Some myths and facts about hate crime statutes

[dsc]

S 485.05 Hate crimes.
1. A person commits a hate crime when he or she commits a specified
offense and either:
(a) intentionally selects the person against whom the offense is
committed or intended to be committed in whole or in substantial part
because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national
origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability
or sexual orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or
perception is correct, or
(b) intentionally commits the act or acts constituting the offense in
whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding
the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious
practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, regardless
of whether the belief or perception is correct.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c82/a81.html

Above is the New York State hate crime statute

Myth #1 Hate crime statutes only protect minorities.

Fact, as displayed above, hate crime statutes protect people based on classes that include the majority. For example the above law protects caucasians, African Americans, Asians, Native Americans, Eskimos, and all other races equally. There have been cases where the law was applied against African Amerians who had attacked caucasians based on race.

Myth #2 Punishing motive is unique to hate crime statutes.

Fact, We punish motives all the time. Death penalty statutes often list dozens of aggrivating circumstances many of which are tied to motive. Killing witnesses leads to the death penalty in many states. Killing for no motive at all leads to it in some states. Killing people for hire in many states leads to the death penalty. All of those are motive.

Myth #3 Hate crimes punish thought

Fact, There has to be an underlying crime in order for a hate crime statute to take effect. In many jurisdictions that crime has to be a felony. Even in those it doesn't there has to be a crime. You can hate gays, jews, women, or anyone else until the cows come home and give birth to aliens, as long as you refrain from committing a crime while doing so you will not see the inside of any court room or jail.

Myth #4 Hate crimes interfere with free speech.

Fact, Again one is free to say anything one wants. David Duke can, and I am sure does, go around calling African Americans any vile term one wishes as long as one refrains from committing a crime. The next Jerry Falwell, whomever he may be, can call gays vile names until he is blue in the face, as long as he doesn't commit a crime he will be in the pulpit every week. Speech will be totally unmolested by hate crime statutes.

I hope this clears some things up.

[OlderButWiser]

1. This is just a random thought

...if I put a flaming bag of dog poo on your porch and ring your bell how does that compare (legal penalty wise) to if I put a flaming cross on your lawn?

[dsc]

2. The first would likely lead to no real punishment

while the second would lead to jail.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

4. How would you perceive the bag of dog poo vs. the burning cross?

Generally, when a cross is burned in front of a home, the intention is to terrorize the residents into leaving the neighborhood. Flaming bags of dog poo are usually childish pranks akin to toilet papering. Not saying they shouldn't be punished but there's a pretty substantial difference between the two acts, in terms of the intended reactions.

[OlderButWiser]

5. agreed n/t

[BlooInBloo]

3. Among other things, that's why I ased "who was the crime against"...

... when the Koran-trashing thing happened a week back.

[JackDragna]

6. The "facts" don't match up to the "myths" very well.

Yes, one has to commit a crime before hate crime laws kick in. That doesn't make their existence any less of a thoughtcrime-style punishment. If you give people additional punishments for personal or political beliefs behind crimes, you are punishing people for holding those ideologies. I also don't buy the equivocation that seems to be going on here behind the examples of killing witnesses as "motives" and hate crimes as motive. If I kill a witness to a crime to give myself a better chance of acquittal, that's not motive: it's a wholly different, punishable act.

[dsc]

7. How is the reason you kill someone not a motive?

That is the definition of motive. You kill someone to give yourself a better chance of aquittal, that then is your motive. You seem to like punishing some motives but not others. If you don't like my examples here is one that works the other way. In Texas if you kill your spouse while catching them in the act of adultery you get less of a punishment. There you are gaining a benefit from your motive. Also the Plame case touches on motive. The reason Armitage isn't in prison is that he didn't have the punishable motive for releasing her name that the law required.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

8. The killer of the witness could be operating under an ideology as well

"No snitching" is a strongly held ethos in many communities. When a mafioso or gang-banger kills a witness, it is not just to improve his own case (he may not even be a defendant in the particular case), it sends a warning to other, future witnesses.

Perpetrators of violent hate crimes often make a public spectacle of their crimes or the victims, to send a message to others in the group that they are not welcome to come and go freely, live in certain neighborhoods, or live their lives in the open.

[Sanctified]

9. I don't really think the hate crime legislation is really going to do anything.

In every instance I have seen where a criminal is prosecuted for a violent crime which would be considered a hate crime they receive life in prison or the death penalty. The only way you could make a sentence worse than life in prison or the death penalty would be by torturing them. In my opinion the hate crime law is just a feel good measure which makes people think their legislatures are doing something up there in Washington.

[dsc]

11. There have been several non fatal beatings prosecuted as hate crimes

which got added years.

[Pushed To The Left]

10. K & R! I think there are a lot of people that don't realize these things

I find it really curious how so-called "Christian" groups are against these laws. I wonder if down deep they support the beatings and killings of gay people. The religious right is pure evil.