Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hate-crime = Thought crime?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 376 (537977)
12-02-2009 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Rahvin
12-01-2009 3:03 PM


When a racist kills a black kid just because he's black, the kid is not the only victim. Every black person in the community is at that poitn avictim of terror, as the racist has attempted to terrorize that community.
How does doing it just because he's black necessitate that he is attempting to terrorize the community? How do you know that the community is terrorized? What if he does it in private but just because he's black? If he does it because he's black, and because the kid talked shit, would that change the way the community is affected?
Or do you define it as a hate crime because it terrorized the community?
If someone attacks a Christian simply because of their faith, the entire Christian community is a victim of an attempt to terrorize them, to tell them that their community is not welcome in society at large.
Take a look at this story. It happened earlier this year about 10 minutes from my house.
quote:
A church minister has been shot dead during a church service by a gunman who then stabbed himself and two other people.
The man initially walked down the aisle during the early morning service at the First Baptist Church in Maryville, Illinois, state police said.
He exchanged words with senior pastor Dr Fred Winters, pulled out a .45 calibre handgun and shot the minister once in the chest, Master Trooper Ralph Timmins said.
How this effected the christian community is not how it is determined if it was a hate crime or not. It turns out the guy had mental problems so it wasn't a hate crime. If the Christian community WAS terrorized, would that make it a hate crime? Or is it all about the intents and not about how it affects the community?
What about this one. Again this year and about 10 minutes from my house.
quote:
The incident grabbed national headlines and incited a heated debate about race when police said the incident, involving a white victim and black assailants, may have been racially motivated. They later recanted that claim.
...
On the issue of a hate crime, Haida said: No evidence is present to suggest that the motive for the conduct was the race of the victim. Illinois law requires such evidence in order to support that charge. Illinois law is clear that the fact that a defendant and a victim are of different races is insufficient without more evidence to support a hate crime.
If they did have sufficient evidence to show this was a hate crime, then am I supposed to have been terrorized by this? How do you know if they did this just because he was white or not? How do you know how terriorized the white community was or not?
But hate crime laws aren't jsut for "minorities." The apply equally to every race, to every religion, etc.
You think the reaction would have been the same if a bunch of white kids beat up a black one? Would the reaction of the community help determine whether or not it was a hate crime? Should it?
Hate crime legislation has nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do with recognizing that hate crimes are those crimes which victimize more people than only the individual(s) attacked or harassed - and therefore should carry harsher penalties.
How do you know when more people are victimized or not?

I don't think hate crime laws are necessary. And I'm not sure how helpful they are. I think its too difficult to determine if someone did it "just because" of the race, or whatever, of the victim. I suppose that in some cases it could be obvious, but mostly you're just never going to know. And that because its going to be so infrequent, its not really doing very much of anything. Distinguishing between first and second degree murder is much easier than eliminating all motive except for race, or whatever.
As far as the latest bill goes, the Matthew Shepard Act, I don't support it because of these lines:
quote:
removes the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity, like voting or going to school;
gives federal authorities greater ability to engage in hate crimes investigations that local authorities choose not to pursue;
That's all we need is more Feds getting in the way. This isn't the 1950's anymore. How much hate crime is actually going on and how much of that are local authorities improperly pursuing? I doubt that its much, if any at all.
I thought the point of this country was to be a bunch of States that are United. This isn't the Federal State of America. We don't need more laws that let the Feds get involved.
quote:
This measure expands the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
This part I'm fine with though. Those people should have been included. And I don't see anything wrong with the 1969 law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Rahvin, posted 12-01-2009 3:03 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Rahvin, posted 12-02-2009 1:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 77 of 376 (537988)
12-02-2009 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Legend
12-02-2009 4:17 AM


Re: Spot on - post of the month for me
A short, sharp explosion of reality checking. I take my hat off to you sir!
Thanks, Legend.
This specifically...
Oni writes:
Everyone tries to speak up for everyone else. They try to establish what should and shouldn't be considered "funny," and claim that people got "offended" ... Who, who are these people? Who the fuck got offended? You know who, white liberals, that's who got offended. And, since their politically correct asses or on TV, they try to speak for everyone else.
...are not only my words. Take a look at this video. Its a (great) comic out of NYC who breaks down the PC arguments that always come up when other people try to speak up for the entire community and/or nation:
Plus these video on Imus:
Which IMO is the same type of argument that is being presented here by the supporters of "hate" crime laws.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Legend, posted 12-02-2009 4:17 AM Legend has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Rahvin, posted 12-02-2009 1:30 PM onifre has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 78 of 376 (537990)
12-02-2009 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by New Cat's Eye
12-02-2009 11:08 AM


