Hate crimes: How do you feel?

[Jerry_Westerby]

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

without the hate crime aggravation, the third guy would get the same as the first – 60 months.

under federal sentencing-style guidelines, the defendant in your hypothetical would get different sentences if the legislature included hate crime as an aggravating factor, assuming the legislature articulated a need for that factor; and theft-for-hunger was a mitigating factor (and its possible that violent crimes might not be eligible for some mitigation). and I agree.

now, you’d make it a closer call if the guy wasn’t a member of the Aryan Nations, then I’d want to take a hard look at the hate crime aggravating statute, because without the “entity” part of the hate crime, the issue falls into the twilight area of punishing thought, and that I agree with you on. I believe my examples I’ve made included situations where the individual was also involved in some group. if not then I’m inclined to include a requirement of membership some kind of entity as part of the hate crime.

[to be technically accurate, “entity” in the way the feds define an “enterprise” in RICO actions, its looking more at overall conduct patterns rather]

sometimes you can increase protection of individuals in an at risk group by protecting the group.

Westerby

 

[maryjk]

wonderful. any reasons?

Westerby

What you see as aggravating and mitigating factors, I see as excuses.

“I’m soooo sorry, I didn’t mean to rob the guys. I just, just, right, I just needed the money to buy food for my family. Yeah, that’s it. And it wasn’t just me. Some other guy did it. Yeah, right, HE was in charge. And he did it because he hates black people.”

Please. Do the crime, do the time.

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

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

What you see as aggravating and mitigating factors, I see as excuses.

“I’m soooo sorry, I didn’t mean to rob the guys. I just, just, right, I just needed the money to buy food for my family. Yeah, that’s it. And it wasn’t just me. Some other guy did it. Yeah, right, HE was in charge. And he did it because he hates black people.”

Please. Do the crime, do the time.

you’re wrong, of course. congress and every state legislature disagrees with you. understanding what we’re talking about might help, but your broad statements show you don’t grasp the concept. I wish you did, because this is an interesting topic and Ender could always use the help.

Westerby

 

[maryjk]

you’re wrong, of course. congress and every state legislature disagree with you. understanding what we’re talking about might help, but your broad statements show you don’t grasp the concept. I wish you did, because this is an interesting topic and Ender could always use the help.

Westerby

Um, no.

My opinion is exactly that. My opinion. It really doesn’t matter who disagrees with me. I still have a right to that opinion. Lucky thing about living in the US. No one can tell me how to think or what to believe.

Shot, I was even chosen for jury duty for a capital case with that opinion, so someone liked it.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

Um, no.

My opinion is exactly that. My opinion. It really doesn’t matter who disagrees with me. I still have a right to that opinion. Lucky thing about living in the US. No one can tell me how to think or what to believe.

Shot, I was even chosen for jury duty for a capital case with that opinion, so someone liked it.

gotcha, but I wasn’t discussing uninformed opinions. on the other hand, I try to include a few jurors with those on every panel.

Westerby.

 

[maryjk]

gotcha, but I wasn’t discussing uninformed opinions. on the other hand, I try to include a few jurors with those on every panel.

Westerby.

Sorry, but we can’t all be lawyers, some of us have to do other things.

Maybe if you want to discuss this with only lawyers (informed opinions) you should find a forum where you have to show your law degree to join.

Otherwise you are stuck here with all of us accountants, engineers, garbage men, ditch diggers and moms.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

Sorry, but we can’t all be lawyers, some of us have to do other things.

Maybe if you want to discuss this with only lawyers (informed opinions) you should find a forum where you have to show your law degree to join.

Otherwise you are stuck here with all of us accountants, engineers, garbage men, ditch diggers and moms.

I am discussing this with someone who is informed on the issues. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Westerby.

 

[Ender]

without the hate crime aggravation, the third guy would get the same as the first – 60 months.

