Hate Crime Laws

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Same ones that have already been mentioned. The difference between manslaughter, third degree murder, and first degree murder is almost entirely based upon your state of mind while killing someone.

No they don't, at least not to the degree you seem to think. Negligence, planning before the fact, and general intent are tangibles, and as such can be discovered. What's in our noodles at any given time simply can't be known (short of a confession, and even then...), at least not with any true veracity. And you didn't answer the question: Specifically, what crimes can one be convicted of that hinge exclusively on frame of mind, and still be thought of as beneficial in a supposedly enlightened and free society. I know my question jumps smartly into a mindfield of individual interpretation, BTW.

In short, your state of mind while committing a crime is extremely extremely relevant.

Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence)

"Some level" doesn't equate to "extremely extremely relevant", at least not to me. VERY interesting link. Thanks!

I'd just like to say that premediation does not require any prior planning and is frequently determined on a basis that isn't super reliant on concrete evidence. In a good number of states it takes only a second or two before the murder to be considered premeditation. It's sort of scary actually. (not that I plan on murdering anyone, but still)

Anyways, I want to thank you for some actual decent posts disagreeing with someone on here, and your attempt to actually argue the issue. I've just done it too many times to do it again right now. Just wanted to say thanks though, as I feel that no reasonable post on here should go unappreciated. They're rare enough as it is.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: teclis1023
People here seem to be making it out that any time an interracial crime is committed, liberals try to brand it as a hate crime. Not true.

The fact that they CAN brand ANY interacial crime a hate crime is reason enough to get rid of them.

The vast majority of crimes tried are branded simply as crimes. It takes special circumstances for a court to recognize a crime as falling under 'hate crime legislation'.

The example of that woman who was kidnapped and tortured is a great example. Six white people captured a black woman, tortured and raped her in the basement and continued to slam her with racial slurs. Maybe they just wanted a random person, but the bottom line is that they didn't capture a white person, they captured a black person.

You just said it takes "special circumstances", then you said the bottom line is that the victim was a black person... wheres those special circumstances again? You know its possible a "random" person just might end up being black...

 

[Genx87]

Is it possible for me to be charged with a hate crime if I beat up a member of my own ethnicity?

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Is it possible for me to be charged with a hate crime if I beat up a member of my own ethnicity?

Probably depends on your motive. If they can establish that you performed the crime due to your hatred for that particular race, or sex, or orientation, then I don't see why you couldn't. A white man killing a gay white man because the perpetrator hates gays doesn't exclude him/her from being prosecuted for a hate crime.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
As far as I know, hate crimes are the only written laws that specifically regard motive. They actually presuppose a motive while other laws require motive to be vetted out during trial. That's one third of a conviction (means, motive, and opportunity), and with a hate crime it's already "established" when the trial starts, effectively bypassing judge and jury. These laws go beyond the realm of punishing crime, they are legislation against thought.

QFT. Well said, G.

No it isn't. If you charge someone with first degree murder versus third degree you're equally taking motive into account and "presupposing" it.

Originally posted by: Train
You just said it takes "special circumstances", then you said the bottom line is that the victim was a black person... wheres those special circumstances again? You know its possible a "random" person just might end up being black...

It's possible. And to prove that it was a hate crime, you have to prove that the victim's group was a motivating factor in the crime. People here seem to be claiming that you can charge any person with a hate crime and that it'll automatically stick. You have to prove hate crimes just like any other one. It's actually a very hard crime to prove which is why prosecutors rarely attempt it. Basically the person has to admit to some witness that they're targeting the victim based on race.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
As far as I know, hate crimes are the only written laws that specifically regard motive. They actually presuppose a motive while other laws require motive to be vetted out during trial. That's one third of a conviction (means, motive, and opportunity), and with a hate crime it's already "established" when the trial starts, effectively bypassing judge and jury. These laws go beyond the realm of punishing crime, they are legislation against thought.

QFT. Well said, G.

No it isn't. If you charge someone with first degree murder versus third degree you're equally taking motive into account and "presupposing" it.

Degrees of murder are based on intent and premeditation, not motive. They are not the same thing.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
As far as I know, hate crimes are the only written laws that specifically regard motive. They actually presuppose a motive while other laws require motive to be vetted out during trial. That's one third of a conviction (means, motive, and opportunity), and with a hate crime it's already "established" when the trial starts, effectively bypassing judge and jury. These laws go beyond the realm of punishing crime, they are legislation against thought.