Hate is alive and well.
quote:
When a racist kills a black kid just because he's black, the kid is not the only victim. Every black person in the community is at that poitn avictim of terror, as the racist has attempted to terrorize that community.
How does doing it just because he's black necessitate that he is attempting to terrorize the community?
It sends a message of hatred to the targeted group. Are you really suggesting that a person who attacks another person on the basis of belonging to a particular group is not in fact attacking that group?
Because that would be absurd, and I know you're smarter than that. THat'slike suggesting that, in war, when a soldier is killed the enemy was not actually attacking our army.
How do you know that the community is terrorized?
The effectiveness of the terrorism is irrelevant, just like blackmail is illegal whether whether the blackmailer gets what he wants or not.
What if he does it in private but just because he's black? If he does it because he's black, and because the kid talked shit, would that change the way the community is affected?
Or do you define it as a hate crime because it terrorized the community?
It's defined as a hate crime because it is a crime committed on the basis of a protected class that the victim is a member of. When a gay guy gets beaten to death for being gay, regardless of whther it's "in private" or not, regardless of whether the victim "talked shit" or not, the attacker is in fact assaulting the entire gay community in a ddition to his physical victim. He's sending the message that "this is what happens to (insert slur here)."
And really - the "talked shit" scenario just reeks of "that (insert slur here) got uppity, so I showed that boy his palce!"
CS, I;ve made it abundantly clear how hate crimes are classified. I even posted summaries of the laws, which you reference below. What's with the intentional denseness?
quote:
If someone attacks a Christian simply because of their faith, the entire Christian community is a victim of an attempt to terrorize them, to tell them that their community is not welcome in society at large.
Take a look at this story. It happened earlier this year about 10 minutes from my house.
quote:
A church minister has been shot dead during a church service by a gunman who then stabbed himself and two other people.
The man initially walked down the aisle during the early morning service at the First Baptist Church in Maryville, Illinois, state police said.
He exchanged words with senior pastor Dr Fred Winters, pulled out a .45 calibre handgun and shot the minister once in the chest, Master Trooper Ralph Timmins said.
How this effected the christian community is not how it is determined if it was a hate crime or not. It turns out the guy had mental problems so it wasn't a hate crime. If the Christian community WAS terrorized, would that make it a hate crime? Or is it all about the intents and not about how it affects the community?
It's a hate crime if it can be shown that the attacker killed the minister because he was a Christian. Again, why are you being intentionally dense? It's abundantly clear how hate crimes are classified - when a crime is committed because of a person's membership in a protected class, that crime is a hate crime. If a crime is committed against anyone, even a protected class, but the reason for the crime is not the victim's membership in that protected class, then the crime was not a hate crime. End of story, simple as that, done, no additional scenarios needed.
What about this one. Again this year and about 10 minutes from my house.
quote:
The incident grabbed national headlines and incited a heated debate about race when police said the incident, involving a white victim and black assailants, may have been racially motivated. They later recanted that claim.
...
On the issue of a hate crime, Haida said: No evidence is present to suggest that the motive for the conduct was the race of the victim. Illinois law requires such evidence in order to support that charge. Illinois law is clear that the fact that a defendant and a victim are of different races is insufficient without more evidence to support a hate crime.
If they did have sufficient evidence to show this was a hate crime, then am I supposed to have been terrorized by this? How do you know if they did this just because he was white or not? How do you know how terriorized the white community was or not?
As I said, the effectiveness of the terrorism is irrelevant. If the crime was committed because of the victim's race, then the attacker's intent was to attack that group rather than simply the individual victim. That makes the crime more heinous, more damaging to society,less tolerable, and deserving of steeper penalties.
quote:
But hate crime laws aren't jsut for "minorities." The apply equally to every race, to every religion, etc.
You think the reaction would have been the same if a bunch of white kids beat up a black one? Would the reaction of the community help determine whether or not it was a hate crime? Should it?
No. You seem to habve some bizarre ideas as to what I consider a hate crime. Here's a clue: it's exactly as the law says a hate crime is. When a crime is committed because of a person's membership in a protected class, that crime is a hate crime. When a crime is committed, even against a minority, but the reason for the crime was not the victim's membership in a protected class, that crime was not a hate crime. Simple as that.
quote:
Hate crime legislation has nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do with recognizing that hate crimes are those crimes which victimize more people than only the individual(s) attacked or harassed - and therefore should carry harsher penalties.
How do you know when more people are victimized or not?
When a group is attacked, the entire group is victimized, even if members of the group are compeltely unaware that the attack has happened. The attempt, the attack,is what is relevant, not the success of the attack. The first WTC bombing back in the 90s was no lessan act of terrorism simply because it wasn't particularly successful - neither is a hate crime less of an attack on a community simply because the community wasn't affected.
I don't think hate crime laws are necessary. And I'm not sure how helpful they are. I think its too difficult to determine if someone did it "just because" of the race, or whatever, of the victim. I suppose that in some cases it could be obvious, but mostly you're just never going to know. And that because its going to be so infrequent, its not really doing very much of anything. Distinguishing between first and second degree murder is much easier than eliminating all motive except for race, or whatever.
I agree that it's often too difficult to determine. But then, that's why in criminal cases the Jury is instructed to find a defendant guilty only if the evidence proves guild beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a pretty high bar. Granted, it is abundantly true that Juries are often composed of idiots - but as that applies to every charge ever, I think it's rather moot. The fact is, if a person is charged with a hate crime but the evidence is insufficient to prove that the crime was motivated by the victim's membership in a protected class, then the hate crime charge will not stick.
If a person commits murder, has various journal notes/blog posts/whatever that say "(insert slur here) must DIE," and the victim was in the group specified by the slur, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the victim's membership in that group was a significant motivating factor - even if it wasn't the only one.
As far as the latest bill goes, the Matthew Shepard Act, I don't support it because of these lines:
quote:
removes the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity, like voting or going to school;
gives federal authorities greater ability to engage in hate crimes investigations that local authorities choose not to pursue
That's all we need is more Feds getting in the way. This isn't the 1950's anymore. How much hate crime is actually going on and how much of that are local authorities improperly pursuing? I doubt that its much, if any at all.
Which you say only because you don't see it, personally. Which is why appeals to personal credulity are fallacious, CS.
Check this out from the SOuthern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights organization:
Suffolf County, NY in 2009.
quote:
Less than one year ago, on Nov. 8, 2008, Marcelo Lucero, an Ecuadorian immigrant, was murdered in the town of Patchogue, N.Y. The killing, police say, was carried out by a gang of teenagers who called themselves the Caucasian Crew and targeted Latino residents as part of a sport they termed "beaner-hopping."
This is a fucking hate crime. A person was killed by a gang seeking victims solely because of their race.
Or how about these:
quote:
Naples, FL
Ten North Naples Middle School students were suspended after district officials said they participated in "kick a Jew day."
Reported:2009-11-20
Coral Springs, FL
Several anti-Semitic messages were found spray-painted on a local Jewish community center.
Reported:2009-11-09
Muncie, IN
Three men were sentenced to more than a year in prison in connection with a 2008 cross burning.
Reported:2009-11-06
Hate crimes are alive and well in the US. The fact that, as individuals, we aren't personally exposed to it on a daily basis is somethign we should be thankful for, but it doesn't mean it's not happening.
I thought the point of this country was to be a bunch of States that are United. This isn't the Federal State of America. We don't need more laws that let the Feds get involved.
If you really want to debate State vs Federal rights, make a thread. This isn't the place, and it's woefully off-topic.
quote:
This measure expands the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
This part I'm fine with though. Those people should have been included. And I don't see anything wrong with the 1969 law.
Which begs the question as to why you think it's okay to legislate against kids getting beat up on their way to school because of their race, but not okay to legislate against the exact same crime when the kids aren't on their way to school.
Because that's the only difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-02-2009 11:08 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-02-2009 2:40 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 79 of 376 (537991)
12-02-2009 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by onifre
12-02-2009 1:00 PM


