Hate crimes: How do you feel?

[Cristiano]

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

I understand what you say but then we should not address intent at all when dealing with criminal justice. I also think that just because something is political correct that does not mean that is a priori wrong.

 

[Cristiano]

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.
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

Here you appear to assuming that everybody’s intent is the same (e.g. reaction to hate laws) but if that were true for human beings then hate laws would make perfect sense because they would be objective. I do not think that hate crimes provide different levels of protection, they can provide different levels of punishment. It would easy to show that they provide a different level of protection if the protected categories were to be less impacted in a significant manner than the non protected categories, I have not seen any evidence of that trend.

I think that the real problem with hate laws is that often people assume that they must be used simply because the victim is in that category, I have seen cases where it turns into that. I have seen the case of a lesbian accusing a bar owner of hate crime because she says that he assumed that she was an homosexual man, that is a clear example of stupidity and manipulation of hate laws.

 

[didymus]

and the numbers of Blacks who successful lynched Klansmen is __________.
that’s not a rhetorical question. you can round off.

Westerby

All white people are Klansmen (or modern equivalent)?

I get it. Your response to any disagreement is to stick your fingers in your ears and go “Nanananananananana”.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

All white people are Klansmen (or modern equivalent)?

I get it. Your response to any disagreement is to stick your fingers in your ears and go “Nanananananananana”.

since I’ve adopted a minority position here I have to defend the position from a variety of posters, this takes time because its a complex issue and most objections deserve careful responses.

So I don’t have the time to engage in a discussion with anyone who intentionally misrepresents my argument or engages in ad homs.

Westerby

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

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

in a non-scorching way, juries decide on intent, in civil or criminal cases, thousands of times every day. everyone makes decisions based on someone’s else’s perceived intent. parents have to decide on the kid’s intent before meting out punishment. even a dog knows if he was intentionally kicked or accidentally tripped over. God see our intentions perfectly, but we are called on to judge even in our limited human capacity.

Westerby

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

… I do not think that hate crimes provide different levels of protection, they can provide different levels of punishment…

I suggest that the protection through deterrence lies in the degree of the punishment, not the name of the crime. a conviction for “Hate Crime A” giving the same punishment as “Crime B sentence enhanced because of the status of the victim” is the same thing, for practical purposes.

.
I think that the real problem with hate laws is that often people assume that they must be used simply because the victim is in that category, I have seen cases where it turns into that. I have seen the case of a lesbian accusing a bar owner of hate crime because she says that he assumed that she was an homosexual man, that is a clear example of stupidity and manipulation of hate laws.

a valid but limited point, but you’re talking about problems of proof, not the criminal statute itself. if this is a problem (assuming your story is representative), then set the burden of proof for the hate-element high enough to weed out manipulation.

Westerby

 

[revert_jen]

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.

Well he can scorch me if he likes. It’s not actual fire.

In general, what we are talking about with hate crimes is not intent (in a legal sense) but motive. You don’t need a hate crime law to prosecute someone for murdering someone. It is the reason the person committed murder that is at question here.

In general, intent in criminal law (as far as I understand it) is confined to the person’s intention to commit a particular act. For example, if someone breaks into your house carrying a big sack, intent to commit burglary might be assumed. Of course, if the big sack contains balloons, intent to decorate for a surprise party would be easier to defend.

In the case of hate crimes, we are not talking about what a person intended to do, since that is clearly covered under existing laws. We are talking about why the person committed the specified crime. Now, motive is something juries can and should take into acount if it is reasonably well established. But having different sets of laws for different motives sends us down a rather tricky path that I think we would be better off avoiding.

–Jen

 

[traillius]

but you’re talking about problems of proof, not the criminal statute itself. if this is a problem (assuming your story is representative), then set the burden of proof for the hate-element high enough to weed out manipulation.

Westerby

Scenario

Steve and Kevin each commit a murder. The juries decide that each is guilty of first degree murder, ( both used a gun, both premeditated, etc…) The punishment would be the same ( i.e. 25 years to life ) However Kevin is also charged with hate crimes, and all other charges are the same. Instead of applying life without parole to only Kevin, apply life without parole to both Kevin and Steve. ( assume this is in a no death penalty jurisdiction).
Since both got the maximum sentence, the one committing a ‘hate crime’ still got the maximum sentence.If this rule is applied to all crimes, if otherwise equal apart from 'hate crime ’ statutes, then there would be no need for hate crime statutes at all.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

two murders take place, each with identical handguns, both performed by white males.
In each case, a theft of personal property takes place. One victim is black, the other white. Both criminals, if proven guilty of the same type of felony murder, using identical weapons, should receive identical punishments. If any two crimes would receive identical punishments, were hate crime statutes not applied at all, should receive those same identical punishments, regardless of class status or class prejudice of either of the criminals, or of either of the victims.

under those facts (in bold) sure, identical punishments.

but if either defender were a part of an organization and told to commit a crime against a member of a different race, then either a hate crime or a hate crime enhancement to felony murder would be proper.

