Legally speaking, are "hate crimes" ridiculous?

[Raifff]

To me it looks ridiculous regardless of how you look at it, the law should even be considered racist IMO. The law is differentiating between people based on their skin color, ethnicity, religion, opinions and beliefs. Basically everything that makes you, you. The law opens for someone that is sufficiently different from you, to press charges against you if you commit crimes against them.

Maybe laws that differentiate by race/sexual orientation/etc wouldn't be necessary if there weren't so many racist, homophobic pieces of garbage in the first place.

[Crissi]

You will never get rid of the arbitrary divisions between people so long as you continue to emphasize their importance.

Which is impossible, as that has been happening since the beginning of time and is part of our nature to feel safe withiin our group and have a distrust of others. Acting on it, however, is the difference vs learning about the different individual / group.

[lawow74]

While there's something to be said for padding a case to put a violent jerkoff away as long as possible through use of hate crime laws, it's really easy to abuse something like that, so they occupy a very grey area for me. Much like a lot of laws, they exist for very good reasons but can be put to use for some really bad ones. We just have to hope that those in the judicial system are wise and fair enough to keep it from getting out of hand. Fortunately, it would seem most of the time that's true.

[Crissi]

While there's something to be said for padding a case to put a violent jerkoff away as long as possible through use of hate crime laws, it's really easy to abuse something like that, so they occupy a very grey area for me. Much like a lot of laws, they exist for very good reasons but can be put to use for some really bad ones. We just have to hope that those in the judicial system are wise and fair enough to keep it from getting out of hand. Fortunately, it would seem most of the time that's true.

Yeah, it certainly is overused I agree. Cases like Treyvon tend to diminish actual hate crimes like James Byrd.

[Spl4sh3r]

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.

The law should already have different sentences for those two killings. First example is a second or third degree murder while the second example is first degree. One being done in the heat of the moment and the other being premeditated.

As for the "hate crime" discussion. It is stupid to have hate crimes. People will always have different opinions about everything, whether it is liking dogs or cats, or liking people of other skin colors or hating them. So basicly "hate crimes" is the same as adding additional punishment for disliking something that the majority thinks we shouldn't dislike.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

That it has always been the case does not mean it always must be the case.

You're talking about changing the very nature of human beings as a species. We aren't yet to the level of Star Trek.

[Deleted]

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.

It shouldn't matter weither someone kills a person for being black or for just not liking him. A crime is a crime and that's that.

[Knarg]

It shouldn't matter weither someone kills a person for being black or for just not liking him. A crime is a crime and that's that.

And when that person no longer gets singled out JUST FOR BEING BLACK, or gay, or what-have-you, you will have a point.

A crime is a crime, yes. It's a hate crime if the perpetrator decided their bigotry gives them the right to attack someone.

[Crissi]

It shouldn't matter weither someone kills a person for being black or for just not liking him. A crime is a crime and that's that.

Not all murders are equal.

Although I would be fine if all current "hate" crimes fell under 1st degree or capital murder automatically instead of an addon, as imo killing someone for somehting they cant help is one of the worst motives there is.

[Bridgetjones]

It is typically used as a tool for the intimidation of a community for something they can in no way help. It doesnt matter how large or small said community is, only whether its something they cannot help being, such as skin color, sex, nationality, whatever.

This is exactly right, and nobody seems to be reading your post.

"Hate Crimes" are really done a disservice by being such a misnomer. The FBI doesn't track "hate crimes," they track "bias crimes," which is the more accurate term. So everyone talking about how violent crimes are inherently hateful need to learn this and move forward with a new understanding. Ignore the word "hate;" it's about bias.

Bias crimes and terrorism have similar definitions with a similar purpose. Specifically, the crime itself is intended to send a larger message of intimidation and fear to a larger population than just the victim. The additional punishment is not because one murder is more evil than another. It's not just that bias motivated an individual crime. Rather, bias crimes tend to legitimize bias and dehumanize victims which perpetuates violence.

Another purpose behind "hate crimes" laws is to deter institutional bias in prosecution, law enforcement, and sentencing. By making bias crimes federal crimes, the investigation and prosecution is undertaken by people who are removed from regional pockets of intense bias.

Finally, bias crimes deserve a special category of punishment because they are self-rationalizing. They are the product of ideologies that spread violence by undercutting universal codes of conduct (eg murder is wrong). By promoting bias and committing bias crimes, these ideologies are legitimized, thereby eroding traditional boundaries separating right and wrong. For example, everyone believes that murder is wrong, but that moral is potentially sidestepped by a creeping belief that blacks are not human or that the Bible excuses the murder of gays.

[Deleted]

If i hate whites, blacks, asians, hispanics, native americans and basically everyone, would it still be hate crime if i committed crime?

[smelltheglove]

Yeah, it certainly is overused I agree. Cases like Treyvon tend to diminish actual hate crimes like James Byrd.

this is my biggest issue with it. prosecutors are encouraged to seek the highest sentencing numbers possible by a system that rewards numbers first. of course they are going to try to tack on some extra time wherever they think they can slide it through. not to mention the mere mention of hate crime is enough to prejudice some juries

[Bridgetjones]

So regular crimes don't dehumanize the victim?

Of course they do, but they typically offend the universal ethic of not killing people. Bias crimes have a history of encouraging rationalization of crime by way of dehumanizing entire groups or categories of people. The result is that other victims are marked as fair game. Non-bias crimes don't typically have that effect.

[Deleted]

Why should a second batch of charges be brought forward, just because of the motive?

This should help answer your question:
http://law.jrank.org/pages/460/Actus...-mens-rea.html

[Itisamuh]

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

Pretty much. The whole concept is ridiculous, and leads to a lot of double standards.

[smelltheglove]

If putting someone in prison for murder doesn't send the message that murder isn't acceptable, then I don't know how tagging it as a "hate crime" or anything similar is going to suddenly make a difference.

id have to agree that that adding 5 years or w/e onto the end of a life without parole sentence for murder is pretty pointless, beyond making people feel good that the criminal was legally branded as a bigot. the only thing this would actually combat (and it's not really used this way) is lesser forms of harassment that dont carry huge penalties (where 5 years would be a big deal). but the judiciary already has issues with anything resembling judgement calls, so this would be a butt-raping of justice in practice

[Tastyfish]

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

If you target the guy because he is black, yea it's a lil different then just finding anyone with shoes you like.

[Azrile]

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?

But the same argument can be said about premeditated murder and manslaughter. Or even ´conspiracy´ to commit a crime and then committing it. There are many laws already where what ´you were thinking´ and the motives either results in a much higher penalty, or additional charges. In some places, you can get away with manslaughter and only get 3-5 years, while in the same place, first-degree murder will give you the death penalty.

[Tastyfish]

So regular crimes don't dehumanize the victim?

sorry for an extreme example but that is all i got.
A Nazi shooting a few Jews to death because they are Jews is different then some guy shooing everyone in a burger king. The reasons are different and motivation and even the psychology changes, so yea some crimes don't have the intent of dehumanizing the victim.

[frumper]

But the same argument can be said about premeditated murder and manslaughter. Or even ´conspiracy´ to commit a crime and then committing it. There are many laws already where what ´you were thinking´ and the motives either results in a much higher penalty, or additional charges. In some places, you can get away with manslaughter and only get 3-5 years, while in the same place, first-degree murder will give you the death penalty.

The difference between manslaughter and first degree murder is not motive. It's intent. They are not the same. This was pointed out earlier in the thread as well.