Re: Spot on - post of the month for me
Hi Oni,
I want to make something perfectly clear here.
I support hate crime laws...but hate crimes are only those crimes which are motivated by hate.
I do not in any way support chilling free speech, even when I personally find some speech abhorrent.
I remember the Imus deal. I thought it was racist. But then, I already wasn't a fan of Imus. In cases like that, censorship is never the answer. If you're offended, simply don't listen. Nobody holds a gun to your head and forces you to listen to Imus. Fortunately.
I want racists to be able to speak their minds, even if I think what comes out of their mouths more closely resembles feces than nouns, verbs, and adjectives. I support that right becasue what is considered "offensive" today is not always considered "offensive" tomorrow.
For a more recent example (and from the other political side, perhaps), just look at the recent AMA awards, where we had men kissing men and "simulating oral sex" with each other. A lot of people got upset, and are offended. But these men have the right to be able to express themselves. If you personally are offended, turn off the TV or turn the channel.
But none of these things are hate crimes. They are, in fact, wholly irrelevant to this thread. Hate crimes involve the use of physical force or intimidation. Hate crimes are beatings. Hate crimes are murders. Hate crimes are cross burnings.
I don't support hate crime laws because I'm "offended." I support hate crime laws because I see that they are an attempt to recognize the difference between attacking an individual and attacking a community. I don't care who and who is not "offended."
"Offensive speech" is protected by the First Amendment. Speech that is not offensive typically doesn't need protection.
"Kick a Jew day" and the "Caucasian Crew" are not free speech. They aren't making comments about "nappy hair," and they aren't putting homosexual displays of affection in the public eye. They're committing acts of violence against entire communities.
Those are completely different things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by onifre, posted 12-02-2009 1:00 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by onifre, posted 12-02-2009 6:11 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 80 of 376 (537997)
12-02-2009 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Rrhain
12-02-2009 6:18 AM


Legend writes:
"Lying in wait" makes it murder one because of the *action* taken by the perpetrator to lie in wait before attacking the victim
Rrhain writes:
Because of the state of mind "lying in wait" requires. You didn't just suddenly reach the conclusion to kill the person. Instead, you put a lot of thought into it, planned and schemed. You developed the required mens rea to perform the act.
So we both agree that it's the *action* that's used to differentiate between degrees of murder. We both agree that you might have really hated the victim but without performing the *action* of lying in wait before killing him you wouldn't have been done for murder one. It's the fact that you lied in wait to kill him that makes it murder one, NOT that you lied in wait to kill him because he was black/white/gay/whatever.
I'm glad we cleared that up.
Legend writes:
Are you saying our entire system of justice is based on a fraud?
No, just that some parts of it are ill thought out and exist to reflect some people's morality instead of providing equal justice for all. But we're digressing...
quote:
Intent is a mental attitude...
Rrhain writes:
What part of "mental attitude" are you having trouble with? The fact that you have to show it via indirect methods is immaterial. You're absolutely right that we cannot read your mind, but if you decide to tell us what's in your mind, then that's perfectly fine. The fact that we determine your state of mind via your actions is immaterial. What we're trying to establish is your state of mind.
You admonished Hyro a few posts back for getting stuck on semantics yet don't hesitate to do so yourself. The "mental attitude" that is Intent is *not the same* as the "mental attitude" that is Motive. Intent is the state of mind with which an act is done. Motive implies the state of mind which causes an act to be done.
Motive is used to establish guilt. Intent is used to determine the severity of the crime.
'Normal' crime laws punish the guilty based on Intent NOT on Motive.
Hate crime laws punish the guilty based on Intent AND on Motive.
And this is the crux of the debate and this is where your argument demonstrably fails as you're trying to conflate Motive with Intent and try to present punsihment for the Motive as something normal that's already happening outside hate-crime laws.
Rrhain writes:
That's why we can have a result of "not guilty by reason of insanity." The person performed the act but did not have the state of mind capable of understanding what was going on.
In "Insanity Defence" cases the jury is still called to decide whether or not the mental disorder meant that the accussed did not intend to commit a crime.
Mental illness alone is no defense, just a mitigating factor. A person who suffers from scizhoprenia will still be considered guilty if he commits a crime intentionally. See...INTENT is still judged and punished, regardless of the existence of Motive. If it can be shown that -due to his mental illness- the accused didn't intend to commit the crime, then and only then a "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict is returned.
Thanks for proving my point.
Rrhain writes:
You're behaving as if a hate crime simply assumes intent based upon the identification of the victim as a minority group member. It doesn't. The prosecution must prove the state of mind of the defendant in a hate crime in exactly the same way that the prosecution must prove the state of mind of the defendant in a capital murder case.
Blatantly false! As I've already shown you in a murder case the prosecution must prove *intent* to get a murder conviction. If they can also show Motive they make a conviction more likely but it's not necessary. In a hate-crime case the prosecution must prove that the *Motive* is racial/gender related to get a hate-crime conviction.
You go out and beat up a man to steal his wallet.
You go out and beat up a man because he's black.
The INTENT in both cases is there to the same degree. What makes one a hate-crime and the other an 'ordinary' crime is the different MOTIVE.
Rrhain writes:
The crime committed against an individual is not the same as a crime that is committed against an individual as a symbol to the rest of the group. To deny that, to downplay the effect upon everybody else who was directly targeted but not physically attacked, is to deny justice.
A few months back we had a robbery in our village. It terrified the whole village. Some people wouldn't go out at night, started carrying kitchen knives with them, etc. Police eventually caught the youths who did it. They were NOT charged with a hate-crime, just plain old robbery and affray.
So according to YOU, the people in my village were denied justice, right?
According to YOU, the effect the crime had on the rest of us was downplayed, right?
I invite you to ponder the answers to those questions and their implications on what we've been debating regarding intent, motive and thought-crimes. The fallacy of your position should become transparent pretty soon by then.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Rrhain, posted 12-02-2009 6:18 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-02-2009 2:52 PM Legend has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 376 (538003)
12-02-2009 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Rahvin
12-02-2009 1:13 PM


