Hate Crimes

[Jagger69]

Well explain why a person would get a harsher sentence if they planned to kill someone and were successful as opposed to the next person who spontaneously killed someone.

Are their victims any less dead?

Or someone who's eligible for the the death sentence for killing a cop as opposed to someone who murdered a grandmother.

Are their victims any more or less dead?

If it's the case that you're consistent and you oppose different sentencing for the same crimes across the board, then are you prepared to count all homicides equally irrespective of circumstances??

Or do away with special circumstance sentencing guidelines in the cases of murdering law enforcement or murder during the act of a robbery?

I'm not challenging whether your opinion is just or unjust but just whether you're consistent in your beliefs that all crimes are equal.

I confront a guy who kidnapped and raped my prepubescent daughter and, in a spontaneous fit of rage, I shoot him to death. Or, I lay a trap for a gay guy to meet me for drinks at a bar and, in a well-planned and fully intentioned act of violence, take him out to a field, strap him to a post and beat the living shit out of him until he dies.

Both acts result in the same outcome for the victim.....they die. Are both crimes equally "bad" from a moral standpoint?

 

[Hot Mega]

I confront a guy who kidnapped and raped my prepubescent daughter and, in a spontaneous fit of rage, I shoot him to death. Or, I lay a trap for a gay guy to meet me for drinks at a bar and, in a well-planned and fully intentioned act of violence, take him out to a field, strap him to a post and beat the living shit out of him until he dies.

Both acts result in the same outcome for the victim.....they die. Are both crimes equally "bad" from a moral standpoint?

You and I are making the same point. My questions were Socratic.

 

[jamrak]

Both acts result in the same outcome for the victim.....they die. Are both crimes equally "bad" from a moral standpoint?

result is not the only one criteria to judge with.

intention and motivation are also very important, cuz murder commited in affective state is not equal to the maniacal behaviour in the second case.

motive is important, cuz it helps to predict/prevent the same crimes in the future. also, to my mind, there are cases where revenge deserves justification.
who is the fire starter? and who shot in response? - these are important questions

maniac who kills just cuz he wants to kill (does not like fags, asians or whites) is more dangerous for other people, cuz there are big chances that he will repeat his crime again, cuz his motive is always actual: there are still a lot of whites, fags and asians in the world. he is more dangerous to society.

the possibility that first guy will kill someone else is low, cuz the circumstances under which he commited his crime were very specific, and there is no pathological desire to kill in his nature.

that's why, I think, they deserve different levels of punishment and different level of conviction.

 

[Philbert]

result is not the only one criteria to judge with.

intention and motivation are also very important, cuz murder commited in affective state is not equal to the maniacal behaviour in the second case.

motive is important, cuz it helps to predict/prevent the same crimes in the future. also, to my mind, there are cases where revenge deserves justification.
who is the fire starter? and who shot in response? - these are important questions

maniac who kills just cuz he wants to kill (does not like fags, asians or whites) is more dangerous for other people, cuz there are big chances that he will repeat his crime again, cuz his motive is always actual: there are still a lot of whites, fags and asians in the world. he is more dangerous to society.

the possibility that first guy will kill someone else is low, cuz the circumstances under which he committed his crime were very specific, and there is no pathological desire to kill in his nature.

that's why, I think, they deserve different levels of punishment and different level of conviction.

You got that right...

There are...many different levels of charges...and those levels only define the crime(s), the process determines guilt or innocence, and in many circumstances the sentencing is determined by a judge who considers the evidence and gives the actual sentence.
This is why mandatory sentences are often inappropriate, with less discretion allowed in sentencing...also allowing for the appeals process guarding against too low or too high a sentence.
Hate crimes, unfortunately, are a can of worms. Like having a good idea that no one could find anything wrong with, sounded good... and going for it. (remember New Coke?)
Then, when the reality of the human situation met the specific Offense Multipliers known as "hate" crimes, it became obvious how 1) the hate in an asshole asskicking someone random 'cause they were looking for someone to asskick, and a "-----" just came along 2) isn't the same as an asshole going out looking for a "-----" to asskick.
The law has degrees of offense that give a potential of serious time for either perp, but a hate crime can be used to go after specific people and is a can of worms we really don't wanna open.

