Hate-crime = Thought crime?

Hi Lithodid-Man - (and Straggler, if you don't mind I'd like to get your reponse to this post too, dude) Well lets take 911 for example.It can be argued that Bin Laden's intent was to strike fear and intimidation in the hearts of all Americans by attacking us that day.However, the reality is in fact quite opposite; it caused rage in the hearts of Americans, and provoked the US to launch an all out (needlessly on-going) retaliation on Afgahnistan. In fact, Bush claimed this was being done to deter other would-be attackers.So here we have a crime, with intent to cause fear and intimidate, and we responded with a higher degree of punishment.In fact, Obamush is currently going to increase the punishment with another 40,000 troups.Is this detering terrorism or increasing the risk of more terrorist attacks? And why?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I get what you're asking, but they are not comparable.Murder is not a euphemism where as "hate" crime is. And it is that euphemisms that has the repercussions and not the act itself. Mislabelling something a muder 1 or a murder 2 does not affect at a social level, where as mislabelling it a "hate" vs simply calling it a crime, does.Its a crime, period, not a "hate" crime or any other euphemism we choose to label it as. You misunderstand.I get that other crimes, such as rape, murder, etc., do affect a persons standing in the community they live in, and if they commited the crime, then so be it. But hate crime affects the entire community at a broader level, esp when mislabeled. Now, I'm not saying that the person shouldn't be charged with a crime, and if this has a personal affect on their standing in the community then so be it, but calling it a hate crime divides the entire community which was not involved.The point that everyone, including yourself, is making is that hate crimes target every other person of that same group, and that is why it should labeled a "hate" crime and have the harsher punishment. And that's the point. People, from the outside in, are saying what the effects of a single crime has and what it is intended to do, yet there is no basis for this opinion and the results are far from accurate.So if that's the only point to a hate crime and the only reason for having harsher punishment, yet, it doesn't actually have this effect, then (1) it is pointless to signal out specific crimes, (2) the effects are indistiguishable from any other crime, (3) the only part that does affect the entire community is the labelling itself.You gain nothing, deter nothing, yet you divide communities and force them to pick a side based on their connection to the groups involved.Call it a crime, carry out the punishment if they are guilty, and don't involve any socially soothing euphemisms - they are pointless. Are you saying this was hate motivated? Says who?Are you gonna jump the gun here and say the Atlanta police specifically targeted this group for the sole purpose of them being gay? Are you gonna guess the motive behind this without letting the jury decide? Without seeing the specifics of the case, or seeing what other factors where involved?Whats your point with this story? If they found nothing, then what's your point with this story?Do you have evidence pertaining to this case that somehow changes the findings of the internal investigation? Or are you judging it from the outside in? To what? You have proven nothing with your straw man cases - in fact, you have shown exactly how public opinion is drawn without knowing any of the specifics. You prove my point.- Oni

Right, but how does it differ from any other crime, and how does treating it as simply a 'crime' make the law less effective?Also, who decides the intention behind any single crime before it goes to trail, and how does anyone know for a fact that it is due to "hate" vs any other factor...? (this is a bit rhetorical) My point is, it becomes black and white. Attack a mosque = hate crime - attack a gay bar = hate crime. But my motive and intentions could have nothing to do with my opinion of the people, respectively. So it can get misclassified. However, now there is a divide in the community for no reason other than speculation.It seems pointless to address the motive in these cases when it has no effective results.If I'm being harassed, attacked, property being vandalised, etc., what difference does it make if the person is doing it because I'm hispanic or because they just don't like me? I just want the issue resolved, and establishing the motive seems rather trivial. It should, and in a black and white world this would be easy - someone regularly vandalises a mosque, they automatically "hate" muslims - but it is never that cut and dry. No one from the outside looking in can establish that motive without a doubt, even when viewing the evidence. The motive is still subjective, and given to the case by those who do nothing more than view the evidence in black and white.Perhaps the people who go to the mosque park in my driveway every day. Maybe they act like assholes when they walk by my house and mess with my kids, or approach them and try to preach to them. Maybe I believe Bush an consider all Muslims terrorist. Maybe, maybe, maybe...There are a number of reasons why someone would hate someone else, yet this motive is irrelevant.Someone vandalised the mosque, that is the crime. And that is all the law should address. Trying to establish the "motive" is for public relation purposes only.Like with my example in high school, when we had blacks vs hispanic day; someone looking from the outside in can establish a motive that doesn't reflect the reality of the situation, yet does sound like the right motive.Again, we play a dangerous game when we try to establish motive from the outside in. There could be a number of reasons for someones actions. Fair enough. This is not "hate" ... this is the strong taking advantage of the weak - seniors do this to freshman all the time. But not one of hatred. Wait, they were being intimidated, just as the freshman get intimidated by the seniors in high school - strong dominate the weak, that's just the way it goes. But this is NOT hate, and calling it a "hate" crime is mislabelling it. Kids were taunting and tormenting weaker kids .. c'mon Straggler, this is NOT a "hate" crime.If this is a hate crime, then a wedgie to a freshman is a hate crime. How PC are we gonna get? Here again, you have NO idea what the intentions or reasons behind the attacks are ... it is a subjective interpretation of a situation from the outside in.Attempts to close a mosque down could be to build a movie theater on that real estate - who knows and who cares, it doesn't change anything. Someone commited an act of vandalism, that is what the law should take action against.What is the law supposed to do, let the community of Muslims know, "hey, here's a hate crime and we are doing something extra about it"...? It's a bogus attempt to establish a motive for PR and PC reasons. And, what if they are wrong in their interpretation? That just further raises the tension between the groups that live together. Now the Muslism in that area feel people "hate" them because of their religion, they may attack back. But it had nothing to do with hate, just some real estate douch bags that wanted their property.Do you see my point?It gets pointless and problematic to try and establish these motives. I agree, but the whole "campaign" is viewed subjectively. The fact is, the motive and intentions behind the crime is not known to anyone off-hand, nor does establishing it help in the long run help to deter "hate" crimes. So what's the point?Also, mislabelling it can have unnecessary reprecussions in the community (like claiming that those kids "hate" the disabled - or falsely claiming that a white person "hates" all black people) so it causes more harm than it helps. Pure speculation, Straggler. Yes, but the law can also create a false reality using black and white procedures. Attack a mosque = hate crime - attack a gay bar = hate crime. How does the law know that, maybe I just want their land?Now, here's the question, if my motive was real estate, should I get a lesser punishment because my motive was real estate related?See, it's all inconsistent when you break it down away from the black and white, classical "minority" outlook.If I attack a mosque on a daily basis, with classic "hate" crime actions, however, my motive is to drive them out because I want to put a movie theater in that location - in other words, I don't hate Muslims, you feel the law should be less for me.However, if another person does the exact same thing, but you can't find any other motive other than he may hate Muslims, now you feel the law should be harsher.Why...? It all seems pointless and too far to go to deter nothing in the end.- Oni

Now, was this due to the act itself, or the media-hyped aftermath that took place?People feared Muslims, they feared flying, they feared another terrorist attack - why? Because that's what the TV told them.We created the intimidation factor ourselves. Exactly.Many in the Islamic world saw things differently; many had a different opinion about the motive behind Bin Laden's actions. Yet you do not agree. The motive is subjective, right?Now, whether the motive was how you see it, or how many in the Islamic world see it, does it lessen the actions of 9/11...?Say we found out that the motive behind the attacks is because Bush himslef shot one of Bin Laden's sons ... would you then be OK with the attacks on 9/11?I would guess that you would not be - point is, the motive is irrelevant. Fuck, you almost nailed it. If the MEDIA (and by media I mean any form) can show that a certain group is trying subjugate a section of society (that in todays society has the ability to fight back) you create a never ending vendetta between two relatively equal groups. This is my whole problem with "hate" crimes. The motive is irrelevant, these are crimes and should be treated equally as any other crime regardless of the motive. Just as in my example of 9/11.- Oni

I'm not following a few things here.... Right, but carried out by who? An individual? An organization? All of the above? No. Not at all. You just described the need for the civil rights movement.What you are talking about is, should we recognize that a portion of "people" are being targeted by a larger postion of "people"... of course we should. If there is blatant racism/bigotry/whatever toward an entire group by another more powerful group, that is discrimination and we should address this with a large campaign to correct that situation.What I am talking about are specific incidents by one person to another person because there is a presumed racism or bigotry on the basis of their skin color, religion, sexual preference, etc.That is what I mean by "hate" crime.Example: Someone is vandalising the local mosque. This individual is caught. This person gets tried with a "hate" crime.It is the individual that goes to trail, period. The law...? That depends on what you mean by "the law"...?Should cops recognize that there is tension between two, or many, groups living together, competing for jobs, apartments, a place in society - that there may be resentment, jealousy, contempt toward individual groups that have had history before? Yes, cops should consider this.Should the judicial system consider this...? NoThey are there to judge the case individually. They are there to see if you broke the law, regardless of motive. Lawyers can address motive to get a guilty verdict if they like, good, that's their job. But the law has no need for motive.What I mean by "law" is the punishment that we give the individuals who have been convicted of the alledged "hate" crime - since this is the only place the "law" is relevant. It is there to give a harsher punishment for the purpose of deterence - which it does not do.What should be done is a campaign by elected officials, community leaders and the community itself, to address and try to resolve the tension before it becomes a bigger problem. That's how you fix things, not by signalling out the crimes as "worse" and inflicting a harsher punishment, nor by giving it the euphamism "hate crime"as though it means something significant.Problem is, these things actually require an investment to the cause, a comitment to fix the situation, instead of just pilling on more prison time. Its easy to pill on the extra prison time and turn our backs on it as though something was accomplished. I'm not saying the law shouldn't address the incident, and pursue those who commited the offence and place them on trail, but don't call it anything different - don't give it a pointless, useless euphemism - it doesn't help - and, mislabelling it can cause more tension. Yes - Treat them as though they pissed and graffitied up a brickwall. How do you think it helps to treat it otherwise?Its as though you want the law to show prejudice on specific walls. That is not the job of "the law," that is up to the people in the community, that is the job of the elected officials of the town. Not the "law". It could be for any reason - it doesn't matter in regards to the law and how punishment should me administered.And again you use the word "vulnerable" as though a specific individual or group in society is any more vulnerable than any other ... this does NOT represent our current society. You introduce that word as though it makes the crime worse. It does not. Because it makes the law itself look prejudice toward any one act -vs- any other. Vandalism is vandalism, the punishment for it should be equal across the board. This is the job of "the law." Now the elected officals, community leaders, etc., should address the issues in their towns. Punishing someone harder doesn't deter it from happening again.- Oni

Ok. But it seems like you are using the word "bigot" quite losely. Then choose your words carefully, because that's what it sounds like.You said: "If many Hispanics in a predominantly **insert race of choice here** neighbourhood are being blatantly targeted by the wider community in an effort to remove them..."You describe the exact same scenario that lead up to the civil rights movement. Exchange hispanic with 'black' and you're describing America a few years back. Well sure, but lets get real. Except for your special needs school, which I do not consider it a crime motivated by "hate," who are predominantly the "minorities" in question? Right, and I agree.But this is not due to a "hatred" toward these groups, there are many other factors to consider. Immigration problems, lack of work, competion for these jobs, etc. You continue to look at it from the outside in.This is why I say that a harsher punishment does absolutely nothing, all it does is give the false sense that something is being done to deter the actions of these few bigots. Then you are not truly interested in resolving it, and are satified knowing that they're gonna get a harsher punishment. Personally I feel this is a dismisive attitude. Exactly, but yet the "law" takes it upon themselves to try and demonstrate it. You are on trail for a hate crime whether the intent was there or not.This is where there can be repercusions in the community, when crimes get labelled "hate" crimes. If this is an issue in a small town between a black person and a white person, mislabelling it a hate crime can have grave ramifications. In the trail, sure. But how can you ask the law to inflict a harsher punishment on the individual? This is letting your personal emotions get in the way. The person is on trail for what they did, not for what else is happening around them. How well is that war on drugs doing? Since they use this exact same strategy as you propose.Maybe if we increase the jail sentence more for drug offenders it will deter people from selling drugs? ... Bad idea Straggler, both for drugs and to deter crimes motivated by "hate". Thats the point though. With the laws in place, that do nothing other than give more jail time to someone, it gives the false sense that something is being done, so no other action is taken.There is no long term plan. The plan is, increase the sentence and that should resolve the issue. But it doesn't. Right, it is a component when convicting, but it should not weigh in for the punishment. Motive and intent is used by the lawyers to get a conviction. If there is a full scale campaign to intimidate a group of people, the reasons are just "I hate them," there is a bigger issue at hand. You can sentence people to life in prison and you will not resolve the real issue.I'd like to know however where this is taking place? All I ever see are isolated incidents. Maybe repeat incidents in the same places, but its not comparable to what blacks went through, or what gays go through with marriage issues.At least where I live, gay bars are not being burned down everyday, not even once every few months. I don't see churches burned down everyday in a localised area, or a race of people being violently attacked everyday.There is an issue with Musilms in your country, from what I've read, but if you hear the arguments from the side opposed to them being there, it has nothing to do with pure "hate". You must admit, there are other factors involved. It never is, not these days. And if you do successfully prove it, then what? You issue the person a harsher punishment, lock them up, throw away the key and feel as though something was done? That's a dismisive attitude. Can you give me one other example where this was an effective measure to take?My example on the war on drugs shows differently. Intent and motive are key components in convictions, yes, and that is the only place where they are key components.- Oni

Not at all. I get all this. I understand completely how you're viewing it.I just see no point in "hate" crime laws. If their purpose is to deter the actions from ever happening again and they don't then they are useless. If they are set up for the purpose of punishing people harsher, then the law is bias. Under any circumstance, any scenario, for any "group."The law is bogus. I believe you, I just don't see how punishing someone harsher for these actions makes any sense. Because I didn't. I cited the one that was relevant to what I was saying. In the context that you explained it, it was similar to the actions that lead up to the civil rights movement. Thats all I was saying, and I said I agreed with you that on a wider scale these things should be addressed. The only thing we disagree on is the means to address them. Punishing someone harsher because of motive is not what the law is supposed to do, no matter how much the action displeases anyone. Vandalism is vandalism, period. The law does not show a bias toward any single act of vandalism, however, if it is found that there is a larger scale problem, then it is up to the community (not the law) to take action. That is how things get solved, not through more prison time. You keep saying that, but how do you think it should do that? Just by increasing the sentencing? Not only is that NOT the job of the law, it doesn't effectively address the problems. Hate crime laws do none of that - if you think they do, then explain how? I recoginze this as your argument, my point is how are they effective? In what way? If as a deterent then give examples. Show me one other area where harsher punishment works as a deterent.As I have pointed out with my example of drugs, more punishment does nothing - people find a way. However, on the contrary, harsher punishments can give the illusion that something is being done, so no other means to fix it will be looked at.If someone askes, "hey, how can we deter people from being bigots?" the answer will be "don't worry, we just punish them harder."Solves nothing. That is done through community actions, not with the law, and especially not through the use of harsher punishment. You are missing my point, I recognize the need to address this, but punishing someone harsher does not address this. In fact, it works opposite in that it gives the illusion that we addressed it.The problems still continue. Sorry bro, but thats bullshit. Nobody buys weed from hardcore sellers, they buy it from the dude that lives in their apartment.It scares no one, just look at the statistics. You can't protect society until you set up an actual, workable system to deter the problems - hate crime laws do nothing of the sort.Not to mention the fact that taking motive into consideration when punishing is not the job of the law.Gotta run, I'll hit the rest later.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