Re: Hate is alive and well.
I think you might have misunderstood me a little.
You seem to be saying that its a hate crime if it is committed on the basis of a protected class and that they deserve extra charges because it terrorizes the whole class rather than just the individual.
I'm questioning that the crime being based on the protected class necessarily terrorizes the whole class. I wasn't terrorized when the Christian minister or the white kid were targeted regardless of whether or not the basis was their protected class.
Plus, I can imagine someone beating up a black guy because they hate black people with no intention of terrorizing blacks as a whole.
How does doing it just because he's black necessitate that he is attempting to terrorize the community?
It sends a message of hatred to the targeted group. Are you really suggesting that a person who attacks another person on the basis of belonging to a particular group is not in fact attacking that group?
If no message is received by the targeted group, then it didn't send them a message of hatred. I saying that attacking another person on the basis of belonging to a particular group is not necessarily attacking the group.
The effectiveness of the terrorism is irrelevant, just like blackmail is illegal whether whether the blackmailer gets what he wants or not.
But if it is ineffective at terrorizing the group as opposed to the individual, then you don't have an argument that it deserves a harsher penalty.
When a gay guy gets beaten to death for being gay, regardless of whther it's "in private" or not, regardless of whether the victim "talked shit" or not, the attacker is in fact assaulting the entire gay community in a ddition to his physical victim. He's sending the message that "this is what happens to (insert slur here)."
Well here's a point of disagreement because I don't think that's necessarily true. If the guy talked shit then he was being attacked, not the gay community. That we're trying to necessitate that is what brings it into the area of thought crime.
And really - the "talked shit" scenario just reeks of "that (insert slur here) got uppity, so I showed that boy his palce!"
Which would make it no longer a hate crime, even if the attacker did hate blacks which helped motivate the crime.
CS, I;ve made it abundantly clear how hate crimes are classified. I even posted summaries of the laws, which you reference below. What's with the intentional denseness?
I'm trying to understand your position better and where the lines are drawn.
It's a hate crime if it can be shown that the attacker killed the minister because he was a Christian. Again, why are you being intentionally dense? It's abundantly clear how hate crimes are classified - when a crime is committed because of a person's membership in a protected class, that crime is a hate crime. If a crime is committed against anyone, even a protected class, but the reason for the crime is not the victim's membership in that protected class, then the crime was not a hate crime. End of story, simple as that, done, no additional scenarios needed.
Okay, but I don't see how we can show whether or not the motivation was based solely on the membership to the protected class or not. Plus, you're saying that if you attack a member of the protected class because they're in that class then you are attacking the community, but if we don't know if that's the only reason then how do we know if the community was attacked or not? That's why I was asking if the affect on the community should be weighed in or not. I think its a slippery slope on whether or not your attacking the community and not just the individual.
As I said, the effectiveness of the terrorism is irrelevant. If the crime was committed because of the victim's race, then the attacker's intent was to attack that group rather than simply the individual victim. That makes the crime more heinous, more damaging to society,less tolerable, and deserving of steeper penalties.
First off, I don't think committing a crime because of the victim's race necessitates that the attackers intent was to attack the group. Second, if the effectiveness of the terrorism is irrelevant, then it isn't necessarily more heinous and damaging to society.
No. You seem to habve some bizarre ideas as to what I consider a hate crime. Here's a clue: it's exactly as the law says a hate crime is. When a crime is committed because of a person's membership in a protected class, that crime is a hate crime. When a crime is committed, even against a minority, but the reason for the crime was not the victim's membership in a protected class, that crime was not a hate crime. Simple as that.
Then the way I see it, hate crimes don't necessarily deserve a harsher punishment because the attacker's intent doesn't have to be towards the larger group and they don't necessarily attack more than the individual and some that do might not be effective at actually terrorizing the group.
How do you know when more people are victimized or not?
When a group is attacked, the entire group is victimized, even if members of the group are completely unaware that the attack has happened.
Es imposibl.
The attempt, the attack, is what is relevant, not the success of the attack.
I thought that the crime deserved harsher punishment because it causes more harm. In Message 69 you wrote:
quote:
This isn't about giving blacks/hispanics/asians/whoever a boost. It's about recognizing the increased harm of a crime that targets a subset of society specifically as opposed to "normal" crime.
