Reply #11: Number one only

[Azathoth]

Hate crimes laws are, in my opinion, a very slippery slope, and they should only be applied when there is very clear evidence that the crime was planned and committed as a result of hate or prejudice. In other words, the crime has to be committed because the perpetrator hated his victim.

As far as I can see, only your first example (which is reminiscent of Matthew Shepherd) qualifies as a hate crime. In that scenario, the boys specifically target and assault a black man for the sole reason that they hate his skin color. The crime is premeditated and would not have been committed had the victim been white.

Racism figures prominently in the second scenario, but it is not the reason for the actual crime. The quarrel escalates when the black man physically assaults the white guy. While the white guy starts the verbal quarrel for racist reasons, he does not initially intend or attempt to commit a crime against the black guy.

Example #3 has even less racial motivation. The hobo judges, for one reason or another, that the jewelry store with the black clerk is the best one to rob. The crime is not committed because the clerk is black as (per your description) the hobo was going to rob a store anyway. Although he could very well have chosen that particular store because he is racist, there is almost no way to prove it without a confession. Further, I believe hate crimes laws should only be applicable to physical crimes against the victim's person. Extending them to non-assault-type crimes opens a big door that would be difficult to shut.

Example #4 has absolutely nothing to do with race at all. It is business as usual among drug dealers.