Hate Crimes

[TwatDetective]

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'.

 

[gunslingingbird]

A crime is a crime. Period. It's equally bad if it's committed against a white woman, a black guy, or an Asian kid. Using their reasoning, a white supremacist who kills a black person would get a much harsher punishment than if he killed a white person. The implied reasoning involved? If a crime against a white person carries a lesser penalty, then that means that white people are less important. It's reverse discrimination. :2 cents:

 

[skechers]

A crime is a crime. Period. It's equally bad if it's committed against a white woman, a black guy, or an Asian kid. Using their reasoning, a white supremacist who kills a black person would get a much harsher punishment than if he killed a white person. The implied reasoning involved? If a crime against a white person carries a lesser penalty, then that means that white people are less important. It's reverse discrimination. :2 cents:

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Will E Worm]

Should a free country regulate thought? Also, what about the 'equal protection' in the constitution?

In a free country there is not any regulations on thought.
That would be a Fascist country.

A "hate" crime is a thought "crime" for Nazis.

 

[BlueBalls]

Funnily enough I just saw the South Park episode that deals with this last night

As GSB says a crime is a crime, the only thing calling something a hate crime does is segregate people into groups. We're all people, and all the same no matter what race the person is or sexual orientation. Harming another person is wrong and all these laws do is reinforce the views that we are all different, that white people and black/asian etc people are different from one another. And they're not.

I'm sure when the laws were first put into place there was a need for them, probably because at the time minorities were being persecuted for their skin colour. But it seems to me that in todays so called civilised society there is no need for them. Of course there are those who still have those views that one race is different or superior to the other and you cant change that even if they are wrong.

But if he/she commits a crime against a person, no matter what race they are they should be punished not because they are commiting a crime against another race, but because they are commiting a crime against another person.

 

[thebear247]

every crime is a hate crime dont you usually commit a crime your hateful or angry ?

ok then it is a hate crime

 

[Friday on my mind]

A crime is a crime. Period. It's equally bad if it's committed against a white woman, a black guy, or an Asian kid. Using their reasoning, a white supremacist who kills a black person would get a much harsher punishment than if he killed a white person. The implied reasoning involved? If a crime against a white person carries a lesser penalty, then that means that white people are less important. It's reverse discrimination. :2 cents:

Not exactly.What hate crime laws are about is when the crime was committed against the person soley because of something about them race,sexual orientation etc.Not every white person who murdered a black would be subject to it being called a hate crime for example,only those crimes where that was the reason for the murder.Like when the Klan lynched blacks for just being blacks.

Its not trying to outlaw racist or other bigoted thoughts.Its outlawing crimes (acts) motivated by such thoughts.

And if a black murders a white and there is evidence the only reason the murder was commited was due to wanting to kill a white person that would also be a hate crime.

Run of the mill crimes where a particular group was not singled out would not be considered a hate crime.There would have to be evidence that the crime was motivated by "hate" for a group before "hate crime" would apply.:2 cents:

 

[gunslingingbird]

Not exactly.What hate crime laws are about is when the crime was committed against the person soley because of something about them race,sexual orientation etc.Not every white person who murdered a black would be subject to it being called a hate crime for example,only those crimes where that was the reason for the murder.Like when the Klan lynched blacks for just being blacks.

Its not trying to outlaw racist or other bigoted thoughts.Its outlawing crimes (acts) motivated by such thoughts.

And if a black murders a white and there is evidence the only reason the murder was commited was due to wanting to kill a white person that would also be a hate crime.

Run of the mill crimes where a particular group was not singled out would not be considered a hate crime.There would have to be evidence that the crime was motivated by "hate" for a group before "hate crime" would apply.:2 cents:

Right, but if I decide to go beat the living fuck out of a gay black Jewish midget with AIDS, the outcome is the same as if I decide to go beat the living fuck out of the first person that I see on the street. What the term "hate crime" implies is that we aren't allowed to have thoughts or feelings, regardless of whether we act on them or not, if they're considered to be "politically incorrect". Hate groups like the KKK and the Black Panthers are allowed to exist because the first amendment allows them to exist regardless of their thoughts so long as they maintain a socially acceptable behavior. Likewise, if I want to hate Asians I can do so as long as I don't do anything against them.

 

[Hot Mega]

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?

We punish people on a gradation scale in many other circumstances that involve what's in a person's head during the commission of a crime.

How do we ascertain what's 1st degree murder over 2nd degree murder for example without determining what a person's thought processes were during the commission of their crime??

People who commit murder in the process of a robbery are eligible for special circumstance sentencing. Why couldn't it be argued (as your similar opposition to hate crimes classification) that murder is murder in that case??

Terrorism is a special distinction for certain crimes. Why is there a special category for terrorism if a crime is merely a crime?

I think is important to distinguish crimes clearly motivated by some bigotry as worse than other similar crimes.

These crimes like terrorism have the potential effect of terrorizing the larger society and not just the one victim and it's vital to good order that these types of crimes are treated differently.

While not utterly obvious in all cases, there are times when bigotry is a clear motivation in some crimes and they ought to be punished more severely IMO.

 

[Facial_King]

This thread should be fun.

 

[Jagger69]

The Matthew Shepherd case is a perfect example. The sole reason he was killed was because he was gay. Had he not been gay, there would have been no murder. Therefore, the thought behind penalties for "hate crimes" is to provide a specific code of punishment applicable to the perpetrators for the motive behind the crime in addition to the crime itself. Had the "hate" not existed, there would have been no crime.

