Concerning hate crimes laws

[CTLawGuy]

I'm curious as to how strong DUers believe hate crimes laws should be.

I'm going to give you four situations, and please tell me whether you believe each situation describes activity that SHOULD, in your opinon, be a hate crime. Also, say why, if you want.

1. Four white teenagers get plastered at a bar where they rile themselves up talking about how much they hate African Americans. After a few hours, they drive off down the street in their truck. (The driver is sober enough to do so legally, and so are the others.) Along the road, they see a young black man, whom they have never seen before, walking down the street. Yelling, they pull over and jump out of the truck. While screaming racial slurs at the black man they race over, surround him, and beat him to death.

2. A middle aged white male is sitting at a local bar. A black man comes in and sits at the stool next to him. The white person says to the black man "get out of here n****r! We don't want your kind here!" The black man becomes enraged and says "Fuck you, asshole, I got a right to be here." Then the black man pushes the white man hard enough to knock him off his barstool. The white man gets up, pulls out a concealed handgun, and shoots the black man between the eyes, killing him instantly.

3. In the city there lives a hobo who was once the head of a local KKK chapter. He has been known to make racist speeches, and of course, hold racist views. Since that time, he has fallen into dependency on heroin, which has crippled his lifestyle, forcing him to live on the street. One day, needing a fix extremely badly, and having no money, the man comes upon 3 adjacent jewelry stores. He performs an informal casing of each store. One store has a white male clerk who appears to be about 6'3" and muscular. Another store has a white female clerk who is helping 5 average looking male customers of different races. The third store has a wiry black female clerk serving 3 black female customers. The hobo walks into the third store and brandishes a knife, scaring the occupants. He demands, using racial slurs, that the clerk enpty out the jewelry cases into a bag he gives her. She complies and he runs away without harming any of them.

4. A white cocaine supplier has supplied a black dealer for years, having the dealer over to his house many times for business. One day after conducting business at the house, the white supplier had gone to the bathroom, leaving the dealer free access to the house without supervision for a limited time. Upon return from the bathroom, he bids the dealer good bye and they shake hands. An hour later he checks his cocaine stash and realizes that the dealer probably swiped some cocaine while he was in the bathroom. Angry, the white supplier grabs a gun and waits outside the dealer's favorite restaurant. When the dealer comes out, the supplier shoots him in the back of the head, takes his wallet and runs off.

----------------
Which of these four situations (is a/are) hate crime(s) in your mind?

[KitchenWitch]

1. Depends upon your point of view

I can see a point that the first three definitely are, but the situation with the dealer is not as clear. Would said white supplier of cocaine have reacted the same way if the dealer who "ripped him off" had been white?

[leftyandproud]

17. white person killing black person = hate crime

black killing white = self defense against white oppression

</sarcasm off>

(though I have heard a similar attitude MANY times here before.)

Personally I think hate crimes laws are stupid...and Orwellian. We can not punish based on thought...only actions. How are we to tell whether or not a killer was racist...or a rapist was "sexist".

It is absolutely irrelevant.
Crime is crime. Punish it uniformly and stop elevating the value/cost of one person's life over another. We all have equal worth.

[CTLawGuy]

20. I believe

hate crimes should apply to any biased crime regardless of anyone's race. I used white on black in all the scenarios for consistency's sake.

[Orangepeel]

42. yep, motive has nothing to do with it

murder is murder, whether it is a premeditated killing for personal gain or vehicular homicide by a drunk driver.

:eyes:

[immoderate]

46. OJ: "If I killed Nicole, it was out of love."

If we punish hate crimes more severely, should "love" criminals get softer treatment?

I agree with those who find the idea of hate crimes dangerously close the "thought crimes."

--IMM

[SemiCharmedQuark]

48. Two completely different scenarios.

A "love" crime as you call it is not a crime against all men, all women, or everyone in love.