Hate crimes are only those crimes that target their victims due to their race, religion, color, national origin, (perceived) sexual orientation, or (perceived) gender. These crimes have a chilling effect on the entire subset - for example, if the KKK were to use harassment and intimidation to prevent blacks and Jews from voting. This is obviously and objectively far more damaging to society as a whole than simple charges of harassment would normally convey.
So now I'm confused. Honestly.
The first WTC bombing back in the 90s was no lessan act of terrorism simply because it wasn't particularly successful - neither is a hate crime less of an attack on a community simply because the community wasn't affected.
I disagree with that too. I think the punishment should fit the crime and if the community wasn't affected then it is a lessor act of terrorism.
I agree that it's often too difficult to determine. But then, that's why in criminal cases the Jury is instructed to find a defendant guilty only if the evidence proves guild beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a pretty high bar. Granted, it is abundantly true that Juries are often composed of idiots - but as that applies to every charge ever, I think it's rather moot. The fact is, if a person is charged with a hate crime but the evidence is insufficient to prove that the crime was motivated by the victim's membership in a protected class, then the hate crime charge will not stick.
And this is where Oni's point about this whole thing being more divisive comes in. I remember when I was in college and 3 white guys beat up an Indian (dot not feater) outside of a bar. "Hate crime" got tossed out there rather quickly (like the next morning) and these guys were pretty much guilty before they were tried. It turns out that race wasn't a motivating factor, but the Indian community was already in a backlash by then, which pissed off the whites and caused more tension. Then we find out he was a Muslim, and then more hate crime accusation get tossed out and next the Muslims are pissed. It was a fucked up situation. That pretty much tainted my view of the whole hate crime thing.
If a person commits murder, has various journal notes/blog posts/whatever that say "(insert slur here) must DIE," and the victim was in the group specified by the slur, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the victim's membership in that group was a significant motivating factor - even if it wasn't the only one.
yeah, but if the community is unaware of the journals then they wouldn't have been terrorized by it and it doesn't necessitate a harsher punishment.
As far as the latest bill goes, the Matthew Shepard Act, I don't support it because of these lines:
quote:
removes the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity, like voting or going to school;
gives federal authorities greater ability to engage in hate crimes investigations that local authorities choose not to pursue
That's all we need is more Feds getting in the way. This isn't the 1950's anymore. How much hate crime is actually going on and how much of that are local authorities improperly pursuing? I doubt that its much, if any at all.
Which you say only because you don't see it, personally. Which is why appeals to personal credulity are fallacious, CS.
Check this out from the SOuthern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights organization:
Suffolf County, NY in 2009.
quote:
Less than one year ago, on Nov. 8, 2008, Marcelo Lucero, an Ecuadorian immigrant, was murdered in the town of Patchogue, N.Y. The killing, police say, was carried out by a gang of teenagers who called themselves the Caucasian Crew and targeted Latino residents as part of a sport they termed "beaner-hopping."
This is a fucking hate crime. A person was killed by a gang seeking victims solely because of their race.
I haven't read the article. What charges were made? Were they punished? Do we need to broaden the hate crime laws because of this case?
Hate crimes are alive and well in the US. The fact that, as individuals, we aren't personally exposed to it on a daily basis is somethign we should be thankful for, but it doesn't mean it's not happening.
Are they being handled improperly so as to necessitate further legislation?
I thought the point of this country was to be a bunch of States that are United. This isn't the Federal State of America. We don't need more laws that let the Feds get involved.
If you really want to debate State vs Federal rights, make a thread. This isn't the place, and it's woefully off-topic.
It is one of my reasons for not supporting the bill.
quote:
This measure expands the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
This part I'm fine with though. Those people should have been included. And I don't see anything wrong with the 1969 law.
Which begs the question as to why you think it's okay to legislate against kids getting beat up on their way to school because of their race, but not okay to legislate against the exact same crime when the kids aren't on their way to school.
Because that's the only difference.
Well I do think beating up a kid so he can't go to school is worse than just beating up a kid. And they can still be charged with beating up a kid. I don't see those parts I disagree with as being necessary.
ABE:
Have a look at Message 85 for more on my position regarding this.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Rahvin, posted 12-02-2009 1:13 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 376 (538006)
12-02-2009 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Legend
12-02-2009 1:59 PM


Clear legal distinction between Motive and Intent
You go out and beat up a man to steal his wallet.
You go out and beat up a man because he's black.
The INTENT in both cases is there to the same degree. What makes one a hate-crime and the other an 'ordinary' crime is the different MOTIVE.
Precisely... Intent and motive are not the same.
Intent and motive are commonly confused but they are distinct principles and differentiated in the law. Motive is the cause or reason that prompts a person to act or fail to act. Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted. Because intent is a state of mind it can rarely be proved with direct evidence and ordinarily must be inferred from the facts of the case. Evidence of intent is always admissible to prove a specific-intent crime but evidence of motive is only admissible if it tends to help prove or negate the element of intent." - Findlaw.com
Therefore people are being charged more severely on the basis of something that is protected under freedom of though/speech with something that has always been a crime.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Legend, posted 12-02-2009 1:59 PM Legend has not replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 83 of 376 (538018)
12-02-2009 3:44 PM


My $0.02....
I first have to say that this thread has completely changed my view on hate crime legislation. While I have always supported it, I took a middle of the road approach (i.e. I supported it as a necessary wrong. I more or less agreed with those against it in principle, but believed it to be better than nothing as long as there were bigots in society). Now I see why such laws have to be in place and am in wholehearted support.
The key to my change of view was that I had not considered the act of violence as going beyond the immediate victim. As my brain works by analogy, let me explain it the way I am thinking...
Let us say that I decide to murder the Jones family. I succeed in killing Mr. Jones, and immediately afterwards send a text message to his wife and two kids telling them what I had done and that they were next. I am, however, arrested soon after. I would be charged with the murder of Mr. Jones and the assaults (death threats) on the other family members. I do not believe the assault charge would be dropped in one count if say one of the kids didn't get the message until after I was apprehended (and therefore the threat was invalid).
Analogously a hate crime then becomes the original crime (murder, battery, assault) PLUS the added threat to members of the targeted community. In just about every unequivocal hate crime that I have heard of there was an attempt to send a message. I suppose it is possible that someone would commit a hate crime in total secrecy as to prevent anyone from ever knowing such a crime occurred, but I have to believe this would be insignificant.
Hate crimes are really designed to change the behavior of the target group. The perpetrators want immigrants out of their neighborhood or want patrons of gay bars to stay home. It is an attempt to alter the protected behavior of a group by instilling fear. There are bigots out there that justify hate crimes by the target group not conforming to the behaviors the bigots wish to see. Has anyone else heard people say "If they didn't act gay in public they wouldn't get their asses kicked" or "if they just stayed in their own neighborhoods this wouldn't be an issue"?
And on the issue of the laws making it worse - the flaw I see with that is that the same arguments have been used before to protect perpetrators of many crimes. For lots of crime the victim is made to feel powerless, and even more so when they in a minority. The problem is the bigots, not the behavior of victims. To say we cannot pass hate crime laws because they would further divide society is little different, imho, than the days when well-meaning prosecutors would recommend that black victims of violence just drop the issue because to push it would just make their lives worse (the fact that this often may have been true in no way affects the morality of choosing to fight injustice).

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-02-2009 4:53 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied
 Message 86 by Legend, posted 12-02-2009 4:56 PM Lithodid-Man has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 84 of 376 (538022)
12-02-2009 4:12 PM


Knee jerk legislation
I am from the USA. In my country we on occasion pass into law things that at the time, (In the heat of the moment) make perfect sense. Adding an extra helping of punitive damage to an already heinous crime is nothing more than legislators hoping it will further deter such crimes. American justice is not always logical.
Hate crimes are not thought crimes. You can hate the hell out of who ever you want. But if you act out your hate you will be punished more severly in this county cuz thats how we roll.

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 376 (538028)
12-02-2009 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Lithodid-Man
12-02-2009 3:44 PM


Re: My $0.02....
In just about every unequivocal hate crime that I have heard of there was an attempt to send a message.
Hate crimes are really designed to change the behavior of the target group.
I'm with you on these. I don't think it is/should be a hate crime just because you did it simply because they were part of a protected group. I think there's more to it than that.
Killing a guy and getting rid of his body because he was black is different than killing a guy and stringing him up on the corner in the hood because he's black are different even though the reason for doing it was because he was part of a protected group. That's a point I was trying to make to Rahvin.
Actually, the whole sending a message thing is more than just because they are part of a protected group, you're actually actively showing off your hatred.
The definition of hate crime should be improved past simply doing something to someone because they are a part of a protected group. That could be a 'crime of passion' whereas making a point to show off your hatred is what I think should be considered hate crimes.
ABE:
Actually, like the 1969 version has it needing to be preventing the victim form engaging in a federally protected activity, for which I can think of no other reason to prevent that, so the current bill I do feel unecessarily complicates things.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-02-2009 3:44 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 86 of 376 (538029)
12-02-2009 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Lithodid-Man
12-02-2009 3:44 PM


My $10,000 (and where's my change?)
The key to my change of view was that I had not considered the act of violence as going beyond the immediate victim
Of course! Now that you put it like that, it does makes sense: hate crimes are acts of violence going beyond the immediate victim. As opposed to other crimes of violence which affect only the the immediate victim, like.......you know..........errm..........what's its name...................help me out here!
Analogously a hate crime then becomes the original crime (murder, battery, assault) PLUS the added threat to members of the targeted community.
Exactly. In my last post I mentioned a violent robbery that terrorised people in my village. Strangely enough, this *wasn't* classified as a hate-crime, despite the added threat to the members of the community. Can you remind me again why that happened?
Hate crimes are really designed to change the behavior of the target group.
Now that you say this I realise that :
- Striking postmen who verbally abused their working colleagues trying to enter the workplace were commiting a HATE CRIME as they were trying to change the behavior of the target group
- Homeowners who attack burglars in their homes are actually commiting HATE CRIMES as they're trying to change the behaviour of the burglar.
- Police attacking demonstrators in the recent London climate-change protests were trying to change the behaviour of the demonstrators, thereby commiting HATE CRIMES.
- Our soldiers currently fighting in Afghanistan are commiting HATE CRIMES as they're trying to change the behaviour of the Taliban.
I can think of so many other examples but I just don't know where to draw the line! Can you help? Where do you draw the line between someone trying to change the behaviour of a whole group and someone attacking someone else for unrelated reasons? Who decides? How? and based on which criteria?
There are bigots out there that justify hate crimes by the target group not conforming to the behaviors the bigots wish to see
Yes, yes, I already mentioned the police beating the demonstrators and the Army attacking the Taliban. They're only doing it because they want to see the demonstrators/Taliban changing their behaviour, they're just so damn bigoted!
And on the issue of the laws making it worse - the flaw I see with that is that the same arguments have been used before to protect perpetrators of many crimes.
Naturally. Also, the Nazis built motorways therefore motorways are evil! Just thought I'd mention that.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-02-2009 3:44 PM Lithodid-Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by 1.61803, posted 12-02-2009 5:59 PM Legend has replied
 Message 89 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-02-2009 6:31 PM Legend has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 87 of 376 (538039)
12-02-2009 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Legend
12-02-2009 4:56 PM