That's what I mean too. Sorry for starting in the middle, but I never said this. I agree wholeheartedly that law and punishment is a required elemnet in any civil society.Now that we got that out of the way... It's interesting that you say this. I have argued in this forum, along side you and others of our shared belief, that it is slightly pathetic for people to claim they only do good, and have morality, ethic, etc., because there is a watchdog in the sky that will punish them for breaking his laws.And yet, in this case, you are taking the same approach as some faithfuls in saying that you don't become a drug mule, or become a complete chaotic social lunatic simply (and in all honesty, as you put it) because the punishment for these actions are too strict.Do you truly stand by that? As the old saying goes, Locks are only there to keep honest people out. I totally agree with this - and this is where such things as hate crime laws come into play. Hate crime laws make it easy for community leaders to ignore that class of society that may be prone to aggression, because, like I have repeatedly stated, they make it seem as though something is being done. Hey even Rocky and Apollo threw a few punches at each other. If we were having this discussion in a bar, at this point we'd both be completely intoxicated and looking for some bigots to beat the shit out of. - Oni

There should be a punishment, yes, but not more if you raped 'cause you were horny instead of raping because you were abused as a child and have resentment toward women. But punishing the person for the crime instead of the motive also imposes said moral standard. We have laws to punish already. Yes, you are sending someone to jail. But because their motive was defined by the court as "hate" this person gets extra time - that's all that gets done. I think this is the inherent nature of the system.It takes investing time and effort, it takes money and concern, it takes true dedication to get these issues resolved. But its easier to create the euphemism "hate crime" and increase the punishment, and pretend that an effort is being made.That is my problem with these euphamisms, their just bandaids on the problem because those responsible lack the desire to really resolve the issues. And then people speak up for the law as though it was a good thing. It really isn't a good thing when the law was created so that nothing else had to be done.If the mosque gets vandalised and those responsible get caught and sentenced, then, the next month someone else does it and the following month another person does it - everyone getting caught and sentenced - yet the on-going campaign continues, there is obviously a bigger problem in the works.Instead of dealing with these problems, law makers simply increase the jail time for the offenders. There, problem solved.Its a cop-out and we shouldn't be proud of a system like that. That's right, its Friday! Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!!!- Oni

The rich upper class....- Oni

So you add more of a penalty to an individual who commited a single crime because of the feelings the rest of the targeted group may or may not be experiencing? How does anyone know what the community is feeling?Sounds a bit shitty to me. How can you possibly know the feelings of an entire group? Fair enough, it is two seperate crimes. And there is punishment for harassment, vandalism, etc. The hate crime laws don't cover some unregulated crimes in society. Everything the hate crimes are said to address is already addressed in regular laws. And you know for a fact that the black community trembles in fear if a cross burns in another black persons house, while the white community feels nothing when a cross burns in a white persons house?Are you saying this as fact, or is this your opinion? Yes, you'd have a group of people murdering another group of people. How could you possibly know the feelings of an entire community?- Oni

Yes, actually. Because I believe everyone can be reformed when properly taught the error of their ways, not just locked up and forgotten about. And what are you using as evidence to support this, or is this your opinion? Yes, I would be very opposed to a law that prohibited speech of any kind. Luckly in the US we have freedom of speech. Like what the government of China did to the Tibetans...like that? Yes, I am very much opposed to that, but I don't know how it's relevant. If you are saying that the community has already decided that for example, a cross burning in a black persons house strikes fear in the rest of the black community - then I'd like to see the evidence.- Oni

Currently...? Because historically it did, when blacks actually feared the white man. When there was a clear intimidation. When they were second class citizens.This is, trust me, not the current opinon. Yes I agree. Which is why I think current 'evidence' is relevant, not the evidence from the 50's.- Oni

Now I see the reason you guys want to preserve these laws White Americans' majority to end by mid-century- Oni

Hi Straggler,I have some free time again, so I'll jump back in the ring with you.... How can this be proven without applying subjectivity? IOW, how can you evidence this "wide scale intent" from a single act of violence/vandalism/etc. to a single victim?If I vandalize a mosque, repeatedly, are you saying the law could then try to prove that my large scale intent was to intimidate the entire Islamic community?- Oni