Hate crimes: How do you feel?

[Bill_7154]

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.

This raises for me the following:

Suppose that one victim of a crime is black and the perp is white. But also suppose that the black man comes from a priviledged family, his daddy and grand daddy both graduated schools of prestiege and are doctors.

Another victim is white. The perp may be white, black, or any other race. That victim grew up in an orphanage and has had a horrible life where they have been beaten, etc and live a life of mysery.

Who is ‘hurt’ more by being the victim of the ‘same crime’? Couldn’t it be argued that the 2nd victim winds up suffering much more, they have no support system to help them through the trauma, etc…

What do you think? I’m not suggesting changing laws to make ‘poor people who were beaten as kids’ a protected class… I’m asking for people (in particular Westerby’s) thoughts on this.

I happen to have had a horrible childhood and when it comes to white women being included in a special class of people who can benefit from??? what’s that law/policy that seeks to make reparations to minory classes by giving them extra points towards getting into college, promotions, etc? IMO I am much more ‘disadvantaged’ than the average white woman because of my background. I don’t resent women or anyone for taking advantage of any policy or practice that exists, but I do question the validity or justice of certain policies and practices. I think it’s a no brainer (if you knew the particulars of my life as a child and the way it impacts me to this day) to consider someone like me to be more disadvantaged than an average white woman when it comes to things like promotions, college, etc…
Thoughts on this Westerby?

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Bill_7154]

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.

I believe there is valid morality behind this belief, however, when talking about specifics:

Should a man who shoots and kills his wife because he has the belief that if he does not the devil is going to possess her and make her kill their children…

be treated differently than…

a man who shoots and kills his wife because he wants to collect on her life insurance?

 

[Bill_7154]

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.

While I haven’t studied nor am I familiar with the policies and practices of the application of hate laws, I don’t think that anyone who has decent knowledge of how government makes laws, what their original intent is, and how they frequently are used to cast a wider and wider net on more and more citizens who were CLEARLY NOT intended to be ones where the law would be used agains them.

One obvious example is asset forfeiture laws. Put on the books to take money from international drug lords…

…look up who this law is used against today and what the average ‘seizure’ is and (if you don’t already know) you will be absolutely amazed.

This law, for the targetting of billionaire drug lords is used to routinely confiscate used cars of average citizens where the value of the car is a few thousand dollars.

This is an unimmaginable streach from what the law was ‘intended’ for, and what in fact government outright stated it was to be used for.

I think this happens with all sorts of laws. Government doesn’t restrain itself, it has no need to. Nor does it seem to want to.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

…
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?

United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines#Reductions_in_time_to_be_served

it depends on the state, but stuff comes into play at some point. sentence, parole, etc.

Westerby

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

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

good point. the organization should be named as another defendant and both charged with conspiracy. and the individual should have his sentence enhanced.

Westerby

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

According to Westerby, Hate crimes are apparently the axis about which the entire criminal justice system rotates…on.

I love these discussions, there are so many interesting counterpoints to rebut from so many different people. so I’m always thankful when I can eliminate one poster who can’t keep civil.

Westerby.

 

[Cristiano]

I believe there is valid morality behind this belief, however, when talking about specifics:

Should a man who shoots and kills his wife because he has the belief that if he does not the devil is going to possess her and make her kill their children…

be treated differently than…

a man who shoots and kills his wife because he wants to collect on her life insurance?

Yes of course. Should a man who shoots and kills his wife because he wants to collect on her life insurance be treated differently than a man who shoots and kills his wife in self defense?

 

[Jerry_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.

no problem. my point is that punishment is the real protection, and, based on my discussions with Ender yesterday, I believe that whether this is done by hate crime law or by sentence enhancement is not significant.

I haven’t seen that kind of quantification (haven’t looked), that would be one good measurement to look at. there are FBI statistics kept on hate crimes, but I’m not sure how to interpret raw numbers (year to year comparisons).

problems with implementing law aren’t always good reasons to chuck out the law itself.