QFT. Well said, G.

No it isn't. If you charge someone with first degree murder versus third degree you're equally taking motive into account and "presupposing" it.

Degrees of murder are based on intent and premeditation, not motive. They are not the same thing.

I don't see the functional difference, it all goes into "why" they committed the crime. It's also just a best guess. You also have to prove that assertion in court. To decide on a degree of murder you take all the evidence you have of why they chose to committed murder, make your best guess, and then charge them accordingly. Same thing you're doing for a hate crime. You also have just as much room to be wrong. Couldn't the prosecutor believe something was premeditated when it was actually spur of the moment, and vice-versa?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Train
what about crimes by the self loathing type moonie keeps telling us about? Those would be hate crimes too right?

Just add hate crimes to the extremely long list of unconstitutional bullshit shoved down our throats by the left using some twisted PC interpretation of what they think is good for society.

So trying to discourage crimes motivated by bigotry is a "twisted PC interpretation of what [the left] thinks is good for society"? Considering the extremely long list of examples of what you get when racial/religious/etc hatred goes unchecked, I don't think it's too unreasonable to try to limit that kind of behavior. What specifically is your objection?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
As far as I know, hate crimes are the only written laws that specifically regard motive. They actually presuppose a motive while other laws require motive to be vetted out during trial. That's one third of a conviction (means, motive, and opportunity), and with a hate crime it's already "established" when the trial starts, effectively bypassing judge and jury. These laws go beyond the realm of punishing crime, they are legislation against thought.

QFT. Well said, G.

No it isn't. If you charge someone with first degree murder versus third degree you're equally taking motive into account and "presupposing" it.

Degrees of murder are based on intent and premeditation, not motive. They are not the same thing.

I don't see the functional difference, it all goes into "why" they committed the crime. It's also just a best guess. You also have to prove that assertion in court. To decide on a degree of murder you take all the evidence you have of why they chose to committed murder, make your best guess, and then charge them accordingly. Same thing you're doing for a hate crime. You also have just as much room to be wrong. Couldn't the prosecutor believe something was premeditated when it was actually spur of the moment, and vice-versa?

It's up to the judge and jury to decide if those things (the "why's") have a relevant bearing on the outcome of a trial. Hate crime legislation bypasses this by its very nature. Granted our jury system is far, far from perfect, but any legislation that takes power away from the jury is IMO bad legislation.

It's a bit of a tangent, but there are a lot of bad laws that put juries in tough spots. Convict someone that probably does deserve to go to jail on a bad law and it validates the bad law. Choose not to convict because it's a bad law and potentially let someone who really ought to go to jail walk free. Plus there is a lot of judicial influence that coerces juries into thinking that they don't even have this choice to make. IMO our judicial system would be a lot fairer to everyone if these issues were addressed instead of trying to use band-aid legislation and coercion to try and bypass them.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
As far as I know, hate crimes are the only written laws that specifically regard motive. They actually presuppose a motive while other laws require motive to be vetted out during trial. That's one third of a conviction (means, motive, and opportunity), and with a hate crime it's already "established" when the trial starts, effectively bypassing judge and jury. These laws go beyond the realm of punishing crime, they are legislation against thought.

QFT. Well said, G.

No it isn't. If you charge someone with first degree murder versus third degree you're equally taking motive into account and "presupposing" it.

Degrees of murder are based on intent and premeditation, not motive. They are not the same thing.

I don't see the functional difference, it all goes into "why" they committed the crime. It's also just a best guess. You also have to prove that assertion in court. To decide on a degree of murder you take all the evidence you have of why they chose to committed murder, make your best guess, and then charge them accordingly. Same thing you're doing for a hate crime. You also have just as much room to be wrong. Couldn't the prosecutor believe something was premeditated when it was actually spur of the moment, and vice-versa?

It's up to the judge and jury to decide if those things (the "why's") have a relevant bearing on the outcome of a trial. Hate crime legislation bypasses this by its very nature. Granted our jury system is far, far from perfect, but any legislation that takes power away from the jury is IMO bad legislation.