We don't need Hate Crime Offense Multipliers.

Most crime is hating and/or hateful, and extenuating circumstances can at least be acknowledged through the process of charges brought, and sentence handed down by a judge. There are juries that determine sentence...pending the final decision of a judge.
Hate crime is unnecessary and a very slippery slope, it can be seen in other countries how crazy it can get.

(Recently in GB an English girl was charged with a hate crime for asking to join an English speaking discussion group in her school, instead of one where they were not English speakers (originally)...considered a racist act and she was charged.)

Yeah, I don't think hate crime charges are a good idea...!

 

[Hot Mega]

We don't need Hate Crime Offense Multipliers.

Most crime is hating and/or hateful, and extenuating circumstances can at least be acknowledged through the process of charges brought, and sentence handed down by a judge.

Is the primary motivation for most robberies that involve violence hated?

The vast majority of serial killings are not motivated by hate.

Most killings that involve family members don't stem from hatred.

Rapes are rarely motivated by hatred

The evidence that most (violent) crimes are motivated by hatred is just not there.

Those who keep alleging this are either ignoring the facts, ignorant of the facts or engaging is wishful thinking in order to have a flimsy platform for their position on the issue.

 

[calpoon]

Actually I agree with not having Hate Crime (capitalization) legislation because it goes against the very idea that it is trying accomplish which is circumstantial sentencing- by making a mandatory sentence to all crimes that fall into such a criteria.

In other words I think that hate crimes (lower case) should receive higher sentencing per the judge's discretion on the case based on the circumstances of the incident and not because they fall under a different statute.

By lumping them under such a category what we are really saying is that all hate crimes are equal, but all other crimes are not. It also excludes other crimes that should deserve the same sentencing, but they receive a lighter sentence because they don't fit the narrow definition of a Hate Crime -since a Hate Crime is worse than a "normal" crime, therefor anything not defined as a Hate Crime must not be as bad from a legal perspective.

So I don't think that Hate Crimes should be a statutory distinction, but I do think it should be a factor for statistical documentation, not only because It's important to sociology and law enforcement to observe crime trends, but because many hate crimes are influenced and carried out by extremist/terrorist groups and their relationship to crime and society is an entirely different subject to consider beyond individual incidents.

 

[Facetious]

Should something exist let's call hate crimes?

No

Many many more people have fall under legislation to make people intentions when committing a crime against a certain group for being who they are a hate crime. Is that fair?

NO

Shouldn't we punish people for the crimes they commit and not what's in their head.

Yes

Should a free country regulate thought?

NO

Also, what about the 'equal protection' in the constitution?

According to loyal progressives, the Constitution of the United States of America is wholly amendable, after all, from their perspective The Constitution is "living and breathing".

It's an unpopular position but I don't think they're should be a 'hate crime'.

So be it if your position is unpopular. The important thing is that we (at the time of this typing) have the legal right to discuss a topic of such great controversy . . And believe me, there are forces at work that are working to squelch unpopular dissenting opinions, even on the internet



Progressive legislation that would criminalize the element of one's supposed thoughts during the commission of a crime in ANY demographic immediately leads me to believe that a tyranny is rapidly approaching.

but hey, after all, it's all conspiracy thought - conjecture on my part.
How dare I question the motive(s) of my most wholesome government !
We're Safe We're Safe We're Safe We're Safe We're Safe We're Safe

 

[bustybbwlover]

hate crimes are so fucking difficult cuz people who hate someone simply cuz they are different are a threat to a lot of people (namely anyone who doesn't look, think, or act like them) and yet to some extent they are a legislation of thought as much as action, no matter how well intentioned they are. i'm somewhat ambivalent about them for the previously mentioned reason and cuz as of yet i've seen no data as to whether or not what might be termed a 'hate crime' has gone up or down since these laws came into being. if hate crimes have gone down since their inception i'd be slightly more inclined to view them as something of a necessary evil, as much as that annoys me.

 

[Philbert]

Is the primary motivation for most robberies that involve violence hated?

The vast majority of serial killings are not motivated by hate.

Most killings that involve family members don't stem from hatred.

Rapes are rarely motivated by hatred

The evidence that most (violent) crimes are motivated by hatred is just not there.