Why? I was granting aggravating circumstances not because the victim was black but because the crime was committed as part of a ritual. I would have increased the sentence regardless of the race of the victim. Suppose the initiation required just the commission of a holdup - do you see no aggravating circumstances there?, because if you don’t then we’re back to square one.

under federal sentencing-style guidelines, the defendant in your hypothetical would get different sentences if the legislature included hate crime as an aggravating factor, assuming the legislature articulated a need for that factor; and theft-for-hunger was a mitigating factor (and its possible that violent crimes might not be eligible for some mitigation). and I agree.

Yes, but we’re debating what the legislature should do. I would surely craft guidelines for mitigating and aggravating circumstances but I would not include “hate crimes” among them.

I believe my examples I’ve made included situations where the individual was also involved in some group. if not then I’m inclined to include a requirement of membership some kind of entity as part of the hate crime.

Ah, I am more open to this argument and I think this is similar to the RICO approach but I look at it not as a specifically hate crime but as a coordinated crime and that is how I would prosecute it. (This was my thinking for calling the “initiation” crime aggravated; not because it targeted blacks but because it was coordinated … however that loose term should be defined.)

sometimes you can increase protection of individuals in an at risk group by protecting the group.

I’m sure you can but this is not the way I would implement that protection. I think there are better ways to achieve that goal.

Ender

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

Why? I was granting aggravating circumstances not because the victim was black but because the crime was committed as part of a ritual. I would have increased the sentence regardless of the race of the victim. Suppose the initiation required just the commission of a holdup - do you see no aggravating circumstances there?, because if you don’t then we’re back to square one.

my misunderstanding then. I’m used to thinking in terms of specific, exclusive language. so, yes, a crime committed as as part of a ritual for an entity or enterprise would be a valid aggravating condition at sentencing. read or drafted expansively, this would include the same victim groups that hate-crime legislation protects without using the verbiage of that kind of law. which would satisfy both our positions.

Yes, but we’re debating what the legislature should do. I would surely craft guidelines for mitigating and aggravating circumstances but I would not include “hate crimes” among them.

we’re at loggerheads here, but an acceptable compromise I’ve outlined above.

Ah, I am more open to this argument and I think this is similar to the RICO approach but I look at it not as a specifically hate crime but as a coordinated crime and that is how I would prosecute it. (This was my thinking for calling the “initiation” crime aggravated; not because it targeted blacks but because it was coordinated … however that loose term should be defined.)

would you treat these facts as identical aggravating circumstances?

1. the government proves that the victim was murdered as an initiation ritual of entity/enterprise.
2. the government proves that the initiation ritual of the entity/enterprise required the murder of a black (non-blacks don’t count for the initiation).

reasonable minds may differ especially in light of your first point, but I’m curious.

I’m sure you can but this is not the way I would implement that protection. I think there are better ways to achieve that goal.

reasonable minds differ, but you’ve made me refine my thoughts on this. and, in public debate, its important to thrash out all alternative solutions.

Westerby.

 

[Ender]

a crime committed as as part of a ritual for an entity or enterprise would be a valid aggravating condition at sentencing. read or drafted expansively, this would include the same victim groups that hate-crime legislation protects without using the verbiage of that kind of law. which would satisfy both our positions.

Agreed.

would you treat these facts as identical aggravating circumstances?

1. the government proves that the victim was murdered as an initiation ritual of entity/enterprise.

1. the government proves that the initiation ritual of the entity/enterprise required the murder of a black (non-blacks don’t count for the initiation).

Yes, I think so.

reasonable minds differ, but you’ve made me refine my thoughts on this. and, in public debate, its important to thrash out all alternative solutions.

And this has provided me with an alternative approach to hate crime laws other than simply opposing them.

Ender

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I submit to you and to any readers that the klan has committed and will continue to commit numerous crimes against blacks because they are blacks.

Westerby

Unless you are speaking of a particular crime, we have nothing to discuss. You can “submit” your belief, but the organization is not charged with a crime. Harassing them for their beliefs is not legal.

 

[traillius]

I am discussing this with someone who is informed on the issues. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Westerby.