It's a bit of a tangent, but there are a lot of bad laws that put juries in tough spots. Convict someone that probably does deserve to go to jail on a bad law and it validates the bad law. Choose not to convict because it's a bad law and potentially let someone who really ought to go to jail walk free. Plus there is a lot of judicial influence that coerces juries into thinking that they don't even have this choice to make. IMO our judicial system would be a lot fairer to everyone if these issues were addressed instead of trying to use band-aid legislation and coercion to try and bypass them.

How do you feel about mandatory minimums?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
As far as I know, hate crimes are the only written laws that specifically regard motive. They actually presuppose a motive while other laws require motive to be vetted out during trial. That's one third of a conviction (means, motive, and opportunity), and with a hate crime it's already "established" when the trial starts, effectively bypassing judge and jury. These laws go beyond the realm of punishing crime, they are legislation against thought.

QFT. Well said, G.

No it isn't. If you charge someone with first degree murder versus third degree you're equally taking motive into account and "presupposing" it.

Degrees of murder are based on intent and premeditation, not motive. They are not the same thing.

I don't see the functional difference, it all goes into "why" they committed the crime. It's also just a best guess. You also have to prove that assertion in court. To decide on a degree of murder you take all the evidence you have of why they chose to committed murder, make your best guess, and then charge them accordingly. Same thing you're doing for a hate crime. You also have just as much room to be wrong. Couldn't the prosecutor believe something was premeditated when it was actually spur of the moment, and vice-versa?

It's up to the judge and jury to decide if those things (the "why's") have a relevant bearing on the outcome of a trial. Hate crime legislation bypasses this by its very nature. Granted our jury system is far, far from perfect, but any legislation that takes power away from the jury is IMO bad legislation.

It's a bit of a tangent, but there are a lot of bad laws that put juries in tough spots. Convict someone that probably does deserve to go to jail on a bad law and it validates the bad law. Choose not to convict because it's a bad law and potentially let someone who really ought to go to jail walk free. Plus there is a lot of judicial influence that coerces juries into thinking that they don't even have this choice to make. IMO our judicial system would be a lot fairer to everyone if these issues were addressed instead of trying to use band-aid legislation and coercion to try and bypass them.

How do you feel about mandatory minimums?

I'm not a fan if anything that takes power away from the jury (or presiding judge in that case). Especially when the system is set to purposely keep such information from jurors. IMO jurors should be made fully aware of any sentencing guidelines or madates relating to the case before them, as well as be informed of their ability to nullify. I honestly can't see how we can call our system a "justice" system without that.

How much "help" from the government should 12 average people need to render a fair decision?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
As far as I know, hate crimes are the only written laws that specifically regard motive. They actually presuppose a motive while other laws require motive to be vetted out during trial. That's one third of a conviction (means, motive, and opportunity), and with a hate crime it's already "established" when the trial starts, effectively bypassing judge and jury. These laws go beyond the realm of punishing crime, they are legislation against thought.

QFT. Well said, G.

No it isn't. If you charge someone with first degree murder versus third degree you're equally taking motive into account and "presupposing" it.

Added by Fern - No. If your motive was to kill them because you wanted money, or because they cheated on you - it doesn't matter under the law. The "quality" of your motive is irrelevant (unless self defense).

Degrees of murder are based on intent and premeditation, not motive. They are not the same thing.

I don't see the functional difference, it all goes into "why" they committed the crime. It's also just a best guess. You also have to prove that assertion in court. To decide on a degree of murder you take all the evidence you have of why they chose to committed murder, make your best guess, and then charge them accordingly. Same thing you're doing for a hate crime. You also have just as much room to be wrong. Couldn't the prosecutor believe something was premeditated when it was actually spur of the moment, and vice-versa?

No, intent, premeditation and motive are different things.

If you didn't have "intent" or malice, AFAIK you didn't commit murder, but manslaughter (different states have diff laws and definitions). In some places this will be 3rd degree murder.

If you had intent and malice, but no premeditaion (heat of the moment thingy), generally you've got 2nd degree murder.

If you've got intent, malice & premeditation, it's 1st degree ("in cold blood").

But nowhere in the above is your motive central to the crime (other than legitimate self defence claims).

For example, if your motive was that the other person was sleeping with your spouse, the classificiation of the crime is unaffected in the statute.

The same if your motive was that the other person scammed you or insulted you etc.

