While we’re at it, let’s get rid of laws against bribery and prostitution, both of which rest on the shaky premise that legal act + legal act = crime.

Actually, I think we’re pretty close to being on the same page. I don’t think any particular group should be exempt from hate crime protection. At the same time, like it or not, we’re a lot better at recognizing hate crimes against certain groups, because there’s a long history of such crimes against those groups. That makes them easier to identify, but it doesn’t make less-publicized hate crimes less worthy of the same sort of protection.

Bzzt. Wrong answer. ANY group that is specifically targeted for intimidation by another individual or group should be so protected.

So, you’re saying the exact same thing I’m saying. Threaten a group or individual – get punished. Perfect!

The fact that it will help Jews, Blacks, Whites, Lounge Singers with Rosacea is a bonus. No need to single anything out.

As long as you do not predefine any specific groups, I’m cool with it. But I don’t think that’s what you’re after. You seem to want to have laws that state threats against Groups X, Y, and Z carry more penalty than groups A & B. I see no difference between that and giving special water fountain privileges to the same groups.

That position is inherently flawed. Determination of intent is rightfully done to make a decision on appropriate charges to be levied. If one hits and kills a pedestrian with his car accidentally, manslaughter. If done because the driver was changing his cd’s and not looking where he was going, perhaps negligent homicide. If done on purpose, murder. Hence, determination of intent has a rightful place in the process. No one can successfully argue that.

A case in point is the dragging death of Mr. Bird (Byrd?) in Jarrell, Tx. The proper charges were brought, conviction obtained, death sentences applied.
If we somehow divined that they killed Mr. Bird because he was black or retarded and called it a hate crime, what would we do? Execute them twice?
There were calls and protests for the imposition of a hate crime law in Texas following this trial. Why? The mechanism of determining the intent of the killers and charging them with pre-meditated murder was sufficient to achieve as close to justice as we can get.

Why would we dilute the seriousness of this crime with a politically correct charge that robs every citizen of the country of his right to an opinion, no matter how pure or obscene. The actions should be the determining factor in punishment when the proper charges are levied.

The rest is just posing for the crowd. And a dangerous pose it is.

The misdirection comes when some here try to equate determination of intent prior to levying of charges to prosecution and/or added punishment because of thought or perceived thought. The selection of charges is a sufficient mechanism for determining the proper punishment should a conviction be obtained.

Not exactly. There is a difference. I just believe there should be no *legal* difference as hate shouldn’t be illegal whether it’s for an individual or a group.

Secondly, if you want to follow your logic that the threat is a threat against more than just the individual, it seems that the logical answer would be to charge the perpetrator with multiple counts, one for each person who can reasonably be expected to have been threatened. For example, there are 10 Jewish people living in the neighborhood where the swastika was painted, charge the perp with 10 counts of threatening.

I was looking for a good way to differentiate between hate crimes as described in theory and hate crimes as prosecuted in practice.

I don’t know what my response is, but I see several choices.

(a) agree that hate crime laws may be good in theory, but a slippery slope in practice, and should be discouraged in general
(b) agree that hate crimes laws are good in theory, and generally applied well
(c) disagree that the law should pay a high level of attention to the group which the target of the crime belongs to, and promote prosecution of the individual crime (thus disagreeing with hate crime laws in principle)
(d) wonder why the heck hate crimes are such a big issue

I notice that not many have responded to my challenge above.

Under the current definitions of hate crimes (as described and enumerated by the FBI), incidences are fairly rare. Large numbers of jurisdictions report no incidence of hate crimes in the average year, and the reported numbers show a rate approximately 1% the rate of generic violent crime.

Whether or not we need a special law, don’t these numbers show that hate crimes are the outlier, the rare event?

Admittedly, they get lots of attention in the press. (If it bleeds it leeds; if it is unusual, it is sensational.) However, do they deserve the attention paid to them in law, policy, and the press?