A "hate" crime is a crime of intimidation against everyone in that group. When people murder and tie a gay man to a fence with the words "god hates fags", they are sending a messege to the gay community: change your ways or look what happens. When people lynch a black man because he was seen with a white woman, they are sending a messege to all black men "keep away from our women, because the next person could be you"

[immoderate]

57. I'm sympathetic, but...

I'm uncomfortable with the notion of hate crimes. Yes, I am appalled and disgusted with sick crimes of bigotry, but I think our laws should be as objective as possible.

Hate penalties while well meaning, open a can of worms that our legal system should not deal with. Can rape be seen as a crime against all women? I think it could. But I think it is beyond judicious to have to deal with it as such.

--IMM

[SemiCharmedQuark]

44. Way to put up a smoke screen.

The fact is, a HATE crime is a threat against an entire community. When people lynch a black man, it is not just the murder of that man, it is a sign to all black men and women that they had damn well better stay in their place or look what will happen.

When someone gets on a subway and threatens 1 person with a knife, they get one count of assault. When someone gets on a subway and threatens 10 people with a knife, they get 10 counts of assault. Same thing.

A HATE crime is a warning. It is assault against an entire people.

Punishing a hate crime IS punishing action. An action taken against an entire community.

[immoderate]

47. What action is taken against the entire community?

Law enforcement should be based on real things. Yes I know guilt is based on intent. That's different.

--IMM

[SemiCharmedQuark]

49. It is a threat against an entire community.

As I said, when a lynching occurs, the display is done for the sake of intimidating other members of the black community.

[immoderate]

60. Yes. And those guilty of lynching should get the worst punisment allowed.

So how would the result be different if you call it a hate crime? Are there other reasons for lynching?

When a gangster caps a deadbeat, is that a hate crime? The purpose is the same.

--IMM

[Pithlet]

56. But, that isn't true.

We DO take into consideration a person's thoughts and reasons behind their actions when deciding punishment all the time, and always have. We've also always taken into account what effect an action has on society. That is why there are different degrees of punishment. All crime is NOT considered equally when determining punishment. Someone who kills someone else in an act of road rage, for instance, is not necessarily going to get the same punishment as someone who paid someone else to kill their spouse. Someone who killed a person because they raped their daughter is probably not going to get the same sentence as someone who abducts and kills a child. Why is it okay to take other motivations into consideration, but NOT racism, sexism or homophobia?

I think it is perfectly valid to take into consideration the huge effect that racism and other forms of hatred have on our society, and the crimes that that hatred causes can be considered on their merit.

Why should we have to ignore the racial motivation behind a crime, and treat it the same way as a crime committed for a different reason?

[immoderate]

59. Why should we ignore other reasons?

That's why there is discretion in sentencing. I think it's risky to have a seperate class of "imaginary" crime, which could not be punished on its own.

--IMM

[Pithlet]

61. But, when left to discretion

the perpetrators are sometimes given lighter sentences. But, that's even beside the point. I don't see anything risky about it. Hate crimes are a form of terrorism. The murderer isn't just killing a person. He/she is ALSO sending a message to the rest of that community, and telling them to be afraid for their lives. Why can't that be punished above and beyond the act of murder? What is so scary about that? I think that ignoring the terrorist aspect of a crime, ignoring the intent to terrorize, and treating it just like any other crime is scary.

[leftyandproud]

63. prove it

How can you prove that someone was killed because of their race? Unless the killer is dumb enough to admit the reason, there is NO WAY TO TELL. How will you determine whether a white man killing a black man is a hate crime, or vice versa? What if a straight man assaults a gay man without knowing he is gay? Does his "gayness" come up in court, and then give the defendant a harsher punishment? The whole premise is ridiculous. Punishments for pre-meditated violent crimes should be harsh and uniform. All hate crimes are generally pre-meditated...meaning a "hate" based murder would be a first degree murder, and the punishment would be the same as it would with everyone else...life without parole, or the death penalty. If someone kills your relative, but didn't do it because he "hated" her, and ends up with 30 years instead of life, will you feel any better? Is justice done? Is your relative's life worth LESS than the life of another random victim who might have been be gay?

That is what hate crimes laws accomplish...They make certain people worth LESS in the eyes of the law. That is not justice...and no liberal should support it.

