Legally speaking, are "hate crimes" ridiculous?

[Nakura Chambers]

If someone commits a crime, such as murder, why should it matter whether or not it was a hate crime? Why should a second batch of charges be brought forward, just because of the motive? There's no legal justification for adding "hate crime" charges when convicting someone who already committed a crime.

What do you think?

[Kujako]

The "why" is important, but the hate crime laws are ridiculous.

[Deleted]

I think the south park episode about hate crimes sums it up very well.

[ptwonline]

The thing about a hate crime is that has far greater affects in the larger commuity than just for the people directly affected. Those affects--fear, isolation, more open bigotry, distrust--mean that mor damage is being done, and thus more needs to be done in response.

Now, I think it's valid to question whether or not someone shoud be punished more harshly because a crime is viewed as one borne by "hate", but motive is indeed an important element when determining whether an action was a crime and the appropriate penalty for it. "Hate crime" is just a more formal designation of certain kinds of motivations, and to make sure that appropriate penalties are put in place as a result.

[Deleted]

To your final question, crimes are not black and white and neither can all their sentences be, motive influencing sentencing is just about the only tool we have to wiggle between the lines of the law when individual cases have circumstances that go beyond legal guidelines. They remain necessary for as long as we wish to differentiate between someone who does because he must, and one because he wants.

[Forgettable]

The motive is important. If I'm driving a bus and I run someone over because they jumped in front of the bus, well... That's an accident. I might get a manslaughter conviction. If I'm driving a bus and I see a guy I hate on the sidewalk and I veer and hit him and kill him, well that's murder.

I think that hate crime laws are put in place to discourage racism and any of the negative things that come with it. As for whether those laws are effective in doing so, I don't know.

[Dys]

The only ridiculous part of those laws is the double standard that is always present with them.

[Naxere]

I think the south park episode about hate crimes sums it up very well.

Yep, sums up my views as well.

To quote:

Token: If somebody kills somebody, it's a crime. But if someone kills somebody of a different color, it's a hate crime.
Kyle: And we think that that is a savage hypocrisy, because all crimes are hate crimes. If a man beats another man because that man was sleeping with his wife, is that not a hate crime?
Stan: If a person vandalizes a government building, is it not because of his hate for the government?
Token: And motivation for a crime shouldn't affect the sentencing.
Stan: Mayor, it is time to stop splitting people into groups. All hate crimes do is support the idea that blacks are different from whites, that homosexuals need to be treated differently from non-homos, that we aren't the same.

[Kujako]

Yep, sums up my views as well.

It's also, wrong. It is quite possible to kill someone without hating them. Happens all the time. Again, the motivation does mater. If you kill someone because they got in your way while you where trying to rob a bank that is different then if you hunt them down and kill them because of their race, sexual orientation, etc. The laws however, are poorly written.

[Deleted]

The thing is "hate crimes" do have a social aspect, the double standards can be seen as ridiculous but they do set examples for the community.

Let's take an example : you kill a man because he did something to you. It might mean that once you have been to jail, you'll be able to rehabilitate socially. (Though after prison one may think it is impossible to).
You kill a man because of the colour of his skin. After your time in prison, will you be reintegrated into society ?.
A crime whether caused by hate or not is of course legally punished. But if you add the hate aspect to that, a whole community will feel insecure.

Hate crimes are bond to the primary rules of a sovereign State : the Constitution itself protects individuals against such crimes. Of course, life is protected by the very Constitutions but equality and freedom are even more because of the effect a crime might have on the society.

[IIamaKing]

A crime is a crime, doesn't matter if you beat some one for stealing your shoes or for being black.

[Ashnazg]

If someone commits a crime, such as murder, why should it matter whether or not it was a hate crime? Why should a second batch of charges be brought forward, just because of the motive? There's no legal justification for adding "hate crime" charges when convicting someone who already committed a crime.

What do you think?

It won't matter much for serious crimes, such as murder, but it may serve to discourage things like assault by giving a greater weight to assaults committed purely out of racial tensions vis a vis assaults committed due to other motivations.

I dislike the notion of a "hate crime" because it's essentially thought policing. You're now punishing people for the way they think and not just how they behaved.

I guess to expand on this: It's OK to think whatever you want right up until you commit a crime at which point your previously legal thoughts suddenly became criminal without having changed whatsoever.