Unfortunately, the way they are currently written/enforced makes something as “innocent” as using a particular slur over another one when you are leading up to a fight, as you’re trying to intimidate or insult the other guy, into a Hate Crime instead of just the crime of picking a fight.

If I’m mugging or carjacking someone and want to scare them into giving me what I want, I can call them anything I want without it adding onto my sentence, unless I happen to use an expression that involves their race, gender, sexual preference, age, religion, or whatnot. Then I get extra time. Was the crime motivated by hate? No. Was hate a factor in whether or not I committed it or who I chose as a victim? No. Do I get an additional punishment because it’s a Hate Crime? Yes.

That’s just not right.

Take the oft discussed here example of painting a swastika on the side of a Jew’s house. Is that a threat? Could it just be my way of expressing my perception of my pure Aryan race’s superiority over Jews? Perhaps I’m a Navajo painting it up there as a sign of healing because my good friend, the resident Jew, was sick. Even if I hate Jews, painting a swastika on a Jew’s house does not necessarily mean that I want people to do anything illegal to Jews. It could just be my way of expressing my hatred, and should be treated as no different than if I had painted any other graffiti on the house.

IF you could prove that I was doing it as an act of terrorism, then fine, go after me for that. If you can’t, though, then it should not have any additional punishment associated with it.

And if you think that thought crime will never happen here, I’ve got a little treat for you. In SC, it is illegal to do something that you think is illegal even if it isn’t.

Did you get that? You are guilty of committing a crime if you did something that was not against the law, if you THOUGHT it was against the law when you did it. According to this law, if you didn’t see the sign raising the speed limit to 70mph and you were doing 70mph, you could be charged with violating the law. Imagine the scenario: you’re in a 70mph zone and get pulled over because you’ve got a tail light out. You blurt out that you are sorry that you were doing 70 in a 60 zone, but that you were in a real hurry to get to the airport to catch a flight. You could be arrested for violating the “I thought I was doing something illegal” law. Even though you were not exceeding the speed limit.

For those that are wondering, we have that law because some sick perv got caught trying to hook up with a minor online. When he went to what he thought was the young girl’s house, it was an undercover cop living there pretending to be a minor online. Since the law said that it was against the law to do such things to a minor, and the person he had been communicating with was not actually a minor, he got acquitted.

I don’t know where you’d get that impression, because I’ve been pretty consistent in stating that hate, in and of itself, is not a crime. So have the people I’ve linked. We’re not advocating for punishing thoughts or opinions, we’re advocating for punishing criminal actions taken. We’re simply advocating that when such criminal actions are taken, we shouldn’t ignore the circumstances under which they occurred, nor should we ignore the broader impacts of those actions.

Tacking on extra punishment for hate is a short step from punishing the hate alone.

See Xrlq’s “aggravating circumstance” comment, above.

I say again, tacking on extra punishment for “hate crime” status diminishes similar crimes against victims that were not motivated by hate. Motive is used to prove guilt, not to determine the punishment. If hate without assault = punishment, we had all better lawyer up.

You’re ignoring intent. The only difference between murder and manslaughter is intent. If we can draw a distinction there, why not also in the case of hate crimes?

If hate without assault = punishment, we had all better lawyer up.

You spend a lot of time on the “hate without other crime = crime in and of itself” idea. Too bad absolutely nobody is arguing this point. It’s a lovely straw man, but that’s all it is.

Tacking on extra punishment for hate is a short step from punishing the hate alone. Not liking how someone feels about others is no justification for punishment. Our justice system was built on the idea of penalizing illegal actions. Judges and juries are brought in to look at each case, and this has worked for over 200 years as a method of determining the correct punishment, based on circumstances. The murderer who killed because of pure malice will likely get a more severe punishment than the one who killed his wife’s lover when he came home early. Thankfully, the law is not yet on the “Zero Tolerance” bandwagon.