Westerby

 

[Bill_7154]

Yes of course. Should a man who shoots and kills his wife because he wants to collect on her life insurance be treated differently than a man who shoots and kills his wife in self defense?

Cristiano,
I, of course, agree. My purpose of posting that question was to try and get the person whose post I quoted to reflect upon their postion and see if they may consider thinking of revising their postion to some degree.

Your post, where he kills in self defense (assuming the poster I quoted was only talking about people convicted of crimes or whatever, and not solely actions) is an even greater example of why the same actions or results should be looked at differently, and be dealt with differently.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Ender]

I think that you misunderstood my point the proof is in reference to a difference in the level of protection.

I don’t believe in our current society that levels of protection are capable of proof. This is a concept without definition and will come to mean whatever those who write the laws want it to mean.

The level of protection should not be different; however, the methods to ensure equality in protection can be different.

Levels of protection cannot be proved to be different among different groups but the “methods” employed can certainly be shown to be unequal and this is what I object to. There can be no justification for treating citizens differently. Either we are all equal before the law or we aren’t and putting some people in “protected categories” to the exclusion of others should be opposed as a violation of one of our most basic concepts.

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.

Reality is no part of this; it is all unverifiable speculation.

Numbers of victims is the only quantifiable measure of protection and not number of laws.

If we eliminated all hate crime laws then there would be no hate crime victims. On the other hand if we wrote even more stringent laws there would be an increase in victims simply because there are more laws to break. The number of victims alone tells us little about “levels of protection.”

Ender

 

[Cristiano]

I don’t believe in our current society that levels of protection are capable of proof. This is a concept without definition and will come to mean whatever those who write the laws want it to mean.
Levels of protection cannot be proved to be different among different groups but the “methods” employed can certainly be shown to be unequal and this is what I object to. There can be no justification for treating citizens differently. Either we are all equal before the law or we aren’t and putting some people in “protected categories” to the exclusion of others should be opposed as a violation of one of our most basic concepts.
Reality is no part of this; it is all unverifiable speculation.
If we eliminated all hate crime laws then there would be no hate crime victims. On the other hand if we wrote even more stringent laws there would be an increase in victims simply because there are more laws to break. The number of victims alone tells us little about “levels of protection.”

Ender

Do you really believe what you are writing?

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

…
Levels of protection cannot be proved to be different among different groups but the “methods” employed can certainly be shown to be unequal and this is what I object to. There can be no justification for treating citizens differently. Either we are all equal before the law or we aren’t and putting some people in “protected categories” to the exclusion of others should be opposed as a violation of one of our most basic concepts…
Ender

are you opposed to such concepts as elder abuse statutes to protect vulnerable classes? this is California’s, the first part is the legislative intent, or the purpose … not quoted is a range of additional civil and penal penalties for physical, financial, and other kinds of abuse when the victim is in the protected class of the elderly or dependent adults.

PENAL CODE
SECTION 368-368.5

1. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that crimes against
   elders and dependent adults are deserving of special consideration
   and protection, not unlike the special protections provided for minor
   children, because elders and dependent adults may be confused, on
   various medications, mentally or physically impaired, or incompetent,
   and therefore less able to protect themselves, to understand or
   report criminal conduct, or to testify in court proceedings on their
   own behalf.

Westerby

 

[traillius]

If you want to increase the punishment for crime X, whatever that crime might be, based on the hate crime addendum, by a percentage of time, say add 20% for hate crimes, then add 20% for all crimes across the board. You would still have achieved the goal of increasing the penalty.
Were I a prosecutor and received a case with pressure for hate crimes, I would prosecute for a lesser degree crime, and then add the hate crimes to make it equal to a higher degree crime, and punishment. Of course that is easy to say.

