Hate Crimes

[PaixGioiaAmor]

In other words, if you killed in anger or hatred, you would get a lighter sentence than if you killed in a cold and calculated manner.

Killing someone because they are gay or black would certainly qualify as premeditated in my book.

 

[Ender]

the person who committed the hate crime should also be made an example of so that no one would dare attack someone just because of the group they belong to.

Wouldn’t it be better to inflict the same punishment for the same crime so that everyone is deterred? What is the reason for trying to deter only some attacks rather than all of them?

I oppose hate crime laws because of their group nature; they are just one more way to distinguish people as group members rather than individuals but my biggest opposition to them is that the laws will not be equitably applied between groups. Why were such laws created after such a long time without them? We’ve had lots of immigrant groups discriminated against - Catholics, Irish, Italians, orientals … what groups are these laws meant to single out for special protection?

It is depressing that the Supreme Court has ruled that such laws are constitutional; it is incomprehensible how this could be seen as equal protection under the law.

Ender

 

[vern_humphrey]

Killing someone because they are gay or black would certainly qualify as premeditated in my book.

How so? If someone walks past me with squeeky shoes, and I suddenly fly into a violent rage and kill them, that’s not premeditation, now is it? Not even if I hate squeeky shoes.

Now, if on other hand I love squeeky shoes, and plot and plan to kill that person so as to steal his shoes, then that is premeditation.

 

[jabelltulsa]

what was my point again?

That I am 100% correct and that you agree with me wholeheartedly.

 

[emily47017]

In other words, if you killed in anger or hatred, you would get a lighter sentence than if you killed in a cold and calculated manner.

it’s not hot vs. cold, it’s impulsive vs. planned. someone who carefully plans a murder is rightly considered more dangerous and deserving of a longer sentence.

Assault is already a crime
If you hit me because you hate me (me in particular or me as in my ethnic/politic/religious identity) or if you hit me because you felt like it or if you hit me because I hit you how is that any different?

if i hit you because i hate you personally:

• if i planned it ahead of time, or
• had “intent to kill”, or
• pistol-whipped you with “a deadly weapon”
  my sentence might very well be increased.

if i hit you because i felt like it, all the above "if"s apply.

if i hit you because i hate your identity, other people are harmed besides you. i’ve disrupted what blackstone so charmingly called “public safety and happiness”, and my sentence might very well be increased.

if i hit you because you hit me, that’s self-defense and my sentence might very well be lighter.

Whether my mugger was a racist or not shouldn’t matter.

and indeed it doesn’t matter in the abstract. a person can be racist and commit an assault without being guilty of a hate crime. if a person commits assault because he hates the identity of his victim, that threatens everyone of that identity.

Besides I don’t want political bodies making decision as to what is good or evil.

like abortion?

what groups are these laws meant to single out for special protection?

no special protection! gah!

 

[emily47017]

That I am 100% correct and that you agree with me wholeheartedly.

 

[vern_humphrey]

it’s not hot vs. cold, it’s impulsive vs. planned. someone who carefully plans a murder is rightly considered more dangerous and deserving of a longer sentence.

Emotion does not equal planning.

if i hit you because i hate you personally:

• if i planned it ahead of time, or
• had “intent to kill”, or
• pistol-whipped you with “a deadly weapon”
  my sentence might very well be increased.

if i hit you because i felt like it, all the above "if"s apply.

Yup – no difference.

if i hit you because i hate your identity, other people are harmed besides you. i’ve disrupted what blackstone so charmingly called “public safety and happiness”, and my sentence might very well be increased.

In those states that criminalize thoughts, yes.

if i hit you because you hit me, that’s self-defense and my sentence might very well be lighter.
emily47017;2538905:

and indeed it doesn’t matter in the abstract. a person can be racist and commit an assault without being guilty of a hate crime. if a person commits assault because

he hates the identity of his victim, that threatens everyone of that identity.
A murderer threatens everyone – regardless of his motives. That’s why we track down murderers, try them and take them out of circulation.

like abortion?

Murder is murder. And the unborn are chosen because they are unborm – if there is such a thing as a hate crime, abortion is it.

 

[emily47017]

Emotion does not equal planning.

correct! you’ve been paying attention!

 

[iamrefreshed]

the topic of hate crimes legislation has come up on several different threads lately, so i thought i might clear up some misperceptions.

It’s not so much the thought of the “hate crime” that causes me an issue so much as the groups of people designated under those laws abusing the law to their advantage.

Once a group is designated as a potential hate crime victim, it seems to naturally follow that that group will abuse the status.

Personally, I would like for the same laws to apply to us all equally.

 

[vern_humphrey]

correct! you’ve been paying attention!

And we have now demonstrated it is the act that is criminal, not the emotions or lack thereof.

 

[emily47017]

And we have now demonstrated it is the act that is criminal, not the emotions or lack thereof.

bzzt! try again. your exact quote was “Emotion does not equal planning.” murder in the first or second degree (the context in which planning has been raised as an issue) depends on planning, not emotion or motivation. hate crimes are different.

 

[emily47017]

It’s not so much the thought of the “hate crime” that causes me an issue so much as the groups of people designated under those laws abusing the law to their advantage.

no special designations! gah!

 

[vern_humphrey]

bzzt! try again. your exact quote was “Emotion does not equal planning.” murder in the first or second degree (the context in which planning has been raised as an issue) depends on planning, not emotion or motivation. hate crimes are different.

bzzt! try again. Planning is an act.

We punish people for their acts, not their thoughts. “Hate crimes” are “thought crimes.”