Now, however, if it's believed that your motive included a dislike of their race etc, that constuitutes a new crime.

Some here are confusing "motive" with "intent". The existance of a "motive" can be used to help prove "intent", but the two are not the same. It is possible to have "motive" but lack intent (in an accidental death). But if there is "intent" there is always a "motive" (even if a lame one, or insane one).

Because I'm bored, I'll belabor the point

Above you wrote: "it all goes into "why" they committed the crime."

By saying it's a "crime", you have already established "malice" & "intent". You may have used "motive" to help establish or prove "intent", but otherwise we're done with it under the law (other than cases of self defense). The "hate crime" statutes change that.

Many us cannot understand why killing us for our money is not as bad as killing us because of our race etc.

What public policy is to be served by sending notice that killing people for money is not as bad as killing people because of race? Are not private property rights exceedingly important is our democratic society and a fundamental pillar of our governmental philosophy?

So, it's a thought crime, and the "public policy" argument is disengenous. All murder is bad for public policy.

Fern

Fern

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Considering the extremely long list of examples of what you get when racial/religious/etc hatred goes unchecked, I don't think it's too unreasonable to try to limit that kind of behavior. What specifically is your objection?

There's also a long list of negative consequences that can come from an all-powerful government bent on dishing out vengeance repackaged as justice.

My objection to hate crime statutes? First, I think it's important to mention that I don't subscribe to the idea that the state should "do something, anything" when confronted with what emotional hand-wringers see as adversity. This school of thought brought us dismal failures like the War on Drugs(tm). Do blacks really need to have their already protected status enhanced? IMO, no. Efforts to further augment that status are simply counter-productive, on many levels, and position us as perpetual victims, both in terms of how we perceive ourselves and how we're viewed by society at large.

If the government wants to address the situation in a positive way it need do no more than ensure equal protection under the law, for all citizens.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Considering the extremely long list of examples of what you get when racial/religious/etc hatred goes unchecked, I don't think it's too unreasonable to try to limit that kind of behavior. What specifically is your objection?

There's also a long list of negative consequences that can come from an all-powerful government bent on dishing out vengeance repackaged as justice.

My objection to hate crime statutes? First, I think it's important to mention that I don't subscribe to the idea that the state should "do something, anything" when confronted with what emotional hand-wringers see as adversity. This school of thought brought us dismal failures like the War on Drugs(tm). Do blacks really need to have their already protected status enhanced? IMO, no. Efforts to further augment that status are simply counter-productive, on many levels, and position us as perpetual victims, both in terms of how we perceive ourselves and how we're viewed by society at large.

If the government wants to address the situation in a positive way it need do no more than ensure equal protection under the law, for all citizens.

It's NOT vengeance, that's the whole point...it serves a very real purpose to help deter a very real problem. I'm not talking about vengeance or justice, I'm talking about a system that deals fairly with the problems society faces. Pretending that violent bigotry isn't one of those problems seems less than constructive.

But for what it's worth, I do NOT support "special treatment" for anyone. I think hate crime laws should be just that, they should be completely agnostic to the characteristics of the victim and the criminals. I think black people committing crimes against white people for racial reasons should be punished just as much as when it's the other way around. The goal isn't to protect some victim class, it's to discourage violence on the basis of bigotry in all its forms.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
It's NOT vengeance, that's the whole point...it serves a very real purpose to help deter a very real problem.

With all due respect, I don't need you to tell me what is or isn't a REAL problem when it comes to race relations in the US. The implementation of hate crime laws is vengeance in a fairly pure form. They're designed to appease hyper-vocal types and nothing more.

I'm not talking about vengeance or justice, I'm talking about a system that deals fairly with the problems society faces.

Well I am talking about justice. The US would be a much better place if we all had a firm grounding in what fundemental justice is.

Pretending that violent bigotry isn't one of those problems seems less than constructive.

Just who do you think is pretending any such thing, Rainsford?

But for what it's worth, I do NOT support "special treatment" for anyone.

But you do support special victim status under the law?

I think hate crime laws should be just that, they should be completely agnostic to the characteristics of the victim and the criminals.

Then you want slightly increased penalties for all violent criminal behavior?

I think black people committing crimes against white people for racial reasons should be punished just as much as when it's the other way around. The goal isn't to protect some victim class, it's to discourage violence on the basis of bigotry in all its forms.