Re: My $10,000 (and where's my change?)
Also, the Nazis built motorways therefore motorways are evil! Just thought I'd mention that.
So is your position on hate crime legislation is that it is unjust because it is taking the perps predjudice as the reason for the crime rather than the crime alone?
Hate crime legislation is meant to stigmatize the perp in addition to setting a example to other would be haters that may be comptemplating such crimes. It is not because some one killed Matthew Shepherd because he was a asshole. He may have been. It is because he was singled out from society as not fit to live due to bigotry and thereby brutally murdered. We as a free society can not have others amoung us selecting who lives and who dies simply based on some half baked notions of superiority. Hate crime legislation in my opinion is all about deterance. Its bad enough to kill someone, but worse to do it because they different. If it is unjust and a example of Orwellian thought crimes so be it. I would rather deter a racist from dropping the hammer on me or my loved ones. Your thoughts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Legend, posted 12-02-2009 4:56 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Legend, posted 12-02-2009 6:36 PM 1.61803 has not replied
 Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-03-2009 10:04 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 88 of 376 (538040)
12-02-2009 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Rahvin
12-02-2009 1:30 PM


Re: Spot on - post of the month for me
Hi Rahvin,
I support hate crime laws...but hate crimes are only those crimes which are motivated by hate.
I do not in any way support chilling free speech, even when I personally find some speech abhorrent.
Absolutely, and I wasn't trying to confuse the 2 ... maybe my post made it seem that way so I'll clarify.
My only point was in regards to how the crimes "make the community feel."
One's actions may be targeting a specific group, in hopes to strike fear in that entire group, but this (currently) is never the case. What the crimes usually do is instil anger in the groups that they target, so to refer to the entire group as victims is IMO going too far to establish a point. What do you think gave rise to the Civil Rights movement, fear and terror, or, anger and pride...?
In the Imus deal, or the Opie and Anthony deal, or any of those other deemed "offensive" issues, people tend to use terms like "the nation was offended" or "the community is offended" - they take to speaking up for a large portion of society which they are not in communication with.
My point was equal to saying the above in regards to "hate" crimes.
When people say "this crime brings fear and/or terror to the community" or "the black/gay/jewish community is a victim" - or something else along those lines, they really have no idea what they are saying. They have no clue, and can't possibly have a clue, as to how an entire community feels about a crime.
A crime was commited against an individual, that was the victim, and that is the only victim. And we deal with crime already in our society. The community that is of the same race, religion, etc., of the individual is not the victim. That makes for good talking points, it makes for good TV news, it works great as an emotional tool, but it is not an accurate representation of anything, other than the persons opinion who said it.
"Kick a Jew day" and the "Caucasian Crew" are not free speech. They aren't making comments about "nappy hair," and they aren't putting homosexual displays of affection in the public eye. They're committing acts of violence against entire communities.
We used to have black -vs- hispanic day at our school. We would kick the shit out of each other on that day (about once a year - maybe twice) and the community had no clue, because the media never got a hold of the story. That's one point, the media and their twists.
But, we didn't have any aggression toward the community of black people, just against the kids we were fighting. Nor did I ever feel that the black kids we fought hated hispanics - most of us had friends on the other side of the fight. But it could easily have been judged the way you are seeing things (especially since we used racial epithets at each other the entire time). It could easily be seen as though it was a "hate" motivated day, where 2 races who "hate" each other would attack one another. But it wasn't like that at all, and people shouldn't get involved when they don't understand what they're dealing with. Judging cases from the outside in and trying to establish intentions and motives is a tricky game you play, and, can lead to greater problems in the future.
Even if their intentions are to commit a crime against an entire community, even if that's the case, it doesn't make the act of violence, harassment or vandalism any greater. This is an opinionated decision by people who are judging it from the outside in. People decided that its of greater consequence and that's that - its of greater consequence.
But how? How is it of greater consequence? If the best answer you can come up with is, it terrorizes and strikes fear in the entire group and thus it is of greater consequence, I think you should step back and realise that these groups feel no fear and experience no terror. And calling them out as such can makes the seem weak and inferior.
Question: Did you feel fear and terror after 911...? Did you feel like a victim too...?
I know I didn't, and I assume you didn't either.
So why would people feel that attacking a single person from a specific race/religion/etc will strike terror and fear in the entire group, when attacking 3000 people in the towers did nothing like that to any of us?
And if you notice, the only people who claimed "fear" or "terror" after 911 were those who allowed the media to dictate their feelings on the matter. Those who bought in to Bush's lies about the the terrorists. And what did that lead to? Unwarrented attacks on Muslims for no reason other than media frenzied hype - this is exactly what happens when you call something a "hate" crime and claim that it was to strike fear in the whole community - you will get unwarrented backlash from certain members of that community who don't consider themselves victims.
It is the same media hype, but this time in a PC formate, that makes people believe entire communities are being terrorized and made to feel fear when a single act of violence or harassment takes place.
It is an act of violence toward a single individual (or a few, or whatever) and the only ones victimized are those who were attacked. The attackers intentions could be whatever they want it to be, it doesn't matter and its irrelevant.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Rahvin, posted 12-02-2009 1:30 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-02-2009 6:52 PM onifre has replied
 Message 93 by Straggler, posted 12-02-2009 7:08 PM onifre has not replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 89 of 376 (538043)
12-02-2009 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Legend
12-02-2009 4:56 PM


