My problem with 'hate crimes'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike1w
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mike1w

Guest
Two examples below of why I disagree with ‘hate crime’ statutes.
  1. Two black men are shot dead on the same day in the same state. The first is killed by a white supremacist who tells the police he killed the man because he was black. The second is killed by another black man who is a drug dealer, and admits the killing because of a dispute over money. Both leave behind widows with children. Because of hate crime legislation effective in the area, the second man’s widow is told that because of the nature of the crime, the perpetrator will get 20-30 years as a sentence, and then finds out through the news that the first man’s killer received 30 years to life as a sentence because of the circumstances. In other words, the life of the first man is worth more in the criminal justice system
  2. Two people, each in their own recognized and legally protected minority group, shout racial and ethnic slurs at each other, witnessed by dozens of people. They then both assault each other with knives. One of them is killed in the conflict. Now, how can the hate crimes statute be applied fairly, since race is a factor on both sides, as the witnesses state.
Because of examples like the above, I feel that hate crime statutes are nonsense.

I am sure more examples of flaws in such statutes exist. Your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
A hate crime is defined in the uk as follows :
‘The police and Crown Prosecution Service have agreed a common definition of hate incidents.

They say something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on one of the following things:’
  • disability
  • race
  • religion
  • transgender identity
  • sexual orientation.
It is the motive that matters: in your example the first victim was killed BECAUSE he was of a given race and thus it’s a hate crime. The second person is killed over money so that’s the motive, regardless of what they are shouting at each other, so that’s the reason only the first one is classed as a hate crime. May be different in Other countries
 
Last edited:
The motive mattering in sentencing tells the victim, or family thereof, that a person’s worth as a human is subjective, and not a flat objective person. sound like a criminal justice version of the US history three/fifths compromise anyone?
 
I know why they are called hate crimes, I just think there should be no distinction in these cases, because that is an arbitrary judgement of the worth of a human’s life. So much for equal protection under the law.
 
Couldn’t you apply that to any type of sentencing for harm done to another person? Doesn’t sentencing also taken into account things such as previous convictions etc? I can see how a family member might well feel as you described in that situation. Either way nothing can bring that person back but you have to take into account things going forward, such as how much of a danger that person now poses to society. It’s not necessarily just what they did but how likely they are to reoffend so could never really be one size fits all. The only thing that would be ‘fair’ is minimum of x years for a life taken then add years depending on circumstances. But then who decides what that minimum is ?
 
It’s just my opinion, and not a legally binding argument. If factors in sentencing aren’t based on demographic designations, that’s fair, even if other non demographic factors are applied. I am referring only to hate crime motives. All other factors are individual, and not dependent on the demographic status of the victim.
 
See, that’s the problem: “If the victim THINKS …” No objective legal standard. Say I go to a concert and glare at someone talking during the performance. So that person goes to security and says they THINK I was going to do them harm. So I’m arrested not for what I did, but because of what someone thinks?
 
The first guy admitted he was a white supremacist and killed because the man was black - hate crime - 2 black guys that is not a hate crime he did not kill for hate it was over money - not a hate crime

Both people in the last example are guilty of hate crimes - it’s over skin colour

Pretty simple to me I don’t see the flaw
Some people fall back to their primitive tribal instincts and they think they are the only ones that count and hate every other ethnic group- primitive
 
Last edited:
I am only discussing hate crimes. Any other factors in sentencing are different topics, based on objective standards independent of ethnic and racial overtones. Saying race, ethnicity, religion, or sexuality matters in sentencing is biased, bigoted, hypocritical, arbitrary, and political.
 
Last edited:
Well no because you haven’t done anything. Or at least they can’t prove you did. These things are investigated first, surely ?
 
Last edited:
So you think the law shouldn’t recognized aggravating and mitigating factors during sentencing?

Also, what does this have to do with Catholicism? This is a catholic social justice sub-forum.
 
Last edited:
Please move this thread, admin, if needed. And no, the law should not recognize such factors when based on otherwise prohibited distinctions.
 
You need to write to your local representative then. As is your right
 
If one cannot discriminate based on race, etc… in any non criminal justice forum, then the same should be prohibited in the criminal justice area. The government should not be able to prohibit discrimination based on demographics in some areas, and then discriminate themselves based on the same factors in other areas. And I will write my local representatives, not that I am confident they will do more than pay lip service.
 
Last edited:
Mike1w said:
I know why they are called hate crimes, I just think there should be no distinction in these cases, because that is an arbitrary judgement of the worth of a human’s life. So much for equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...
It is not a matter of one kind of life being worth more or less than another. It is a matter of one kind of killer being more arbitrary and capricious than another. A capricious killer is extremely dangerous to society.

In your examples, the victim of the drug dealer could have lessened his chances of being a crime victim by staying out of business deals with criminals. The widow of the man killed by a sociopathic business associate could warn her children not to associate with criminals. What could either widow do to protect her children from someone who would kill them because of the looks they were born with, though? It may be that both would rather have the killer who kills over arbitrary hatreds taken off the street for longer, because they would feel the latter posed a mortal threat to her living family members in a way that they couldn’t do anything to avoid.
 
Last edited:
People who commit hate crimes need to be made an example of to end this primitive practice
 
I suppose other types of violent crimes are less primitive practices? wow…
 
Mike1w said:
Please move this thread
Click to expand...
I moved it to Casual Discussion because there isn’t really anywhere else for it to go. If the Op was in some way related to Catholic social justice it could be moved back there.
 
You’re looking at this the wrong way. The sentence doesn’t reflect the value of the life lost, it reflects the severity with which society wishes to punish the crime. Suppose I am murdered here in England. If somebody murders me while burgling my house, he’ll be sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff (minimum period in prison before eligibility for parole) of, say, 15 years. If somebody murders me because he hates white people, he’ll be sentenced life imprisonment with a tariff of, say, 25 years. Please understand that these are just guesses, but you’ll get the point. It’s not that if I were murdered by a burglar my life would be worth less than if I were murdered by a racist. It’s that society punishes racists more severely than it punishes burglars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top