And in thinking so you're willfully ignoring the forrest because a few tree's are blocking your line-of-sight. I don't want to see the state in the business of discouraging anything. It would be much better for all of us if they occupied themselves with punishing people for the dumb shit that they actually do, as opposed to trying to visit motives.

 

[maluckey]

Fern,

:thumbsup: You get it. I agree wholly with you last post.

Others,

I hear fronm some here that these laws are designed to prevent crime. BS. These laws keep the honest people honest. Even the US supreme Court has ruled that police cannot be held responsible to prevent crime. About the only deterrrent would be that the supposed perpetrator (if he even gets a fair trial in the witch-hunt) will no longer be able to commit more such crimes.

Murder has been a crime for over 4000 years. Written records to support this even. Have murder rates fallen off?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: maluckey

Murder has been a crime for over 4000 years. Written records to support this even. Have murder rates fallen off?

You have a logical fallacy here - the assumption, incorrect, that the only variable in the murder rate is the law against murder. But there are other variables, too.

The better question is whether the murder laws have made things better than they'd be without the laws, as far as we can figure that out.

To bring the issue back to the topic specifically, there were murder laws throughout our nation's history - but few convictions for the thousands of lynched blacks a century ago.

While there were laws on the books, the 'murder rate' for that 'hate crime' was far higher then than now, and it had a lot to do with other factors than the murder law, such as the cultural racism and its resulting problem that even if you could get the white law enforcement to charge someone, it was a problem to find 12 mostly white jurors where at least one would not refuse to vote 'guilty', denying blacks justice in a way that was very hard for the system to fight. The example helps illustrate the issue is more complex.

Until it's a crime to merely think these things, the charge that these laws are 'thought laws' is wrong.

I understand the concerns from the other side; this does seem somewhat novel ground, and it raises issues about why to say killing someone for their race is worse than killing them for other nefarious motives. But our society does have some right to 'take a stand' and 'send a message' against the problems behind these crimes; just as committing a robbery with a knife gets less punishment than with a gun, even though both are pretty much the same in principle, both able to kill people, simply because guns are such a problem.

When the idea gets abused, I'll oppose those examples.

 

[agentbad]

unconstitutional just like affirmative action.

 

[maluckey]

To bring the issue back to the topic specifically, there were murder laws throughout our nation's history - but few convictions for the thousands of lynched blacks a century ago.

Yet oddly enough (given your position)....the minority got their rights by public attention and enforcing Constitutional, not criminal laws. All Men are created equal rings a bell for me. Until congress can show me where one group is to be held above another..it should continue to apply.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Genx87
Is it possible for me to be charged with a hate crime if I beat up a member of my own ethnicity?

Probably depends on your motive. If they can establish that you performed the crime due to your hatred for that particular race, or sex, or orientation, then I don't see why you couldn't. A white man killing a gay white man because the perpetrator hates gays doesn't exclude him/her from being prosecuted for a hate crime.

What if I beat up a white man because he is white and I am white?

 

[maluckey]

What if I beat up a white man because he is white and I am white?

Good question. Is hate any less disgusting if it is against a similar race and religion? It's still hate motivated no matter how you cut it (or cut them for that matter).

Hate legislation would likely not address this. Most of the time it is a feel-good law meant to cover limited circumstances.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: maluckey

What if I beat up a white man because he is white and I am white?

Good question. Is hate any less disgusting if it is against a similar race and religion? It's still hate motivated no matter how you cut it (or cut them for that matter).

Hate legislation would likely not address this. Most of the time it is a feel-good law meant to cover limited circumstances.

oddly enough, something similar to this is starting trial in NY...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyregion/18plumb.html

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: maluckey

What if I beat up a white man because he is white and I am white?

Good question. Is hate any less disgusting if it is against a similar race and religion? It's still hate motivated no matter how you cut it (or cut them for that matter).

Hate legislation would likely not address this. Most of the time it is a feel-good law meant to cover limited circumstances.

Exactly right!

 

[maluckey]

oddly enough, something similar to this is starting trial in NY...

Funny! Now what are they going to do? I guess that they will take the Moonbeam approach that the attacker hated himself (thus keeping it a hate crime) and because of his inner hate, projected it onto another gay man.

So I hate myself so much that I lashed out at anyone that reminded me of myself:roll: