Hate-crime = Thought crime?

I was unaware that the the Obama Administration recently passed in to law a new hate-crime bill. While of course the essence of the bill is to right a wrong, something seems very awry with it.Hating people solely on the basis of race, creed, gender, etc, is morally wrong in my opinion, unequivocally.The problem I have with it is that it is an additional crime on top of an original crime. For instance, hypothesize that an Asian was surrounded by a a gang of Neo-nazi thugs who beat the man within an inch of his life.The perpetrators receive an additional charge of hate crime on top of their violent crime. Does the motive trump the action? The "act" is what is criminal, not the motive. Motive only establishes causative reasons when trying to establish guilt.The fact that they violently assaulted a man without legal justification should be the only thing relevant to a charge.Would a gang that assaulted another gang receive a higher charge on the pretense that they were discriminating against that other gang? What difference does it make from a legal point of view?Now you might be wondering why I have a problem with it. Let these bastards rot, right? Indeed! The problem is that this goes against the freedom of speech and thought.We're seeking to give additional charges to sweeten the pot, as if beating a person nearly to death isn't enough? Why not just make assault and battery penalties more strict if you want to get these kinds of monsters off of the streets? Why threaten the freedom of speech and free thought?Benjamin Franklin comes to my mind: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."Your thoughts?

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

I have many of the same misgivings that you do. At first blush, it seems that we are punishing people for their thoughts. Of course, it's not quite that simple. They are being punished for the act of assaulting someone. So it's not just for their thoughts. Thus, the question becomes whether there is a legitimate justification for enhancing the punishment because of their thoughts. (I'm assuming for present purposes that enhancing the punishment just because the criminal had immoral thoughts is not legitimate. Others can argue that point if they wish.)In different circumstances, punishment is enhanced when there is some element of the crime that makes the criminal more dangerous. For example, just breaking into a house is a crime, but it is a more serious crime, and punished more severely, if the purpose in breaking into the house is to commit a felony. Robbing someone is a crime, but it is a more serious crime, and punished more severely, to use a dangerous weapon while robbing someone. In each of the second situations, because the criminal is more dangerous, the punishment is more severe.It is at least arguable that someone who assaults others just because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc, is more dangerous than the average assailant because of that motive. To the extent that this is what is actually motivating legislatures when they enact hate crime legislation, it is defensible on that basis. Whether a particular legislature is actually relying on this reasoning, or instead is simply enhancing punishment because they wish to punishment the criminal for having hateful thoughts, must be examined on a case by case basis.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Indeed - the intentions of a suspected criminal are already examined in court. Did he think his life was in danger? Did he fire a gun intending to defend himself? Or did he intend to engage in vigilante justice? Did he have those drugs for personal use, or was there an intent to supply?The thing is that this kind of legislation means that other equally nasty motivations for beating someone up are punished less severely. It could then be more punishable to beat someone up for being Arabic than because one thought it would be funny to see blood coming out of another person's eyes.

Out of curiosity - do you have a link to more details? There are already hate-crime laws on the books, and I'd like to know what's new. And I would agree. I try to avoid being an Internet Tough Guy. I think going with our initial visceral "lock em up forever!" reaction distances us from a rational analysis of the ethical, practical, and legal analysis ot crime and punishment. That goes for crimes of racism, rape, murder, child abuse, and everything else. Of course, in the case of a violent hate crime, "freedom of expression" has transcended what it protected by the Constitution with the commission of a criminal act. In other words, I can really really want my neighbor's TV all I want, but if I actually steal it, we're no longer talking about a thought crime.So too with instances like the example you provided. We're no longer talking about hate speech. We're talking about a physical, criminal act motivated by an ethically deplorable but still legal mindset.I strongly disagree that you can challenge hate crime laws based on the Freedom of Expression for that reason. Racists can spew their verbal vomit until their tongues fall off, and it's perfectly legal. But the attempted murder of a human being has nothing to do with freedom of expression.Remember also that we already differentiate between crimes based on motivation. First, Second, and Third degree murder and manslaughter are differentiated by such things as emotional distress, self defense, etc. There is a significant body of precedent for increasing or decreasing the amount of punishment based solely on motive for identical results. The reason is similar to the rationale behind affirmative action (which, if I recall correctly, you also oppose?).The Constitution grants equal protection under the law. Unfortunately, there are some citizens who have systematically been denied equal protection, despite the fact that the letter of the law applies equally.The lynchings that happened not that long ago, remember, were illegal under the letter of the law...and yet the system repeatedly allowed them to happen with little or no consequences, and the victims were not granted the equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution.Hate crime legislation is not about trying to make certain opinions or speech illegal. It's about compensating for the unequal protection certain minority groups are objectively granted. The problem isn't as bad everywhere in the US...but you can certainly agree that a heterosexual white Christian male is less likely to be the victim of a violent attack than a person identified as a minority of some sort, be that a racial minority, a sexual orientation, a religion, etc. And yet no liberty is being given up. It is still not illegal to hate Asians, or Blacks, or Jews, or Christians, or Muslims, or Atheists, or Caucasians, or Hispanics, or anyone else. No Cosntitutional right is violated, unless you would care to argue that handing down a different sentence for a murder based on whether the crime was in the heat of the moment, was well planned, or was actually a killing in self-defense is also "thought crime."You'd also have to argue that we should not give harsher sentences for those who attack children vs those who attack adults if your argument is that the target of a crime should not matter, only the act itself.Hate crime laws do not legislate against thoughts and opinions. They criminalize singling out the more vulnerable members of our society as targets of a violent crime to compensate for the fact that they are more frequently targeted and they do systematically receive less justice in US courts.

Not if the legislature passes a law providing for enchancement of crimes committed with those motivations. Which is not really a problem if the legislature considers someone committing the former to be more dangerous than someone committed the latter. Or, similarly, of the former type of crime is of more significant impact to society. As as example, hate crimes legislation doesn't usually include crimes directed at left-handed people because of their left-handedness. I suggest that the reason for this is that there isn't a significant amount of crime directed at left-handed people. Thus, this type of prejudice, if it occasionally occurs, is not as serious a problem and is thus less important for the legislature to address.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I find folk who commit crimes for little-to-know 'good' reason to be considerably more dangerous than those who commit crimes for 'good' reasons. That is, folk who tend to get really pissed off at the littlest things actually are more violent than someone who, let's say murders the doctor who misdiagnosed his wife. The former person is more likely to commit numerous unpredictable crimes, while the latter fella will probably never kill anyone again.That said, I think that a better law would be one that weighs the 'sensibility' of the crime, so that all 'senseless' crimes would be equally punished. Of course, the various degrees of murder and assault charges cover that pretty well. I think this law, like many things, is just introduced to enforce what should already have been there. Good? Bad? Who knows... I'm hungry... pizza time.

---

[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin

Hyroglyphx writes:

quote:

---

The problem I have with it is that it is an additional crime on top of an original crime.

---

Ah, so the attacks on September 11th were nothing more than a case of aggravated vandalism with about 3000 counts of manslaughter attached, right?There's no such thing as "terrorism" distinct from "assault"?It would appear we have another case of you pretending that semantics have something to do with it. Would you be happier if we called it "terrorism" rather than "hate crime"?When you commit a crime against someone specifically due to their attachment to a particular group, then the point of the crime is not simply to commit it against that individual but rather to terrorize all members of that group. It is not sufficient that the victim is a member of a group that is regularly terrorized because, as you will notice, the laws do not list subset but rather full categories: It mentions "race," not any particular race, for example, and crime happens to all groups. Instead, you must be able to show that the person committed the crime specifically because the target was a member of a group.That makes it terrorism.Would your complaint disappear if the term used were "terrorism"? Is your entire complaint only about semantics, not about reality?Or are you saying that terrorism isn't a crime? (So much for anti-stalking laws.)

quote:

---

Does the motive trump the action?

---

No, the motive informs the action. It's how we distinguish between degrees of murder, for example. "Reckless indifference to human life" means murder two. "Premeditation with malice aforethought" means murder one. You don't get charged with simply "killing someone." Instead, we look at what you were thinking in order to determine exactly what crime to charge you.Are you suggesting there shouldn't be any distinction among reckless endangerment, manslaughter, murder, and the various degrees of all of those because those distinctions are based upon the thoughts of the person who committed the crime? There should only be "killing" as a charge?Tell you what, you start complaining about the distinction between murder one and murder two and then I'll start believing you when you say that the problem is that these are "thoughtcrime" rather than the fact that it's gay people who are being protected.Yes, yes, I know you didn't mention gays at all, but let's not play dumb, shall we?

quote:

---

Why threaten the freedom of speech and free thought?