Just like there are certain degrees of culpability and corresponding levels of punishment as they apply to various motives behind crimes (i.e. a crime of passion is looked upon differently than one that is premeditated), a crime motivated specifically by hatred carries ramifications above and beyond the crime itself. I don't see anything wrong with that approach. The hope would be that, by the very existence of the hate-crime provision, it would act as a deterrent against those who would otherwise not be predisposed to commit the crime. I'm not sure that it really works but I do think it's a good idea and certainly sends the right message.

 

[Friday on my mind]

This thread should be fun.

Of course!
It was already "fun" when it was being debated in the house (then later passed).

Here was some of the fun.

Rep. Foxx - Matthew Shephard campaign is a hoax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0QtqIDZhZk
1:29


She apologizes (sort of).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnGY-TeHH9w&feature=related
3:47

 

[CunningStunts]

A crime is a crime. Period. It's equally bad if it's committed against a white woman, a black guy, or an Asian kid. Using their reasoning, a white supremacist who kills a black person would get a much harsher punishment than if he killed a white person. The implied reasoning involved? If a crime against a white person carries a lesser penalty, then that means that white people are less important. It's reverse discrimination. :2 cents:

Agree 1000%.

Laws like this only enforce differences between us, when justice is supposed to be "blind." A crime is a crime, regardless of the victims skin color or religion.

The ONLY groups I feel the law should protect more strenuously are crimes against people that had no chance to defend themselves (i.e., children, elderly, etc.). People who commit violence against children should be shot on the spot.

 

[Philbert]

Agree 1000%.

Laws like this only enforce differences between us, when justice is supposed to be "blind." A crime is a crime, regardless of the victims skin color or religion.

The ONLY groups I feel the law should protect more strenuously are crimes against people that had no chance to defend themselves (i.e., children, elderly, etc.). People who commit violence against children should be shot on the spot.

But not in front of the children...!

 

[Hot Mega]

Agree 1000%.

Laws like this only enforce differences between us, when justice is supposed to be "blind." A crime is a crime, regardless of the victims skin color or religion.

The ONLY groups I feel the law should protect more strenuously are crimes against people that had no chance to defend themselves (i.e., children, elderly, etc.). People who commit violence against children should be shot on the spot.

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.

 

[CunningStunts]

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 murderer law enforcement or murder during the act of a robbery?

I'm not challenging whether you opinion is just or unjust but just whether you're consistent.

Apples and oranges on the pre-meditation versus a "crime of passion" IMO. Pre-meditated murders should and do get a harsher sentence vice someone who kills in a fit or rage and had no criminal record before hand.

Philosophically speaking, I've always wondered about "attempted murder." I mean, it seems that the law rewards those who are incompetent killers with that distinction. Shouldn't they get a murder charge if they really did try to kill someone? Just because the person they attempted to kill lived shouldn't make a difference regarding intent.

Regarding different sentences for convictions of the same crimes, there was a movement in the 80s and 90s towards "standardized sentences" for certain crimes... and while I see the validity to be even handed, all cases are different, and I would not want to take ALL discretion away from a judge.

The larger problem I see in America now is that more rights are given to defendants than to the victims. How many times do we see on the news a killer who had been in and out of jail his entire life, and we had to wait until he or she murdered someone to take them out of society? IMO, repeat violent criminals should be locked up or worse, especially violent sex offenders.

 

[Skyraider22]

every crime is a hate crime dont you usually commit a crime your hateful or angry ?

ok then it is a hate crime

Well said bear247.I feel the same way.They are all hate crimes

 

[Hot Mega]

Well said bear247.I feel the same way.They are all hate crimes

All (violent) crimes are not motivated by hate. Many, many violent crimes are crimes of opportunity, drug induced, fear induced, objectification, based on an obsession, etc.

Apples and oranges on the pre-meditation versus a "crime of passion" IMO. Pre-meditated murders should and do get a harsher sentence vice someone who kills in a fit or rage and had no criminal record before hand.

Philosophically speaking, I've always wondered about "attempted murder." I mean, it seems that the law rewards those who are incompetent killers with that distinction. Shouldn't they get a murder charge if they really did try to kill someone? Just because the person they attempted to kill lived shouldn't make a difference regarding intent.

Regarding different sentences for convictions of the same crimes, there was a movement in the 80s and 90s towards "standardized sentences" for certain crimes... and while I see the validity to be even handed, all cases are different, and I would not want to take ALL discretion away from a judge.

The larger problem I see in America now is that more rights are given to defendants than to the victims. How many times do we see on the news a killer who had been in and out of jail his entire life, and we had to wait until he or she murdered someone to take them out of society? IMO, repeat violent criminals should be locked up or worse, especially violent sex offenders.

I thought the premise of your opposition was that you can't divine the mind set or intention of someone who's committed a crime. If that's the case, I just pointed out to you how it's done all the time.

I further pointed out that hate crimes are not the only circumstances in which harsher sentences are meted out for the same base crime.

As far as I can see, hate crimes legislation are completely consistent with other ways we've determined that harsher sentencing is appropriate.

 

[jamrak]

I hate crimes.

 

[anomaly]

The ideas behind hate crimes........another thing born out of religion. Have fun