[Pithlet]

64. Sometimes people ARE dumb enough

Sometimes there IS evidence that a crime, including murder, is racially motivated. And, if it can't be proved that hate was the motivation, then it wouldn't be judged a hate crime.

See my post further down thread titled "For those of you against hate crime laws", and then answer this:

Do you think that the fact that someone TPing my house would get less punishment than someone leaving a burning cross on an African American's lawn makes me less worthy in the eyes of the law? I think that is ridiculous. Besides, a black person can be charged with a hate crime for killing a white person if it is racially motivated. That HAS happened.

[leftyandproud]

65. ..

no, a burning cross is historically a THREAT...We have laws against this. It would qualify as terroristic threatening, a felony in some states. It's not on the same level as a TP prank.

[Pithlet]

66. Bingo! That's the point.

Killing someone just because they are black is the equivalent of a cross burning, only on a much higher level. The crimes are different because they aren't aimed at just one person. They are aimed at everybody who shares that particular characteristic, whether it is race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. They are crimes of intimidation against a large group of people. Just like we punish people who steal from five people more than we punish people who steal from one person, we punish people who intent was not just to kill or victimize that one person, but to terrorize a class of people, more than we punish a person who's crime is aimed at just one person.

[CTLawGuy]

73. heres how you tell if something is a hate crime

If the race of the victim were the same as the race of the perp would the crime likely have happened?

[Timebound]

2. Well, they're ALL crimes, period.

But 1 and 2 are definately hate crimes. To me, 3 feels more like racial profiling than a hate crime, but technically I guess they can be the same thing. 4 doesn't really sound like a hate crime. The supplier obviously got along with the black dealer until he was robbed.

[EC]

3. First 2, .......

Third a junky would be looking for the least amount of resistance, forth wouldn't have mattered what race, same result.

[rman]

4. already covered under existing laws;

1, 2 and 4 is murder
3 is robery

Making laws for crimes that are already covered under law is making things needlesly complicated.

[James T. Kirk]

13. I agree.

The criminals in this case are already reprehensible and deserving of the harshest treatment our justice system can legally give them.

Hate crimes are crimes. Motivation is secondary. Is a victim murdered for money any more loved by the murderer than a victim murdered for race? In both cases, the perpetrator does not respect the humanity of the victim.


On a side note, the hater is also guilty of the sin of race-hatred and God will judge him later after our human justice system punishes him harshly.

[CTLawGuy]

22. hate crimes laws

they don't create new crimes. What they do is allow for harsher sentences on crimes that were motivated by hate of some unchangable characteristic of the victim. The reasoning is that these crimes are particularly heinous and offsensive to our values.

[Jack_DeLeon]

40. I think thats pretty silly...

I think a jury should decide what sentance is appropriate for the crime commited, and yes motive should be a part of that.

However slapping additional charges on someone just because of thier motive is redundent.

Murder is already heinous and offensive to our values, its not going to be any more so just because someone commited murder because he was a racist. What are you going to do execute him twice?

[DefenseLawyer]

50. Actually, many so called "hate crimes" laws

do create a second, separate criminal offense. The kind of hate crime law you are talking about, which allows the judge to enhance a sentence if he finds it was a hate crime, were declared unconstitutional in the Apprendi case, out of New Jersey I believe in 2000. I think it is tough for those of us who are sensitive to the issues of race and bigotry not to automatically think a hate crime law must be a good thing, because we find hate crimes so abhorrent. But hate crimes laws are wrong. They are unfair and unevenly applied and most importantly they set a dangerous precedent of punishing a person for what they thought, rather than just for what they did. Punishing thought can only lead to bad things.

[latteromden]

5. First off, I think this is the best post I've ever seen on DU.

REALLY makes one think.

The first two, definitely.

The third, I'm not so sure. He would have done the same thing in any of the three jewelry stores - but then, the fact that he chose, specifically, the store with the black, female clerk could be a reflection on his racism or just the fact that he thought she would be the most likely to comply; given his background, I'd say the former. I think, also, that when somebody says "hate crimes," other people tend to think of murder exclusively. However, a hate crime is simply a crime motivated by, well, hate, and the specific choice to attack the black clerk's store was based on racism - and I don't think that anybody can argue that armed robbery is not a crime.