 

[Bennie_P]

There is one big misnomer about the idea that motive should not be taken into consideration and that you can simply punish the crime:

In most cities, there are laws against setting something on fire. If someone burned a cross on a black families lawn, under existing laws, the most they could be charged with would be “open burning” - usually a minor misdemeanor that carries no jail time and a maximum fine of $150. The title Arson does not fit - that is a very specific crime that involves setting fire to an occupied dwelling. So basically, you burn a cross, and it’s the same as having an illegal campfire in your backyard. Is that right?

In many aspects of criminal law we have always taken the motive into consideration. For instance, in this state, if I kill you because I get angry, I may get 15 years to life in prison. If, on the other hand, it can be proved that I had a motive and meticulously planned your murder, I can receive the death penalty.

You can also be charged with harrasment, trespassing and terroristic threatening, probly among others and if you crossed the state line to do it there are other crimes that can added at the federal level. Your over simplifying:shrug:

 

[emily47017]

We punish people for their acts, not their thoughts.

correct! the defendant in wisconsin v. mitchell was punished for his acts:

On the evening of October 7, 1989, a group of young black men and boys, including Mitchell, gathered at an apartment complex in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Several members of the group discussed a scene from the motion picture “Mississippi Burning,” in which a white man beat a young black boy who was praying. The group moved outside and Mitchell asked them: " Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people?' " **Brief for Petitioner 4. **Shortly thereafter, a young white boy approached the group on the opposite side of the street where they were standing. As the boy walked by, Mitchell said: " You all want to **** somebody up? There goes a white boy; go get him.’ " Id., at 4-5. Mitchell counted to three and pointed in the boy’s direction. The group ran towards the boy, beat him severely, and stole his tennis shoes. The boy was rendered unconscious and remained in a coma for four days.

he wasn’t just thinking racist thoughts (perfectly legal), he was leading an attack on a boy with the express intent to “move on some white people”. intent matters – “intent to kill” for example – and here his intent was to avenge the beating of the boy in mississippi burning and to generally punish white people for their past hate crimes. wisconsin’s defense of their hate crime legislation was precicely that: “…bias motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes…”

there’s another paragraph in rehnquist’s opinion that is relevant to your arguments here:

 **Traditionally, sentencing judges have considered a wide   variety of factors in addition to evidence bearing on guilt   in determining what sentence to impose on a convicted   defendant.**  See *Payne* v. *Tennessee*, 501 U. S. ----, ----   (1991) (slip op., at 10); *United States* v. *Tucker*, [404 U.S. 443](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?404+443), 446 (1972); *Williams* v. *New York*, [337 U.S. 241](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?337+241), 246   (1949).  The defendant's motive for committing the offense   is one important factor.  See 1 W. LeFave & A. Scott,   Substantive Criminal Law § 3.6(b), p. 324 (1986) ("**Motives   are most relevant when the trial judge sets the defendant's sentence, and it is not uncommon for a defendant   to receive a minimum sentence because he was acting   with good motives, or a rather high sentence because of   his bad motives**"); cf. *Tison* v. *Arizona*, [481 U.S. 137](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?481+137), 156   (1987) ("**Deeply ingrained in our legal tradition is the idea   that the more purposeful is the criminal conduct, the more   serious is the offense, and, therefore, the more severely   it ought to be punished**").  Thus, in many States the   commission of a murder, or other capital offense, for   pecuniary gain is a separate aggravating circumstance   under the capital sentencing statute.  See, *e. g.*, Ariz. Rev.   Stat. Ann. § 13-703(F)(5) (1989); Fla. Stat. § 921.1415(f)   (Supp. 1992); Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(5)(f) (Supp.   1992); N. C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-2000(e)(6) (1992); Wyo. Stat.   § 6-2-102(h)(vi) (Supp. 1992).

and i’ll be extremely disappointed if you claim that because i understand your arguments i’ve personally attacked you. :tsktsk:

 

[emily47017]

You can also be charged with harrasment, trespassing and terroristic threatening,

hate crimes do resemble terrorism in many respects, in that the individual attack is meant to inspire fear that another attack will follow.

 

[vern_humphrey]

correct! the defendant in wisconsin v. mitchell was punished for his acts:

he wasn’t just thinking racist thoughts (perfectly legal), he was leading an attack on a boy with the express intent to “move on some white people”. intent matters – “intent to kill” for example – and here his intent was to avenge the beating of the boy in mississippi burning and to generally punish white people for their past hate crimes. wisconsin’s defense of their hate crime legislation was precicely that: “…bias motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes…”

Sort of a “see what you made me do” philosophy.

Sorry – the attack in and of itself is adequate grounds for punishment. No need to add thought crimes.

there’s another paragraph in rehnquist’s opinion that is relevant to your arguments here:

Which is really picking flyspecks out of the pepper. Punish the act, not the thoughts.

Because the day will come when we punish the thoughts alone, without any acts at all.

and i’ll be extremely disappointed if you claim that because i understand your arguments i’ve personally attacked you. :tsktsk:

If we behave like ladies and gentlemen, no one will accuse anyone of anything.

 

[Bennie_P]

hate crimes do resemble terrorism in many respects, in that the individual attack is meant to inspire fear that another attack will follow.

Then why do we need more laws to complicate the system?
what we have created in this country is a lawyers paradise, yet we seem not to be able take care of crime.

 

[whatevergirl]

Whether or not someone did it out of sheer hate…it’s a crime. Murder is a crime. If I’m sitting on a jury, it doesn’t matter much to me if it’s because the person wanted money, he/she was crazy, or was a bigot. It’s a crime…period.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Whether or not someone did it out of sheer hate…it’s a crime. Murder is a crime. If I’m sitting on a jury, it doesn’t matter much to me if it’s because the person wanted money, he/she was crazy, or was a bigot. It’s a crime…period.

Careful – we don’t want to inject common sense into the discussion.

Or as me sainted Irish Mither would say, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”