---

So you have a right to commit acts of terrorism?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

The action of assault is what is criminal. Shouldn't people be charged on the basis of what they're doing?Is a racially charged motive for assault worse than a motive with greed in mind? Is it somehow worse to beat a man nearly to death because he doesn't like Asians versus beating a man nearly to death to steal his money? What difference does it make if someone was beaten nearly to death? Is that going to matter for the victim? I think the fact that they were beaten for any reason is equally tragic. Getting beat nearly to death should be enough justification.Moreover it would not surprise me that one day this bill will be used to muzzle and censor. I also see the implication of someone being falsely accused on the basis of race.Let's say two people get in to a bar fight over a spilled drink. One of the men happens to be white and the other happens to be black. What could have been a simple misunderstanding now becomes a felony because one of them lied and stated that they were yelling racial epithets to maximize revenge. Which is all based around "actions." I see a lot of people on the horizon falsely charged with hate crimes. I don't think so. You have liquor store robberies where these monsters come in without any remorse or conscience, just so they can have even a few dollars. I don't know why one should be worse than the other from a legal perspective. Their actions would seem to dictate the severity in my eyes as a juror, as in, what did they do to their victims.The question of why they did it is an important one. I am not trying to minimize that. The callous nature of a heinous crime is important, but I am thinking of the unintended consequences attached to such a bill. I think the principle of the bill is a good thing, but at the risk of manipulating the bill makes it dangerous. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Yes, precisely. And like you said, motives are already examined further in court. So the risk of false accusations and censorship seem to outweigh that such a bill would ever "prevent" racially motivated crimes.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

I just have tons of media websites. I was looking for the actual bill so I could examine the details. I looked on government websites, but only found old H.R. bills dating back to 2007. Indeed but now we're getting in to the realm of action during the commissioning of a crime. As you stated, obviously it is no longer protected. But you are being charged with the action, not the motive. So why should an additional charge ever matter?Is an additional motive of robbery come in to play when someone is robbed? No, all that matters is whether or not they committed it in actuality. I'm obviously not defending bigots who beat the hell out of their victims for ridiculous reasons. My concern is what might come of this bill through manipulation. That's the real danger, seems to me. Yes, I agree. In some sense we are charged on a level of thought crimes, so I suppose action alone cannot dictate the severity. Primarily, yes, but the secondary motive is sometimes important.People have been charged with "plotting" a murder. That obviously has the air of "thought" crime. That's conspiracy to commit murder, which is a crime. But even that is based on a level of actions. If a court can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the individual made enough attempts to lead towards the big picture, that is enough justification to legally charge them. So if a gang of hispanic men assaulted a caucasian man while screaming racial epithets, would they be subject to such a bill or is the bill only for minorites? And how does it work if one minority attacks another minority (straight black male attacking lesbian hispanic)?Does it really matter when you could just charge them with the assault and examine the motive in the courtroom?

quote:

---

Benjamin Franklin comes to my mind: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

---

I see manipulation of the bill on the horizon judging by human nature. That's really where I see the danger, similar to the Patriot Act. Yes the premise is all fine and good, but what if abused? What if mishandled? What of the unintended consequences? You would make a good point except that motives are examined in court and the jury decides, based upon the evidence and preponderance of guilt, the severity of the charge. No bill is necessary.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

It was murder, not assault. No. So when a liquor store or convenient store is robbed, all liquor stores and convenient stores are attacked by proxy? Which all can be determined in the courtroom like it has always been. No special provision need apply. I'm not saying that motive should have no play, I am saying that a specific bill makes little sense.Let's say I attacked two people on separate occasions. One is a member of my own race and I beat them for looking at me cross. Let's say I beat this man nearly to death and he needed reconstructive surgery to set his bones back in to place.On the other occasion I walk by a member of a different race and say a nasty epithet and jabbed him in the face. He's got a bloody nose, but certainly nowhere near the level of victim #1.Days later I'm arrested for both crimes. I'm charged with two counts for victim #2, regardless if the severity was worse for victim #1.Wouldn't it make more sense to simply allow the courts to examine the motives and severity of the cases as it has always been done? I never said that or even alluded to it. I said "actions" should take precedence. All of those things are determined based upon "actions" not core beliefs.Is it worse to murder a man for money or murder him for hatred? It's still murder, and people still were unjustly killed either way. Nobody is protected by these laws and it's insane to think it is somehow a deterrent, as if racist groups are somehow going to dissolve away or quake at the thought of this bill. Okay, then stop being dumb by making unsubstantiated, veiled assertions.

quote:

---

Why threaten the freedom of speech and free thought?