Therefore, after thinking out loud for a bit there, I would consider it a hate crime.

The fourth, I would say no.

[CTLawGuy]

6. thank you!

I appreciate the compliment :)

[EC]

8. I don't know about the 3rd

I said no, because, the KKK guy became a junky, needing a fix, I still hold that he was looking for least resistance, since the black lady was described as "wirey" I think that works into the equation more than "black" owner or clerk.

[Inte11ectual]

7. No doubt the first three

The first three crimes were motivated by racial hate, and are therefore hate crimes.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. my answers

I would say #1 and #1 are hate crimes for sure. Number 3 was nothing more than opportunity (although, I am sure a KKK junkie would love that the victim was black). The 4th one was revenge. Had the dealer been white, the same outcome, most likely, would have happened.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. The sad fact is ALL of them are crimes worthy of fierce punishment

but how HATE CRIMES legislation came about is that juries and judges in the first two instances all too often would find some mitigating reason to mete out LESS punishment than they would in the last two instances. Hence the ADDITIONAL minimum penalties added to the first two scenarios

[Azathoth]

11. Number one only

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.

[CTLawGuy]

18. interesting

"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."


The third scenario describes an armed robbery, which is considered a violent crime. Remember that the perp brandished a knife.

[Azathoth]

That's true, but

the object of armed robbery is not to assault the proprietor of the store, but to coerce him/her into handing over the money. The motivation behind the use of force or violence is evident. The crime is not being comitted because of the victim's skin color.

Perhaps I should rephrase my original comment. I believe hate crimes laws should only be applicable to phyisical crimes that are comitted with the primary or sole intention of causing harm to the victim's person.

[Madrone]

38. My analysis exactly.

n/t

[H2O Man]

12. #1

is what the hate crimes laws are intended to target.

[dsc]

14. Definately 1

I can see including 2 as well, though the black guy did start the physical stuff. 3 is probably not and in any case unprovable and 4 decidedly isn't. But even with problems, hate crime laws are important. There have been treads about a Kentucky case where a guy killed a gay man, cut him up, put him in a suit case, and got convicted of manslaughter due to using gay panic as a defense. This happens all too often.

[redherring]

15. One and Two

There's not an iota of doubt that the first one is a hate crime. But the second one seems to be a bit more complicated. In the second scenario, it seems clear to me that the White male was trying to rile up the black guy. Nobody with a sane mind who addresses a black person with a derogatory term expects not to get involved in some sort of a physical brawl, unless of course it was like situation one where a group of racists are targeting just one individual. So it's obvious to me that the White male *was* motivated by racism and therefore used racist epithets to incite the black guy to fight with him.
Now, everything boils down to the witnesses. If people around the scene overheard the white guy using derogatory terms, then I believe it will be treated as a hate crime. Else, it'll only be seen as drunken rage.
In essence, the motive of the White male comes to question here. Clearly, he wanted to hurt the black guy, even though the black guy pushed the White guy first. He was probably looking for reasons to hurt the black guy.

[CTLawGuy]

16. my opinion on each

I like the responses so far and I'd love to hear more.

Here is my opinion

1. IS a hate crime. There is no other motivation that could possibly have driven those teenagers to attack the black person walking down the street. These crimes are particularly heinous because they demonstrate the criminals have no problem with simply murdering people they don't like.

2. IS a hate crime. I believe that when we determine whether something should be a hate crime, we should ask ourselves whether the crime would likely have been committed had the victim not been a race the perp hated. In this case, if the victim was white, it's likely the comments would never have been made and the altercation would never have even happened. The fact that the black man pushed him is only slightly relevant. It's not reasonable to suspect that being pushed would cause a reasonable person to pull out a gun and kill someone. That suggests to me that the motivation of being pushed is not strong enough to override the white man's prejudice as the motivation for the crime.