Westerby

 

[traillius]

under those facts (in bold) sure, identical punishments.

but if either defender were a part of an organization and told to commit a crime against a member of a different race, then either a hate crime or a hate crime enhancement to felony murder would be proper.

Westerby

That would only be your opinion that such enhancements would be proper. My opinion is that under these same circumstances, such enhancements would be improper, all other factors being legally equal. If you want hate crimes to be punished more severely, than you should logically advocate for ALL crimes to be punished more severely, if legally equal apart from hate crime status.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

Well he can scorch me if he likes. It’s not actual fire.

In general, what we are talking about with hate crimes is not intent (in a legal sense) but motive. You don’t need a hate crime law to prosecute someone for murdering someone. It is the reason the person committed murder that is at question here.

In general, intent in criminal law (as far as I understand it) is confined to the person’s intention to commit a particular act. For example, if someone breaks into your house carrying a big sack, intent to commit burglary might be assumed. Of course, if the big sack contains balloons, intent to decorate for a surprise party would be easier to defend.

In the case of hate crimes, we are not talking about what a person intended to do, since that is clearly covered under existing laws. We are talking about why the person committed the specified crime. Now, motive is something juries can and should take into acount if it is reasonably well established. But having different sets of laws for different motives sends us down a rather tricky path that I think we would be better off avoiding.

–Jen

specific intent and general intent have special definitions in law. most crimes only involve a general intent to do an act, specific intent crimes requires proof that a specific harm was intended. this isn’t a tricky path, juries make these decisions every day.

Westerby

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

That would only be your opinion that such enhancements would be proper. My opinion is that under these same circumstances, such enhancements would be improper, all other factors being legally equal. If you want hate crimes to be punished more severely, than you should logically advocate for ALL crimes to be punished more severely, if legally equal apart from hate crime status.

well, we just disagree then. and you disagree with the thinking behind every penal code that establishes baseline punishment for crimes and adjusts up and down based on a variety of factors.

Westerby

 

[revert_jen]

specific intent and general intent have special definitions in law. most crimes only involve a general intent to do an act, specific intent crimes requires proof that a specific harm was intended. this isn’t a tricky path, juries make these decisions every day.

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that both general and specific intent pertain to actions that the defendant intended to perform. In general intent it is just the intent to commit some sort of crime (or possibly some sort of felony), whereas in specific intent it is the intent to perform a specific crime.

These are still not the things that are being considered in hate crime laws, which do not have to do with the person’s intent to commit a crime, but their reasons for having committed a crime. (I mean both could be in play in a particular case, where someone was thwarted from committing a possible hate crime, but it is still a different question.)

–Jen

 

[traillius]

well, we just disagree then. **** and you disagree with the thinking behind every penal code that establishes baseline punishment for crimes and adjusts up and down based on a variety of factors. ****
Nope, I agree with those, because those aren’t based on arbitrary judgement of unknowable private thought, and aren’t determined by the race, creed, etc, of either the victim or the criminal. Despite your attempts to link those with hate crimes, its not all or nothing. The determining factors for those other adjustments are factual, objective, and independent of the specific people involved. Nice try though.

Westerby

By the way, do you have some sort of higher knowledge about my own mind and thoughts than I do? How else could you possibly know that I " disagree with " X. Oh the heights of presumption.

 

[Cristiano]

…

a valid but limited point, but you’re talking about problems of proof, …

Westerby

I think that you misunderstood my point the proof is in reference to a difference in the level of protection. The level of protection should not be different; however, the methods to ensure equality in protection can be different. I was trying to state that people that are supported by extra laws (e.g. hate crime) in reality do not have a better level of protection and probably they are still less protected. Numbers of victims is the only quantifiable measure of protection and not number of laws.

What you call a limited point was not related to the idea of proof for equal protection but it was just a real life example of how things might go south very fast, I was mentioning them as two totally separate topics. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[traillius]

According to Westerby, Hate crimes are apparently the axis about which the entire criminal justice system rotates. Because clearly, one must agree with the hate crime statutes, or one disagrees with the entire structure of punishment in total. But don’t take my word for it, He said as much, based solely on my disagreement with hate crimes statutes.See the bold type below.

well, we just disagree then. a**nd you disagree with the thinking behind every penal code that establishes baseline punishment for crimes and adjusts up and down based on a variety of factors.
**

Westerby

so for instance, unless we have hate crimes, we cannot have felony crimes ( crime within a crime. i.e. felony murder ) At least that is his implication.

