what your data were extracted to show. What I said was that the problem with states not prosecuting crimes equally was a thing of the past, which argues against the necessity of having federal hate crime laws.

Ender

 

[robwar]

Finding an intention to commit the act is not at all what hate crime laws are about.

The need for an intention only differentiates between a crime and an accident. It’s the difference between a murder charge and vehicular manslaughter.

Hate crime laws declare something that is not illegal, can easily be selectively enforced because it cannot be proven, and cannot really be defined to be a crime and can allow people to be punished for them.

well put, thank-you.

 

[Ender]

am I correct in assuming you see penal codes more as expressions of natural law rather than instruments of social policy? because that seems to be a core difference in how we see things.

I’ve never thought of it that way and don’t know how to respond. I accept that penal codes are proper instruments of social policy; again, I accept the objective behind the drive for hate crime laws. What I object to is the notion of different applications of the law for identical infractions.

Ender

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

I’ve never thought of it that way and don’t know how to respond. I accept that penal codes are proper instruments of social policy; again, I accept the objective behind the drive for hate crime laws. What I object to is the notion of different applications of the law for identical infractions.

Ender

that happens all the time. the same act can be punished differently depending on who is prosecuting. e.g., is federal criminal prosecution for violation of federal civil rights and a state murder prosecution for the same killing can be be brought at the same time with very different punishments. the feds could bring a federal RICO action and the state might file its own criminal charges against a neo-nazi group extorting minority businessmen, again, different crimes and different punishments for the same act.

in a different vein, a first degree murder with a baseball bat might require a minimum 25 year sentence, use a gun and its life without parole.

penal law can be very fact sensitive depending on the victim’s status (legislative intent behind the federal hate crime statute is unambiguous here) or the social policy and background behind the particular law.

Westerby

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

well put, thank-you.

you’re not up to speed on criminal law either. if you’re really curious about how intent figures into criminal statutes, look up “general intent crime”, “specific intent crime” and “strict liability crime”, juries determine intention all the time.

Westerby

 

[Ender]

that happens all the time. the same act can be punished differently depending on who is prosecuting. e.g., is federal criminal prosecution for violation of federal civil rights and a state murder prosecution for the same killing can be be brought at the same time with very different punishments.

I recognize that one act can violate a number of different laws e.g. kidnap, rape, and murder; that’s not the point we’re discussing.

the feds could bring a federal RICO action and the state might file its own criminal charges against a neo-nazi group extorting minority businessmen, again, different crimes and different punishments for the same act.

This is a much closer analogy. As I understand them RICO laws were created to make it easier to convict organized criminals by criminalizing certain behaviors that had not previously been targeted and I think arguing for hate crime laws on similar grounds is more reasonable (not yet convincing, just more reasonable).

in a different vein, a first degree murder with a baseball bat might require a minimum 25 year sentence, use a gun and its life without parole.

No, this changes the situation again. What is being discussed is more akin to two people killing with baseball bats and one getting 25 years and the other life without parole. I recognize that this can happen between different jurisdictions but what is at issue is the appropriateness of legislating this difference

penal law can be very fact sensitive depending on the victim’s status (legislative intent behind the federal hate crime statute is unambiguous here) or the social policy and background behind the particular law.

I recognize that hate crime laws exist. What I dispute is both their need and their appropriateness and I have not yet heard a convincing argument for either.

Ender

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

… I recognize that hate crime laws exist. What I dispute is both their need and their appropriateness and I have not yet heard a convincing argument for either.

Ender

let’s look at it this way. we’ve been talking about crimes, but what is really important is how actions are or should be punished which is a combination of charged offense and punishment. given that hate crimes occur, how about using already existing aggravating and mitigating factors as how punishment levels are set for existing crimes. for example …

three friends, all white men, are convicted of an armed robbery of a black-owned store. the baseline sentence is 60 months, subject to evidence of mitigating and aggravating factors which are heard and proven:

the first guy has nothing aggravating and nothing mitigating, he gets 60 months.

the second guy has some mitigating factors, he shows remorse, admitted guilt, cooperated with the prosecution and stole to feed his family, wasn’t the leader, (all actual mitigating factors in the federal system) yield a sentence of 50 months.

the third guy committed the crime as part of a klan initiation that requires holding up a black store owner, a hate offense against a protected group is an aggravating factor and he gets 70 months.

fair?

Westerby

 

[sedonaman]

Problem is, no one in America dares to teach about it because it’s not politically correct.

I think it is more like it’s OK to beat up Catholics. Anti-Catholicism is the last socially acceptable prejudice left in America.

 

[maryjk]

let’s look at it this way. we’ve been talking about crimes, but what is really important is how actions are or should be punished which is a combination of charged offense and punishment. given that hate crimes occur, how about using already existing aggravating and mitigating factors as how punishment levels are set for existing crimes. for example …

three friends, all white men, are convicted of an armed robbery of a black-owned store. the baseline sentence is 60 months, subject to evidence of mitigating and aggravating factors which are heard and proven:

the first guy has nothing aggravating and nothing mitigating, he gets 60 months.

the second guy has some mitigating factors, he shows remorse, admitted guilt, cooperated with the prosecution and stole to feed his family, wasn’t the leader, (all actual mitigating factors in the federal system) yield a sentence of 50 months.

the third guy committed the crime as part of a klan initiation that requires holding up a black store owner, a hate offense against a protected group is an aggravating factor and he gets 70 months.

fair?

Westerby

Nope, they all should have gotten 60 months. (Which in reality will be much less time. )

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

Nope, they all should have gotten 60 months. (Which in reality will be much less time. )

wonderful. any reasons?

Westerby

 

[SuperLuigi]

Personally, I think all violent crimes are hate crimes, thus there is no need for hate crime statutes. What do you think. See the poll, and leave a comment.

To quote Libertarian radio personality Jason Lewis:

"If we have hate crimes, do we also have love crimes?

 

[Ender]

let’s look at it this way. we’ve been talking about crimes, but what is really important is how actions are or should be punished which is a combination of charged offense and punishment. given that hate crimes occur, how about using already existing aggravating and mitigating factors as how punishment levels are set for existing crimes. for example …

I think we’re much closer on this one; I acknowledge the appropriateness of using aggravating and mitigating factors in determining sentencing.

the third guy committed the crime as part of a klan initiation that requires holding up a black store owner, a hate offense against a protected group is an aggravating factor and he gets 70 months.

I accept that this would be an aggravating factor but I reject the concept of protected groups. Really, shouldn’t we all be equally protected?

How about this scenario: a member of the Aryan Nation beats and robs a black man because he hates blacks. The next day he beats and robs a white man because he needs more money. Should these two cases lead to different sentences?

Ender

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

wonderful. any reasons?

Westerby

Because they violated the rights of the store owner. Should the second guy have gotten less time if he loved black people?