I say again, tacking on extra punishment for “hate crime” status diminishes similar crimes against victims that were not motivated by hate. Motive is used to prove guilt, not to determine the punishment. If hate without assault = punishment, we had all better lawyer up.

Robb Allen: Actually, hate appears to have been a, if not the motive for the Beltway Snipers, we just didn’t know it for a long while. (”We” as in I was living in Arlington, VA then, and that was “my” Home Depot at which the FBI worker was shot. Not a fun time.)

straightarrow: For “pure hate” prosecutions in the US, check out the one in Idaho. Wife is taking pictures of a soccer match (she may do this for the local media), black (African?) coach very unreasonably objects and assaults her. Husband gets no where near the two in the crowd, but is understandably loose with his language. He’s prosecuted, every courtesy is extended to the coach, including not prosecuting him for an assault in front of a bunch of witnesses.

The powers that be in Idaho are so sensitive about its image as a haven for white supremacists/separatists that, well, I’m not sure I’d want to live there.

“let’s let people unconditionally get away with all manner of shit because we’re deathly afraid of slippery slopes”

After all, it’s not like they would be convicted of other crimes more easily, according to what you say. We’d be letting people off scot free without these hate crime statutes that don’t make previously legal acts illegal.

And, hey, it’s not like a country with a similar legal code, constitutional protections, and demographics could possibly be a good canary in a coal shaft on a legal matter. For my next joke, I must be planning to suggest that past events are a predictor, even an unreliable one, of future events in the same circumstances! Crazy!

Well, the whole “citizens’ arrest” thing is what tripped the vigilante justice switch in my mind, but whatever.

It’s still within existing legal codes, often explicitly. It still involves normal judicial oversight.

So, does “vigilante justice” actually mean the dictionary definition of “taking the law into one’s own hands”, or do you just replace the word with “legal actions tgirsch doesn’t like”?

I agree with it.

Agree with it, and you cannot agree that hate crime makes sense since it will give certain groups MORE protection than others.

Bzzt. Wrong answer. ANY group that is specifically targeted for intimidation by another individual or group should be so protected. It just so happens that in practice, certain groups are targeted in this way far more often than others. So it’s not that some groups are more deserving of protection than others, it’s that these groups are more in need of such protection. It’s why the president gets armed security when the average Joe doesn’t — it’s not that the president is more deserving of such protection, but rather that he’s more likely to be attacked.

So it goes for hate crimes. And if some group should emerge specifically targeting WASP males for violence and/or other intimidation, they should be prosecuted under hate crime legislation to the fullest extent of the law, and to the same extent as any such group that targets non-whites. (In fact, if history tells us anything, it’s that such a group would be punished by far and away more severely.)

I don’t want to protect the Nazi scum.

Not at all. But you would enforce a legal standard that would hold Henry II blameless for the murder of Thomas Becket. After all, the King didn’t do anything. He didn’t threaten anyone. He didn’t specifically ask anyone to do anything at all. No action, no explicit threat, no crime, right?

gattsuru:
The defendant claims he heard sirens, or got spooked.

Or took his wallet afterwards. Cause, you know, hate crimes never result in theft afterward.

All the sorts of things that could be fleshed out before a Grand Jury and at trial, no? See, when the prosecutor decides to charge the perp not just with assault, but with a hate crime, said prosecutor is seeking a more severe charge with a more stringent burden of proof. So s/he’s taking a risk, unless s/he’s pretty sure s/he’s got a good case on that.

But, of course, if you ascribe to the “let’s let people unconditionally get away with all manner of shit because we’re deathly afraid of slippery slopes” school of jurisprudence, I suppose that’s your prerogative.

But thanks for the vulgarity.

People who can’t handle occasional cursing can go fuck themselves.

Yeah, we all know encouraging police officers to enforce the law, and for folk to protect themselves within the extent allowed by the law, that’s “vigilante justice.”

Well, the whole “citizens’ arrest” thing is what tripped the vigilante justice switch in my mind, but whatever.

