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.
™ Version 4.2