Those who keep alleging this are either ignoring the facts, ignorant of the facts or engaging is wishful thinking in order to have a flimsy platform for their position on the issue.

I must assume you are referring to yourself there...
The vast majority of killings (only one of many types of crimes committed)aren't the result of deep affection or benevolent regard...killing or beating someone requires a certain amount of animosity towards that person at that moment. Doesn't matter how one felt before the act was committed.
A person who would happily kill or beat severely a gay, or an Asian, or a white guy, or a female, has the ability to direct their lethal annoyance at anyone, not just one type of person.
Today it's gays, tomorrow it's Pakistanis or Indians; but the mindset allows for just about any person that pisses them off for existing to get the same treatment.

You are twisting something to say rape isn't motivated by hate...or an armed robber respects you but he just wants your stuff.
Right...

 

[jasonk282]

Everyone has some prejudice in them, it just happens to be the social misfits that act out on it. Everyone has a bit of racism in them, some more than others

 

[Hot Mega]

You are twisting something to say rape isn't motivated by hate...or an armed robber respects you but he just wants your stuff.
Right...

Robberies that happen to involve violence are rarely motivated by hate. Nor is rape. These are just two examples of many crimes where hate as a motivation is rare.

Robberies that escalate to violence rarely involve personal feelings one way or the other. They want what you possess, you get in the way of that, you become a casualty and the calculus for the criminal is no more complicated than any other predator vs. prey circumstance. You are a dispassionate means to an end for them.

Rape usually involves some degree of unmanageable lust and to whatever degree it's coupled with violence, that violence comes usually as a result of trying to control resistance and/or not leaving a breathing witness.

Those situations are a matter of the criminal's desire to effect or cover up a crime and not animus.

Even crimes of passion are not usually about hatred but rage and frustration.

Nowhere does it bear out that all (violent) crimes are motivated by hatred. Not only does that position display a pretty high level of ignorance to the subject but it's fairly illogical and void of any practical analysis of rational and irrational motivation.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Should something exist let's call hate crimes? Many many more people have fall under legislation to make people intentions when committing a crime against a certain group for being who they are a hate crime. Is that fair?

Shouldn't we punish people for the crimes they commit and not what's in their head. Should a free country regulate thought? Also, what about the 'equal protection' in the constitution?

It's an unpopular position but I don't think they're should be a 'hate crime'.

Hate crimes do exist, and it's ignorant for anyone to try and claim otherwise, but I think that the label of "hate crime" is put upon criminal acts on far too many occasions that don't deserve it. If a heterosexual guy kicks the shit out of a homosexual guy for calling his girlfriend a bitch, it is often labeled as a hate crime, even though the victim's sexuality had absolutely nothing to do with it. His ass was kicked because he called a guy's girlfriend a bitch, not because he was gay.

Also, I hate how the term "hate crime" isn't used with consisentcy, especially when it comes to crimes involving parties that have different colored skin. What I mean is...

If a white guy randomly attacks and mugs a black guy, more often than not, it is considered a hate crime.

If a black guy randomly attacks and mugs a white guy, more often than not, it is considered assault and NOT labeled as a hate crime.

Even though, in both instances, the same exact thing happened, with only the skin colors being reversed, they are labeled as different types of crimes. I'm not saying that's how it works in 100% of instances, but it happens far too often in my opinion.

 

[Facetious]

Everyone has some prejudice in them, it just happens to be the social misfits that act out on it. Everyone has a bit of racism in them, some more than others

Case Closed :hatsoff:
Thanks for rounding it up so succinctly ! In addition to racism, be sure to add the sundry bigots and areligious extremists into the mix.
Those nasty meanies ! :flame:

:hatsoff:

 

[Hot Mega]

Also, I hate how the term "hate crime" isn't used with consisentcy, especially when it comes to crimes involving parties that have different colored skin. What I mean is...

If a white guy randomly attacks and mugs a black guy, more often than not, it is considered a hate crime.

If a black guy randomly attacks and mugs a white guy, more often than not, it is considered assault and NOT labeled as a hate crime.