3. IS NOT a hate crime. We know the hobo was a former KKK leader. However, if the third store clerk and customers were white, it would be hard to argue the hobo would not likely have robbed the store. The reason for this is that the hobo was in dire need of a heroin fix and needed money. It's not unusual for some drug addicts to steal to feed their habits. The fact that the clerk and customers were black may have played a role, but it was a weak one at best. The point of hate crime laws is to punish crimes motivated by hate. It's hard to say with certainty that this one was.

4. IS NOT a hate crime. The two were business partners. The perp had no history of racial hatred, and killed the dealer because he believed the dealer stole from him. If the dealer were white, it likely still would have happened. Murder in the drug trade is fairly common among business partners. It is not sufficient to show simply that the crime was interracial to prove a hate crime.

[Stop_the_War]

19. ALL OF THEM ARE HATE CRIMES! n/t

[CTLawGuy]

21. would you like to present any reasoning

to support your conclusion?

[Stop_the_War]

23. self-deleted

[CTLawGuy]

24. why does #4 involve racism

the white perp had no history of racist beliefs and he worked closely with the black dealer. He was close enough to him to:

- Let him into his house and at times leave him alone
- Know where his favorite restaurant is, and when he'd be there


How can you tell that racism played ANY role?

[Stop_the_War]

26. well you have a point there...

I guess #4 isn't.
But the rest are.

[Stop_the_War]

27. But regardless of whether it's a hate crime, it's still murder. n/t

[CTLawGuy]

29. yup

absolutely.

#1 is murder in the first degree (and probably conspiracy too)

#2 is murder in the second degree

#3 is armed robbery, and assault

#4 is murder in the first degree

[BuyingThyme]

25. The Hate Crime Standard:

If you paint a happy face on your Jewish neighbor's front door, you've damaged the door.

If you paint a swastika on your Jewish neighbor's front door, you've damaged much more than the door.

Hate crimes legislation is intended to enable us to look beyond the door.

[CTLawGuy]

28. good post

and, would you likely have drawn a swastika on the Jewish person's door if the occupants were not Jewish?

[Igel]

30. I don't like hate crimes legislation, either.

Assume Joe (white) hates Asians and decides to kill one for the heck of it. If Joe kills Ben (Asian) and hurls a racial epithet while doing it, it's a hate crime. What if he says, "die, Korean"? Or "die, guy"? If Joe kills Ben and calls him a loser, or a hippy, or pudgy, it's not a hate crime.

But if Joe, an English PhD hamburger-flipper at Burger King hates rich people and kills Ben, a senior researcher and stockholder in a biotech firm, and shouts "die, you rich capitalist pig", it's not a hate crime?

If the genetic stock is reversed, so that Joe is the Asian and Ben the white guy, and "whitey" is the epithet hurled, does it matter?

If both are black, from impoverished black communities and one calls the other the n-word, is it a hate crime? Or if a Latino kills a white guy and calls him 'anglo'? (which I consider up there with 'wetback' for offensiveness: I'm Celtic, damn it, not Angle) Is offense in the mind of the killed or the killer? Some offenders hate more intensely, so should they be judged more harshly?

As if any of them are "apathy crime" or "love crimes". And it's not like hate is illegal.

Too tricky to implement fairly. And if it deters anything, it would be calling somebody a name.

[Stop_the_War]

31. I disagree with you. Hate crime legislation is necessary. n/t

[Igel]

35. When it can be equitably enforced, great.

But if two people do the same act for the same motivation, and one gets additional years to his (her) sentence because of something said while the other doesn't, we're not penalizing hate or the act. We're penalizing speech, and rewarding those who keep their motivations quiet.

But we're really saying that something collateral to the act is seriously important. I pretty much don't care why someone beats up or kills a person.

[CTLawGuy]

36. I care why someone kills someone else

if a person kills in self defense, I don't want to punish them as if they'd killed in cold blood.

I don't want to punish them the same as if they'd killed in the heat of passion.


Circumstances matter when it comes to crime.