Well, that’s true if we’re fucking morons incapable of basic reason. Especially if, for example, said fag’s wallet wasn’t taken.

The defendant claims he heard sirens, or got spooked.

Or took his wallet afterwards. Cause, you know, hate crimes never result in theft afterward.

But thanks for the vulgarity.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of “vigilante justice,” but I guess “pipe dream” works, too…

Yeah, we all know encouraging police officers to enforce the law, and for folk to protect themselves within the extent allowed by the law, that’s “vigilante justice.” Yep.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of “vigilante justice,” but I guess “pipe dream” works, too…

Physically and on any chemical scale we can reasonably observe, there’s no difference between “getting into a bar fight and beating the crap out of this fag to send a message to all the other fags” and “getting into a bar fight and beating the crap out of this fag to get his wallet”.

Well, that’s true if we’re fucking morons incapable of basic reason. Especially if, for example, said fag’s wallet wasn’t taken. But hey, let’s just pretend that it’s all voodoo, and we can’t have any idea why anybody ever does anything. At which point we’re simply powerless to even differentiate between intentional and accidental.

tgirsch, so hate + crime > crime?
Sorry, I can’t wrap my head around that.

Try wrapping your head around the underlying principle, first:

crime + aggravating circumstance = more serious crime

That much is basic crim law. The only real controversy here is (or should be, anyway) whether hate should be considered an aggravating circumstance.

It’s a product of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, IIRC, and even it is redundant to the constitution and to whole libraries of state law.

Still want more laws upon laws upon laws? Still want the logical equivalent of “outlawing crime”? Then, when crime continues, you want to outlaw illegal crime, and then outlaw prohibited, illegal crime?

And, in all honesty, hate crime statutes don’t protect one group more than others. The statutes only reference crimes motivated by race, religion, disability, et cetera; they don’t (and under the Constitution, can’t) protect only one side of a specific grouping method. They do punish threats motivated by certain things more than others, but the sexuality one goes whether you were beaten up for being gay or beaten up for being straight (or beaten up because someone guessed your sexuality wrong).

In practice, I’m not so sure of that’s the case, especially since the only numbers I can pull up are for federal reporting laws rather than state sentencing laws, but that sounds like a better argument for better police and legal folk than for or against the law.

I’ll say it again since you are having a hard time understanding it. A flaming bag of poo does not imply a threat. A flaming cross can (not necessarily). Any threat, even if towards a group of people, is a threat and should be dealt with accordingly. The group is irrelevant.

I just want you to agree or disagree with the following statement -

ALL people deserve the SAME protection from ALL manners of threats.

Agree with it, and you cannot agree that hate crime makes sense since it will give certain groups MORE protection than others.

Disagree with it, and I can dismiss you as a racist / bigot / sexist. I want equality, you want special treatment. Why is that so hard to understand?

And to burn your next strawman, I don’t want to protect the Nazi scum. I want him punished for threatening someone, regardless if it’s a Jew or a Muslim.

Regarding the difference between terrorism and crime, crime is meant to benefit the criminal financially; terrorism is meant to benefit the terrorists’ cause politically. Terrorism against citizens of a nation-state is an act of war, and a matter for the military to resolve. Crime against citizens of a nation-state is resolvable using the local, state or federal criminal justice systems.

Islamic terrorists are fighting a guerrilla war, not just committing criminal acts. It is not their “hate” that we prosecute, it is their stated goal of conquering our nation-state that we militarily fight against.

I find it interesting that there is a confluence of hate crime legislation and anti-terror military action, in that I can oppose motive-based penalty enhancement as an issue of freedom of conscience (for criminals), but I can also agree to allow the military to subjugate the worldwide Islamist movement as another issue of freedom of conscience (mine).