 

[revert_jen]

but if either defender were a part of an organization and told to commit a crime against a member of a different race, then either a hate crime or a hate crime enhancement to felony murder would be proper.

I believe in that situation the crime of “criminal conspiracy” might come into play as well and certainly whoever told them to commit murder would be prosecutable as an accomplice if it can be proved, allowing additional sentencing without hate crime laws.

Of course if it can’t be proved, then in a legal sense it didn’t happen and so shouldn’t have an effect.

–Jen

 

[sedonaman]

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that both general and specific intent pertain to actions that the defendant intended to perform. In general intent it is just the intent to commit some sort of crime (or possibly some sort of felony), whereas in specific intent it is the intent to perform a specific crime.

These are still not the things that are being considered in hate crime laws, which do not have to do with the person’s intent to commit a crime, but their reasons for having committed a crime. (I mean both could be in play in a particular case, where someone was thwarted from committing a possible hate crime, but it is still a different question.)

–Jen

We might ask what the intent is in passing hate crime legislation. I believe that intent is to persecute.

There are parallels to what is being discussed here, i.e., a minority attacked/murdered because of his skin color. One parallel is rape on college campuses. Rabid feminists convinced the authorities that it is rampant enough that rape crisis centers were opened all over academia. Turns out there weren’t nearly as many as were hyped, and the emergency phones were quiet.

Did the advocates reconsider their assumptions? Of course not. They just had to be true, and the only explanation for the empty crisis centers is that only a small percentage was being reported. Their solution: define rape down, and not according to objective standards but in the eye of the alleged “victim”. So if a male student so much as looks at a co-ed “too” long, he can be charged. Of course, being charged is more than enough to sustain a conviction in the schools’ kangaroo courts, but not in criminal court.

The next step is to lower the standard of proof from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to “preponderance of evidence” [aka, “more likely than not”].

Anti-sexual harassment laws, the Violence Against Women Act, Title IX, other such laws, target men and can easily be recognized as a kind of bill of attainder, which is a legislative act that singles out an individual or an identifiable group for punishment without a trial.

Sexual harassment law was conceived by feminist lawyer/author Catherine A. MacKinnon as specifically aimed at heterosexual males. When Eleanor Holmes Norton and her EEOC committee read her book, they cannily followed MacKinnon’s argument which strategically re-situated sexual harassment as a matter of gender discrimination. Given the fact that the administrators in businesses and schools are either scared of federal action, or are “compliance officers” put in place specifically because they are feminists, it wasn’t actually necessary to say “males” to get that result.

Returning to the intent of hate crimes laws in the light of the above history, we can see that their intent is to persecute white males. We can conclude this through the process of elimination. 1) Ever hear of a woman committing a hate crime? Of course not, even though they are just as capable. It’s just much harder to convince a jury. 2) Can a minority be convicted of a hate crime? No, since minorities are perceived victims in any conflict. What’s left? White males, ergo another bill of attainder.:sad_yes:

 

[Bill_7154]

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

I personally would feel more comfortable having the 3rd guy punnished more if, on top of him doing it as initiation, also yelled out the n word and spit at him calling him discusting names ratially motivated.

And as far as sentencing goes, mitigating factors, it is my understanding, ARE taken into accout (as in the 2nd guy getting less of a punnishment). This is correct, that mitigating circumstances are taken into account routinely when it comes to sentencing, is it not?

 

[Bill_7154]

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.
Ender

I think a more reasonable way of approaching the initiation rite ‘order’ is to go after the person who ordered the person to do the act as part of initiation. I’m not a lawyer, and RICO might not cover such a thing, but I’d guess conspiracy at least, if not more laws, would cover that.

In some (possibly many more) ways the person ordering the initiation crime is a greater danger to the public than the man who did one bank robbery.

It might make sense to actually REDUCE the sentence of the person doing it as an initiation in order to get their cooperation to get the ringleader of the group ordering initiations. Does anyone think there is no validity to such an approach? After all, people are given little to no jail time for ratting on the mob after committing murders in exchange for their testimony to bring down higher ups in the organization. Sometimes multiple murders and loads of other terrible crimes.

As an aside (for the most part I consider violence and theft the main crimes and think a ton of laws on the books that don’t address those acts specifically are problematice)

God Bless,
Bill