I consider myself fairly well informed on the field in general. Though not in all possible scenarios or data, perhaps. I am not sure how you determine the standard for being well informed. By the way, this is an open forum, and an open thread, started by me. All are welcome to equally express opinions, whether you consider them informed or not, as long as no forum rules or applicable laws are violated. Oh, and I can’t help but notice you seem in the minority, not that it makes your opinion any less valid. Its just not more valid.

 

[Seamus_L]

All crimes are hate crimes.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

I consider myself fairly well informed on the field in general…

that makes one of us.

Oh, and I can’t help but notice you seem in the minority, not that it makes your opinion any less valid. Its just not more valid.

yeah, that’s a huge worry of mine. being in the minority.

Westerby

 

[maryjk]

I consider myself fairly well informed on the field in general. Though not in all possible scenarios or data, perhaps. I am not sure how you determine the standard for being well informed. By the way, this is an open forum, and an open thread, started by me. All are welcome to equally express opinions, whether you consider them informed or not, as long as no forum rules or applicable laws are violated. Oh, and I can’t help but notice you seem in the minority, not that it makes your opinion any less valid. Its just not more valid.

:tiphat:
Thank you.

Maybe somehow he got the impression that he was private messaging someone and somehow I was butting in.

 

[didymus]

I’m against the whole “hate crime” concept because it divides classes of citizens some with extra protection, others without and those in the protected class are perfectly capable of committing hate crimes against non-protected.

Let’s say I (straight male) get into a bar brawl with a [whatever]. If he gets the worst of it or I keep pummeling him after he’s down I get charged with simple assault. But if in the lead up to the fight we’re insulting each other and I call him [applicable epithet] does that make it a hate crime?

Not all crimes against minorities are motivated by hate. If I’m a mugger I may target gays because I think they’re easy targets, or Mexicans because I suspect they’re illegals & won’t go to the police. (don’t know how true-to-life these are, I’ve never been a mugger)

Judges can already take the heinousness of the crime into account in sentencing w/o these laws.

And which is more heinous? shooting a member of your own community for being a snitch or shooting them because they’re a different race? Burning a building for the insurance and killing some of the occupants or burning it because you don’t want “them” in the neighborhood?

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

I’m against the whole “hate crime” concept because it divides classes of citizens some with extra protection, others without and those in the protected class are perfectly capable of committing hate crimes against non-protected…

and the numbers of Blacks who successful lynched Klansmen is __________.

that’s not a rhetorical question. you can round off.

Westerby

 

[Cristiano]

I do not like at all how the present hate crime pieces of legislation are presented and how the appear to be used. I know that my reaction is mainly matter of my perception and lack of true legal knowledge.
However, I am surprised by how a lot of Catholics have such a strong antagonism toward them as matter of principle. Catholics are the ones that define morality, immorality and thus sinfulness based on action, circumstances, knowledge and intent. An action can simply go from being moral to immoral depending only on the intent, a sin can have diminished culpability or increased gravity depending on the intent.

 

[revert_jen]

However, I am surprised by how a lot of Catholics have such a strong antagonism toward them as matter of principle. Catholics are the ones that define morality, immorality and thus sinfulness based on action, circumstances, knowledge and intent. An action can simply go from being moral to immoral depending only on the intent, a sin can have diminished culpability or increased gravity depending on the intent.

The difference is that the Judge of the gravity of sin actually knows what the real intent and motivation were, and is entitled to look into the minds of all people. Human judges don’t and aren’t. God will not abuse His power to judge based on the contents of people’s minds–any human judge may.

–Jen

 

[Ender]

The difference is that the Judge of the gravity of sin actually knows what the real intent and motivation were, and is entitled to look into the minds of all people. Human judges don’t and aren’t.

Before Westerby jumps in here and scorches you for this statement I’ll point out that the determination of intent is in fact part of what juries are required to do.

Christiano:

I am surprised by how a lot of Catholics have such a strong antagonism toward them as matter of principle.

Your surprise is based on a misunderstanding of our reasons for opposing hate crime laws, which has nothing to do with their objective but rather with the means chosen. As others have said, we are all entitled to equal protection and equal punishment and those rights are threatened when citizens are divided into groups defined as “protected” and other.

Ender