"Hate crimes" don't punish thought processes at all. You can be the worst racist in the history of the world, commit a crime against the group you hate, and it still won't be a hate crime if the motivation for that crime wasn't their affiliation with that group.

To elaborate, if a KKK member goes and robs a black person's household, they won't have automatically committed a hate crime. It is only a hate crime if it can be proven that he picked that particular household because of his hate for black people. If he robbed the house because it was an easier mark than most of the other houses, or he had inside scoop, etc, that won't be a hate crime, regardless of what the KKK guy was thinking prior to, during, or after the commission of the crime.

[Naxere]

It's also, wrong. It is quite possible to kill someone without hating them. Happens all the time. Again, the motivation does mater. If you kill someone because they got in your way while you where trying to rob a bank that is different then if you hunt them down and kill them because of their race, sexual orientation, etc. The laws however, are poorly written.

You're comparing second-degree murder to first-degree murder.

[Kujako]

You're comparing second-degree murder to first-degree murder.

I was addressing the "all crimes are hate crimes" southpark claim.

[smelltheglove]

i understand the reasoning behind it, but it is all but unenforceable in any rational fashion. couple that with ignorance of the purpose or what actually constitutes a hate crime (both by prosecutors and by average people, and demonstrated by some on these forums on a regular basis) makes the practice a parody.

how hate crime was intended to be defined, by using example

- white guy kills a black guy over an argument about football teams - NOT A HATE CRIME
- white guy kills a black guy for being black. doesnt matter who the black guy was to him, any black guy coming along would have been killed - HATE CRIME

how hate crime is legislation is used by prosecutors

- how much public outcry
- do i have enough to hang the extra time on this guy and run up sentencing numbers to pad my stats (regardless of whether it was a hate crime or not)

resulting perception

- a guy killing a guy of another race = hate crime

[Prokne]

how hate crime is legislation is used by prosecutors

- how much public outcry
- do i have enough to hang the extra time on this guy and run up sentencing numbers to pad my stats (regardless of whether it was a hate crime or not)

resulting perception

- a guy killing a guy of another race = hate crime

They also have to find evidence that the defendant is racist/hates homosexuals ect and that it relates to the crime. Although it is very likely that a racist redneck that kills a black person because he was sleeping with his wife would be tried for a hate crime.

I would compromise that the wording of "hate crime" is not exactly correct but the laws are good. Maybe if you called them bigotry crimes or just racially motivated.

[Ashnazg]

I seem to recall cases in which they sought to attach "hate crime" to the charges off of as little as something like "Fuck you, nigger."

Sure - that may establish a potential hate crime motivation, but whether or not that would blossom into an actual charge or not depends on how good the attorney or a prosecutor is.

The burden of proof would normally lie with prosecution, but uttering something like that probably establishes the minimum proof they need to paint it as a hate crime, and it would be up to the defense to disprove it.

[Gestopft]

As much as I like South Park, they do oversimplify some things. The hate crime laws may not be well written, but I can agree with the spirit of it in general, so long as the primary motivation for the crime is the dislike of a certain group.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/08/06/...ime/index.html

This is what hate crime laws are for. If (and only if) a crime happens against someone because of their race/orientation/etc, then it is a hate crime. If race/etc isn't the motivation, then it should not be considered a hate crime.

[smelltheglove]

They also have to find evidence that the defendant is racist/hates homosexuals ect and that it relates to the crime. Although it is very likely that a racist redneck that kills a black person because he was sleeping with his wife would be tried for a hate crime.

I would compromise that the wording of "hate crime" is not exactly correct but the laws are good. Maybe if you called them bigotry crimes or just racially motivated.

the spirit of the law is fine. the practice is crap, and i really dont see a way to fix it tbh

[Ashnazg]

You don't see the problem with that? People are very disapproving of racism and are not all that rational. How many of them are going to understand that you can't validly deduce their motivation from that single utterance? I'm not OK whatsoever with someone being wrongfully convicted of anything, no matter what else they may have done or how irrational their thoughts are.

That's what the attorneys are there for, though. Their job is exactly that - to refute the prosecutors claims by showing that a particular utterance or state of mind had no relevance on the crime being committed.

If an attorney fails at his job, then its a failure of the educational system, not necessarily that of the judicial system.