Even though, in both instances, the same exact thing happened, with only the skin colors being reversed, they are labeled as different types of crimes. I'm not saying that's how it works in 100% of instances, but it happens far too often in my opinion.

That's untrue. If a person of any race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. attacks someone of another race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., that crime is only investigated as a hate crime if sufficient evidence of a particular animus exists....no matter whom it's against.

That is the biggest misinformation in this whole issue.

 

[Hot Mega]

Everyone has some prejudice in them, it just happens to be the social misfits that act out on it. Everyone has a bit of racism in them, some more than others

Prejudice and racism aren't inherently bad occurrences as we apply them commonly and benignly to everyday situations in life.

What isn't common and benign is when bigotry is the product of racism and prejudice.

 

[ChefChiTown]

That's untrue. If a person of any race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. attacks someone of another race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., that crime is only investigated as a hate crime if sufficient evidence of a particular animus exists....no matter whom it's against.

That is the biggest misinformation in this whole issue.

Then explain to me why I hear it all the time on the news. When a white guy commits a crime against a black guy, it's usually noted as being a "hate crime". When a black guy commits a crime against a white guy, it's usually NOT noted as being a "hate crime".

 

[CADDYMAN]

does this mean we have to stop killing Muslims ?

I was just starting to enjoy it too

 

[calpoon]

Then explain to me why I hear it all the time on the news. When a white guy commits a crime against a black guy, it's usually noted as being a "hate crime". When a black guy commits a crime against a white guy, it's usually NOT noted as being a "hate crime".

It's because in Chicago (and every other city in America) there are far more poor black people than white people, so when a black person attacks a white person, it's usually motivated by economics. On the other hand, if a white person attacks a black guy, it's probably not because he's trying to rob him but because of racism.

Such crimes are pretty rare, which is also why you don't hear about them compared to black on white crime. Most of the crime is in fact done by blacks against other blacks, but you don't hear about that on the news as much either, unless it's a particularly sensational story, because the media is geared towards advertising and once again they target white people because they have more money and the best way to make money off of people is to scare them- don't go in the city where the scary and dangerous people are, move out to the suburbs where the new expensive houses and nice shopping malls are!

it's all about social control and property values.

 

[Facetious]

What happens when a gangster "A" kills 'cross town gang rival "B"
and both are of the same ethnicity ?

Aren't gang rivals just that, rivals ? hence, they hate one another ?
And although "A" hated "B" and vice versa, does that make hate with reciprocity OK ? Are there certain unwritten types of "hate" that won't be tolerated ? and is that fair ?
Does every application of a ''hate crime" charge have to pay a political dividend in the end?
It just seems that any individual deemed by the gumment to be amongst those so defined within a "protected class" is gonna get the nod (be the victim) no matter what the demographic may be in a given area.

Hate crimes legislation, as I see it, is the social equivalent of The redistribution of wealth, if you will, e.g. a modern application of The mobilization of the oppressed. The government, by fiat, will determine whether hate crimes charges apply to any given criminal case. Sorta arbitrary isn't it ?

 

[Hot Mega]

Then explain to me why I hear it all the time on the news. When a white guy commits a crime against a black guy, it's usually noted as being a "hate crime". When a black guy commits a crime against a white guy, it's usually NOT noted as being a "hate crime".

Maybe just maybe the circumstances in those cases involve hate as a motivation and the others don't.

Most reasonable people can distinguish a hate crime from a crime of mere opportunity or some other motivation when they see them.

Is it just dumb luck if you're a white guy who happens upon a black guy who's interested in robbing any guy with apparent means and you just happen to be the first one he ran into? Or would you think it's reasonable that the robber is interested more in race when selecting his victims as opposed to means?

When evidence suggests the crime involved hate as a motivation it is investigate as such no matter what race you are. As in with this case involving a 2 black guys beating up a white guy;

No one is denying this case has some juicy elements. Casey is a high-profile, hometown hero who led Hoboken High to a pair of state championships. Fitzsimmons, who is white, was with a black woman who is not his wife when a confrontation took place with Casey and fellow defendant Desmond Miller, both of whom are black. The U.S. Attorney's Office is reviewing the case, deciding whether to try it as a hate crime.

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/2000/08/13/2000-08-13_joe_lets_jury_decide_on_qb.html