For what I believe should be a hate crime, it would be nearly impossible to hide the hateful motivation. This is because the cirme would otherwise seem to have a very minor motivation or no motivation at all.

[DefenseLawyer]

51. That is apples and oranges

You are talking about motivation as it relates to different circumstances. A person who acts under self defense, a person who intentionally kills and a person who kills in what the law calls "sudden heat", these are different situations which are in turn treated differently under the law. Hate crimes come into play when you are dealing with the SAME circumstances. One person commits intentional murder because of his victims race, another commits intentional murder because he wants the insurance money, another commits intentional murder because he hates his boss, another commits intentional murder seemingly for no reason at all; These are all intentional acts of murder, the victim is sadly just as dead in each instance. How can you say that the first is somehow a worse murder than any of the others? It is very often impossible to really know the motivation behind an act of violence, and it is dangerous for the government to punish thought.

[ultraist]

53. I suppose the same could be said about the Holocaust

Killing Jews in mass was just murder, not genocide of one particular group.

1& 2 are Hate Crimes
3 & 4 are not as the victim was not targetted due to race.

Terrorist type activity should receive a greater penalty. It's not the thought that is being punished but the action of targeting and vicitmizing an entire group of people based on race, sexual orientation, or religion.

Paramilitary groups (whether it be a small informal group or larger oganized group) should be held accountable for their hate crime activities including hate speech.

[DefenseLawyer]

55. Well genocide is a war crime

punishable under international law. Those who committed war crimes were punished as such. In fact many of the Nazis tried to say they hadn't acted out of hate, but that they were "just following orders". This didn't matter of course because they were punished for genocide, not for hate. The problem with hate crimes isn't about liking or even tolerating such despicable acts. It is in enforcement and potential abuse of power. How can you defend yourself if accused of having bad thoughts? What if the government decides that protesting the war is hate speech?

[ultraist]

58. Hate crimes are a form of genocide

The spirit behind Hate Crime laws is the same as anti-discrimination laws, to protect historically oppressed groups.

Speech against war is apples and oranges. The operative term is OPPRESSED groups.

I believe we DO need special laws to for protected classes, including hate crime laws.

Should I be surprised that a defense attorney is arguing for lesser penalties for criminals?

[DefenseLawyer]

67. So a black person killing a white person because he hates whites

would not be a hate crime, since whites are certainly not an historically oppressed group? Hate crimes laws don't protect special classes the way anti discrimination laws do, they attempt to punish two people differently for the same crime based upon motivation. We have anti-discrimination laws, those should be vigorously enforced. A lynching is a murder but is it quite possibly also a conspiracy to violate civil rights. It should be charged accordingly. It is the enhancement of the crime of murder because of the supposed motivation of the killer that brings me pause. You are saying this person killed for a bad reason, he should be punished, but this guy killed for a REALLY bad reason and he should REALLY be punished. Who decides which reasons are bad enough and more importantly who can really determine what a person was thinking. Who then decides what you were thinking? Sure it may seem ludicrous to call a war protest a hate crime, but I bet I could find a right winger to make the argument. "Your protest against the war was specifically intended to weaken the american army and strengthen the enemy; you were motivated not to try and end the war, your real motivation was to help terrorists kill americans."

[Pithlet]

68. Actually,

a black person can be convicted of a hate crime if their crime was racially motivated. And, I do believe it has happened before. I'll look for a link.

[DefenseLawyer]

69. Yes he can

It was a rhetorical question. My point was that hate crimes laws do not simply protect victims who are "oppressed". Again that may be the spirit of them, but not the practice. I am quite sure there are places in this country that black on white violence could always be charged as a "hate crime" and an all white jury would convict and subject the black defendant to a harsher penalty. No, I am not saying that has happened, but I believe it could.

[Pithlet]

70. Oops. You're right.

I was still in "argue mode". We need a blushing smilie.

[ultraist]

76. The spirit behind the law is to protect oppressed groups

defenselawyer wrote: "We have anti-discrimination laws, those should be vigorously enforced. A lynching is a murder but is it quite possibly also a conspiracy to violate civil rights."