 

[Bill_7154]

Westerby,

I’d really appreciate it if you could offer some of your feedback to the posts I made in this thread. I value you as a contributor to this forum and would like to know your thoughts as they pertain to my posts in this thread. If you get a chance I hope your willing to post responses to the few posts I made.

Thanks and God Bless,
Bill

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

Westerby,

I’d really appreciate it if you could offer some of your feedback to the posts I made in this thread. I value you as a contributor to this forum and would like to know your thoughts as they pertain to my posts in this thread. If you get a chance I hope your willing to post responses to the few posts I made.

Thanks and God Bless,
Bill

Bill, if I missed any, it was because they got buried in the stack. if you’d ID them by number, I’d be happy to respond.

Westerby

 

[Ender]

are you opposed to such concepts as elder abuse statutes to protect vulnerable classes?

No, nor do I oppose child pornography laws. I disapprove of dividing Americans up by race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual proclivity and treating them differently.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Do you really believe what you are writing?

Yes, pretty much always. If you’d like to rebut a specific comment, please have a go at it. Just guessing but I suspect it was my last statement you find so surprising. If so, read it carefully in the context of your comment to understand the point being made.

Ender

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

No, nor do I oppose child pornography laws. I disapprove of dividing Americans up by race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual proclivity and treating them differently.

Ender

I view the constitutional guarantees of equality under the law and equal protection of the laws as not yet attained goals, rather than statements of an existing condition. this country’s division by race, ethnicity and religion and disparate treatment of members of some races, some ethnicities and some religions was caused or aided by the law – e.g., if you were a slave or a woman, or a Catholic, or Irish --, and it is something the law and only the law can cure. let’s face it, the klan didn’t pull its own teeth.

this is not a matter of removing formal, legalistic impediments to equality, if that were the case, the civil rights act of 1866* and the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments would have been enough, and there would have been no need for *Brown v Board of Education *and the civil and voting rights acts of the 1960s. reforms guarantee rights for all americans, regardless of race, ethnicity or religion but the reforms have to be implemented against particular ways in which races, ethnicities and religions have been victimized. hate crime legislation, or sentence enhancement, is a very small subset of this.

---

• two years after the 13th amendment ended slavery, the fed had to pass this law to protect the rights of Blacks to make contracts, lease or own property, give testimony in court. it refers to “all citizens”, but it redresses a problem faced by Blacks, obviously an victimized and, here, a protected class. a rational mind might wonder why the CRA of 1866 was necessary, since all Blacks had been citizens for two years, but another century of jim crow laws and abominations like Plessy v Ferguson demonstrate that the problem has deep roots.

Westerby

 

[Holly3278]

I think that hate is a separate motivator. For example, just because someone murders a woman for example does not mean that the person murdering the woman automatically hates all women. If the person murders the woman because they hate women then to me, that would be a hate crime. This same example can be applied to others as well. For example, just because an African-American man is murdered by a Caucasian man that does not necessarily mean that the Caucasian murderer hates all African-Americans. However, there are and have been in teh past instances where Caucasian people have murdered African-Americans because they hate African-Americans. If an African-American is murdered by a Caucasian simply because the Caucasian hates African-Americans then that would be a hate crime. If a Caucasian murdered an African-American anger at the African-American because the African-American offended him deeply in some way other than a race-related cause then it would not be a hate crime. I hope I have made sense.

 

[Ender]

reforms guarantee rights for all americans, regardless of race, ethnicity or religion but the reforms have to be implemented against particular ways in which races, ethnicities and religions have been victimized.

How do we make up for past injustices by committing new ones today?

hate crime legislation, or sentence enhancement, is a very small subset of this.

I notice your comment did not say “reforms guarantee *equal *rights” and as long as that term is absent I will object. I used to work for a company that proudly stated that they did not discriminate against people on the basis of race, creed, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. That was the first paragraph. The second paragraph listed all the special classes and programs they provided … depending on your race, ethnicity, or gender. The mind boggles.

Ender