If I commit a murder because of hate to a class of (church going, liberal, gay loving) people, I should be punished for the murder. My motivation is really immaterial to the crime in that case. It is not revenge for a wrong done me except maybe in my imagination. The punishment for murder is death; any additional punishment for the hate is ridiculous.

Hate crimes are a ridiculous concept. Punish the actual crime not the thought. I really do not see the difference from painting a swastika and the anarchy sign or any other vandalism. Prosecute the vandalism. The action. Any crime can be used to intimidate, hell read several blogs and the hate that emanate is palpable and designed to intimidate. But I would not want any of those vicious people prosecuted for the verbal, written intimidation and hate.

Also many people have been punished on college campuses for allege hate /thought crimes read FIRE website for examples. The Canadian Human Rights is using the hate crimes to shut down discussion so I see a lot of good reasons to be against hate crimes legislation.

Since what bothers me most are disparately treated murders, assaults, etc and the examples you use relate to vandalism hate, would you agree that hate crime legislation should be limited to vandalism-type hate?

I wouldn’t agree with it from my perspective, because I don’t accept the assertion that hate should be the basis for augmented sentences.

When I went to CBHS (for a while, at least), the boys from MUS used to yell “Eat Fish!” at us. So what?

That reception beat having our bus bricked by the people at Bolton HS.

I don’t see why it’s any different for us to say we ought to recognize the difference between a flaming bag of poo and burning cross, and treat them differently, than it is for us to say we ought to recognize the difference between getting into a bar fight and beating the crap out of this fag to send a message to all the other fags, and treat that differently, too.

Because the former case has some rather obvious differences. Even after a few days, a burning bag of dog poo is chemically and physically different from a burning cross. Physically and on any chemical scale we can reasonably observe, there’s no difference between “getting into a bar fight and beating the crap out of this fag to send a message to all the other fags” and “getting into a bar fight and beating the crap out of this fag to get his wallet”.

I mean, I guess we could start punching long needles into the asshole’s brain a few weeks in the past and see how the neurons fire during the crime, but that’s probably not going to pass Constitutional muster.

That means that, in practice, we have to guess from previous behavior and hope that the juries get it right. That’s not bad, on its own, and not that different from far too many laws, albeit taking a different path than most other laws. But I really doubt that the average jury is going to stick to judging “fighting words” and that every case will be cut and dry.

That might be an acceptable. It’s a matter of opinion. But it’s not an illogical concern.

Some death penalty advocates say that public executions would be more effective. Why? Because of the message that they send. But in the world of crime, we’re supposed to ignore the message?

Ignoring for now the logical fallacies of “other people say X, you say something like notX, explain” and “message=motivation”, I think I can firmly expect an explicit message broadcasted live in several languages and closed captioning to be slightly easier to divine than figuring out the internal motivations of a criminal days, weeks, or months after they committed a crime, while said criminal has every reason to hide them.

Hey, if you’ve got a better idea (one that will actually, you know, work), I’m all ears.

Having remotely effective police officers, legal systems that actually enforce the law on the books rather than coddle and early release criminals, and encourage training in lawful self-defense and defense-of-others and citizen’s arrests by individuals statistically likely to be victimized?

I know, I know, pipe dream.

Even in your gross oversimplification, you forgot: hate without assault — 0 years.

And there it is right there. You just went down the slope with that one statement. Apparently “hate without assault” is something criminal in your mind.

what language are you reading in, that renders “0 years [of punishment]” as “it’s criminal”?

I hate people like you. Wanna put me in jail?

no, but i’d like it if somebody could teach you english. am i still hateful if i want to put you through school?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I don’t see why it’s any different for us to say we ought to recognize the difference between a flaming bag of poo and burning cross, and treat them differently, than it is for us to say we ought to recognize the difference between getting into a bar fight and beating the crap out of this fag to send a message to all the other fags, and treat that differently, too.

Some death penalty advocates say that public executions would be more effective. Why? Because of the message that they send. But in the world of crime, we’re supposed to ignore the message? I don’t get it.