So, if it is also 'a conspiracy to violate civil rights', why not just charge them with a hate crime? Terrorizing a group of people IS a conspiracy to violate civil rights.

The law was not crafted to protect whites per se, but non whites can be charged with a hate crime.

Hate crimes laws were based on a collective judgement, and are not a random controlling of thoughts. It was decided, that minorities deserve special protection from violence and until crimes that target people due to race, religion or sexual orientation stop, we need this added measure. I don't think we need to fear a slippery slope here.

Someone like that KKK man that killed those black girls in that church in the sixties should NOT be let off with just a murder charge.

Call it terrorism or a conspiracy to violate civil rights, either way, there is MORE than just the isolated act of violence that is occuring with hate crimes and additional charges should be made.

[CTLawGuy]

74. its not worse

for someone to kill someone else just walking down the street minding his own business, because he hates the color of his skin,

than for someone to kill a person because he slept with the perp's wife???


In the second case, the victim did something that could be construed as provoking the crime, but in the first case, the victim's only "offense" was being the wrong color.

And to you, these are equal crimes? Are you equating being a certain race with pissing someone off by sleeping with his wife?

I don't agree... the crimes are not equal. Killing for next to no reason is more heinous than killing in response to provocation.

What will stop the first killer from killing again? There are many potential victims. They only need to be a certain color.

With the second killer, how many other people will provoke him by sleeping with his wife?

Let me be clear that the second case describes a reprehensible crime which deserves harsh punishment, but the first is worse.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

45. So if someone kills a person because they feel their life is threatened,

they should get the same sentence as someone who kills because they want the insurance money?

[CTLawGuy]

75. excellent response!

NT

[CTLawGuy]

33. how many people

in society kill others simply because they are "pudgy"? Not many. But there is a greater instance of people killing other people simply because they are black or gay.

If someone kills somebody simply because they are of a different race, that person is more dangerous than the murderer who killed a man who was sleeping with his wife, or the drug dealer who kills the man who stole from him.. The latter people at least had a semblance of motivation that wasn't pure hate. They are not as likely to kill again. (That is not to say that they are NOT a danger to society, far from it.) The first kills for no good reason, and is extremely likely to do it again if not arrested, since the motivation is the existence of a race of people he hates.

If a latino kills a white person because he hates white people, he is gulity of a hate crime.

I agree that hate crimes should not be punishment for shouting racial epithets. That is why I believe that #3 is NOT a hate crime. If a crime would likely NOT have happened if the victim were a race the perp didnt hate, it is a hate crime.


The idea that all crimes are hate crimes is a fallacy. IN #3, the junky didnt rob the store likely because he hated the clerk, he did it likely for economic reasons. Embezzlement is not a hate crime, it's a crime of greed. Smoking marijuana is a victimless crime.

[Igel]

37. You're right; not all crimes are hate crimes.

But many are. Even if there's no evidence for it apart from the act.

I'm also unconvinced that just because an epithet is hurled, that's sufficient evidence for hate being a sufficient motivation. But I suspect not all judges agree. And not all advocacy groups agree. Take out those cases, and the tally of suspected hate crimes drops way down for most groups, a lot being vandalism. Further investigation also drops the numbers of hate crimes, but those figures seldom make the newspapers.

One problem is that it's not just "hate crimes", but hatred along certain lines: people may not kill a person because they're pudgy, but my years in junior high saw more weight-challenged individuals ridiculed and beaten up than jocks. It wasn't "hate", but a certain antipathy and a sense of superiority towards fat people helped it. But substitute "black" or "Latino" for "fat" ... One woman I know, the only overweight blonde in her high school, was frequently insulted and persecuted(and once beaten up) ... apparently because she was blonde.

I'd go for making the premeditated crimes against a complete stranger's person more serious than those against somebody that the criminal had a grudge against (real or imagined). Unfortunately, that probably wouldn't be much of a deterrent. Most such folk are either a bit loony, or too obsessed to care.

Increasing the realm of "hate" to include any systematic antipathy expressed for the group that the person assaulted or killed belonged to should be the minimum change to hate crimes legislation. I still think it would be unevenly applied, and says that the death of some people is worse than the death of others (with the value of the person's death being determined by the assailant).