Re: My $10,000 (and where's my change?)
First of all - Holy shmokes, what's with the nastiness?
The key to my change of view was that I had not considered the act of violence as going beyond the immediate victim
Of course! Now that you put it like that, it does makes sense: hate crimes are acts of violence going beyond the immediate victim. As opposed to other crimes of violence which affect only the the immediate victim, like.......you know..........errm..........what's its name...................help me out here!
I am sorry, I must have misspoken when I said that hate crimes are the only crimes in existence that have any effect beyond the single victim. But seriously - did you really get that from what I said? I know that pretty much all crime affects those outside of the victim(s) and perpetrators, and we tend in society to weigh penalties in some fashion upon this. I was saying that I had not really put a lot of thought into how a defined hate crime may victimize others of the target group.
Exactly. In my last post I mentioned a violent robbery that terrorised people in my village. Strangely enough, this *wasn't* classified as a hate-crime, despite the added threat to the members of the community. Can you remind me again why that happened?
And I think you raised a good point here and it is one I would love to hear discussed by people smarter than I. How do we (or can we) separate a crime that makes people in general stop going out because of fear different than a crime that stops people of color from going out because of fear?
Hate crimes are really designed to change the behavior of the target group.
Now that you say this I realise that :
- Striking postmen who verbally abused their working colleagues trying to enter the workplace were commiting a HATE CRIME as they were trying to change the behavior of the target group
- Homeowners who attack burglars in their homes are actually commiting HATE CRIMES as they're trying to change the behaviour of the burglar.
- Police attacking demonstrators in the recent London climate-change protests were trying to change the behaviour of the demonstrators, thereby commiting HATE CRIMES.
- Our soldiers currently fighting in Afghanistan are commiting HATE CRIMES as they're trying to change the behaviour of the Taliban.
This is the second time in this post you went out of your way to exaggerate something I said to make fun of me. When I first wrote this I had written "Hate crimes are really designed to change the Constitutionally protected behavior of the target group." To make it more global I deleted "Constitutionally protected" and wrote "legally protected". Then in looking it over I didn't think that was needed either as in the context of "hate crime" it seemed obvious that I was referring to an illegal act design to prevent others from engaging in legal behavior through violence and fear. Didn't cross my mind that anyone would think that I believed that anyone attempting to modify anyone's behavior in any context was committing a hate crime. But you knew that wasn't what I meant - didn't you? Rather than re-emphasize your earlier point about all violent crime terrorizing people or questions of intent versus motive it was more fun to give a fucking prick answer.
And on the issue of the laws making it worse - the flaw I see with that is that the same arguments have been used before to protect perpetrators of many crimes.
Naturally. Also, the Nazis built motorways therefore motorways are evil! Just thought I'd mention that.
WTF??!! When did the Nazis come into this? I was referring to the fact that there have been cases where wrongs have been allowed because people believed that 'stirring the pot' would only make things worse. The argument against hate crime legislation (if the viewpoint is correct) should rely on better arguments than 'it could make the situation worse'. I am sure why you accuse me of argumentum ad Hitlerum when I did no such thing and was in fact countering an appeal to consequence.

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Legend, posted 12-02-2009 4:56 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Legend, posted 12-02-2009 6:58 PM Lithodid-Man has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 90 of 376 (538045)
12-02-2009 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by 1.61803
12-02-2009 5:59 PM


Re: My $10,000 (and where's my change?)
First off, my Nazi/motorway reference was making a point to Lithodid-Man's reasoning that the arguments used to oppose hate-crime laws have also been used to defend perpetrators of crimes. Do I really need to start using [sarcasm] tags?
Hate crime legislation is meant to stigmatize the perp in addition to setting a example to other would be haters that may be comptemplating such crimes.
I understand the reasoning behind it. Do you understand that by saying this you're implying that current sentencing for the same type of crime, outside a 'hate' context, is not enough to set an example?
You're effectively saying is that if you kill someone because they're black/gay/whatever it's really bad and you need to be set as an example but if you kill someone because you like seeing what the inside of a human body looks like, then it's not quite so bad and you don't need to be set as such an example.
We as a free society can not have others amoung us selecting who lives and who dies simply based on some half baked notions of superiority.
While we can have others selecting who lives and who dies simply based on the amount of money they have, cars they drive or any other non-hate-crime related reason, right?
Hate crime legislation in my opinion is all about deterance.
So you're admitting that current sentencing for murder/assault/etc is not enough of a deterrent. Maybe you should be campaigning your local Congressman for tougher sentencing instead of supporting hate crime laws?! That way, everyone would benefit and not just targeted minorities.
I would rather deter a racist from dropping the hammer on me or my loved ones.
You may find this weird but I would rather deter *anyone* from dropping the hammer on me or my loved ones, not just racists.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by 1.61803, posted 12-02-2009 5:59 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024