---

Where does acts of terrorism fall under the protection of free speech? Here's the litmus test: Clear and Present Danger

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Rrhain says: ...and that is all that is needed to said about this.Agreed. A hate crime attacks everyone in the group in addition to the victim and that is what the additional penalties are for.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

The problems I have with hate-crimes are:(i) that they detract from the severity of the crime and shift focus on the race of the victims. Like you said, beating someone to death should be condemned for what it is, not be seen as different just because the victim happens to belong to a certain ethnic or sexual group.(ii) that they indirectly propagate racism and increase racial tensions. Let's not beat around the bush, hate-crime laws were introduced to appease certain minorities, just like positive action legislation was introduced for the very same reason. This naturally leads to feelings of bitterness, double standards and discrimination from the majority.(iii) and most importantly: hate-crimes are thought crimes in that they seek to judge and condemn "evil" thoughts instead of just evil actions. So if murdering someone is bad enough, murdering someone while thinking that they are racially inferior or sexually deviant makes it doubly bad. This mentality inevitably leads to totalitarian witch-hunts (e.g. McCarthism, Stalin's pogroms) where people are condemned based on the perceived implications of their peceived thoughts, rather than just their actions. Absolutely. What they were thinking at the time should be of no concern to anyone else other than their conscience. I think the issue here isn't so much the pursuit of safety but rather the attempted railroading of a certain self-righteous morality and political mechanisms for suppressing inidividuality and independent thought. People who don't read history are likely to repeat it.P.S Just for the record, I have similar misgivings about anti-terrorism laws or any other legislation where the accused are judged on their thoughts or beliefs instead of just their actions. I think that the definition of a free society is one where people are allowed to think whatever they want but act within the confines of others' equally-granted rights.P.P.S This from Life On Mars T.V series:
Sam Tyler: I think we need to explore whether this attempted murder was a hate crime.
Gene Hunt: What as opposed to one of those I-really-really-like-you sort of murders?Edited by Legend, : added PPS

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Yes, I agree with you on all counts.I think for statistical purposes, in order to establish criminal trends and rates, it is acceptable for police agencies to track hate crimes as long as it is categorized as a motive. The FBI, and more than likely Scotland Yard, tracks crimes that are racially motivated.I don't object to the profiling of hate crimes, rather I object to it being a criminal charge in and of itself. There's no law on the books stating that you can't be a bigot. Therefore how can it be an additional crime to an act of violence?In my mind it simply is categorizing or establishing motives which is often important in solving a case.This is what various police agencies do to try and solve the crime:They find a dead body in a park. They examine possible motives. They look at the motive of robbery, rape/thrill-kill, the motive of revenge, or something like a hate crime (based on ethnic/racial/gender/sexual orientation hatred). I think that is perfectly fine in order to establish motive, but making it its own crime is a huge step in the wrong direction with the freedom of thought and speech. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

The difference, Hyro, is the difference in a crime against an individual vs a crime against humanity.Members volunteer their services to the gang as individuals. Gang violence is considered individual violence albeit on a larger scale.Gays, blacks, left-handers and democrats achieve there status from their human condition and have no say in that status.Society has determined that dragging a man down miles of gravel road dangling on a rope attached to the bumper of your pick-up just because he owed you money and wouldn't pay is less harmful (slightly) to the fabric of society than the same actors in the same crime but done just because he is a nigger. One is an individual crime, the other is a crime against humanity, meaning a crime against us all, and society has determined such deserving of a greater punishment.Your concern about using such laws as precedence to warrant expansion beyond the intended scope into limiting legal speech (that damn camel's nose) is not without justification. That is why we must remain ever vigilant that society, the tyranny of the majority, does not overstep the bounds. And we do that in discussions like this and in the USA (to a greater or lesser extent) by acknowledging the supremacy of a Constitution over the wants and desires of the society. It certainly isn't perfect and often it is not pretty but, all-in-all it does seem to work most of the time.Good topic. Thank you.