[skygazer]

32. The first two for sure

The third possibly and the fourth is too subjective.

However, a minor quibble - no respectable cocaine supplier would let anyone know where their stash was, no matter how long they'd been doing business. And I don't know how the kids in example #1 could get "plastered" but still be legally able to drive. I realize that has nothing to do with the question but it popped out at me.....

[Just Me]

34. Well, I think Boykin's shrill was a hate crime. Does that help? eom

[Jack_DeLeon]

39. I think hate crime laws are rediculous...

A person should be punished for the crime that they commit, not their reasoning for commiting a crime.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

41. Intent is factored into crimes all the time

that's why there are DEGREES of murder

[DefenseLawyer]

52. Intent and motivation are not the same

The question in degree of murder or between murder and manslaughter is whether the person intended to kill. Was the intent of his action to take a life. You are confusing intent (did he act with intent to kill) with motivation (WHY did he act with the intent to kill). It is not the same thing. Hate crimes attempt to punish the why, not just the act.

[ultraist]

54. No, Hate Crimes punish the action and the consequences thereof

Lynching a black man terrorized the black community. Killing the store clerk during a robbery does not terrorize an entire group of oppressed persons.

Burning down a string of black churches terrorizes an entire community that has been historically oppressed. Burning down one random building does not.

Do you believe in anti-discrimination laws and protected classes?

[CTLawGuy]

77. Isn't manslaughter

an intentional killing committed in the heat of passion?
---------------
"Manslaughter: Voluntary
Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed; otherwise, the killing may be charged as a first-degree or second-degree murder.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. In the heat of the moment, Dan picks up a golf club from next to the bed and strikes Victor in the head, killing him instantly."


http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/manslaughter_voluntary.html

[CTLawGuy]

79. DefenseLawyer

what do you think of this standard for proving hate crime laws? I call it the "prime motivation standard." It's the one I like.

If the race of the victim had been of a race which the perp did not hate, the crime would NOT LIKELY have been committed.

Or would you agree with the "sole motivation standard," where the prosecution must prove that there is no other possible motivation for committing the crime other than hate.

If the defense showed that there was even a possible second motivation, the hate crime statute would not apply.

For example, in my original second case, the defense would argue that the fact the black man pushed the white man off the stool in part caused him to pull out the gun and shoot. It would not be a hate crime under this standard.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

43. Yeah, why do we need "manslaughter" and "murder"?

:eyes:

[Pithlet]

62. For those against "hate crime laws"

Do you think that a burning cross left on a victim's law should be treated the same as someone toilet papering a house? Both of them are vandalism. Obviously, the burning cross would be treated more harshly. Would you argue that a cross burner should get the same sentence as a house TPer? Because we shouldn't punish for thoughts?

The thing is, hate crimes aren't punishing someone for their thoughts. If they thought racist thoughts, but didn't act on them, they wouldn't be punished. It is acting on those thoughts, and terrorizing other people in the process, that needs extra consideration *in addition to* the crime of murder itself.

Edited: "racial" changed to "racist".

[Jack_DeLeon]

71. No...

Arson is a far worse offense than littering.

[Pithlet]

72. You've proven my point.

It's far worse, but it isn't just because it's arson. It is arson intended to terrorize a community. Killing a person because of their race to terrorize their community is like that cross, but taken to the ultimate level. They didn't just intend to victimize the person they killed, They terrorized and victimized the whole group. So, why can't that be addressed along with the murder charge? We don't ignore the motive behind cross burning. That is usually treated like the terrorist act it is. We can't just start treating them like common vandalism.

[CTLawGuy]

78. this is the key consideration

" If they thought racist thoughts, but didn't act on them, they wouldn't be punished."


Thoughts are protected...

(note that in case #3, the perp shouts racial slurs at the clerk and customers, but I do NOT consider it a hate crime.)

...until they become actions, then they lose protecton.

[Swamp Rat]

80. #1 and #2 n/t