Hate Crimes

[Scar Face]

I'm wondering what you all think of the idea of Hate Crimes, restriction on freedom of speech on that related topic, etc etc.

[Barry Goldwater]

Hate crimes are stupid: if a gay man is beaten up and his attacker is caught, then you should charge that attacker with assault - don't charge him because the man he beat up was gay!
________
Wholesale vaporizer

[Pallantides]

Hate crimes are stupid: if a gay man is beaten up and his attacker is caught, then you should charge that attacker with assault - don't charge him because the man he beat up was gay!

If his sexuality was the motive for the attack, then it is a hate crime.

[wilting]

The important question is whether or not hate crime laws work, not if they 'make sense'.

The question, and its a factual question, is:

1) Do they reduce the levels of 'hate' in society?

2) Do they reduce the level of crime in society?

3) Do they have any negative effects on society?

Opinions on whether or not the laws are 'good' or 'bad' are meaningless.

[Scar Face]

Opinions on whether or not the laws are 'good' or 'bad' are meaningless.

Laws reflect the morality of its society, so no they are not meaningless.

[Viking Prince]

The important question is whether or not hate crime laws work, not if they 'make sense'.

I think that you are mistaken.

First, there is no effective measure to determine whether they work.

Second, because I cannot read what is in your mind.

Third, I you believe in free speech and thoughts are clearly speech -- you need a firmer foundation to restrict than simply that it might work.

ЯoMe kb8 has it fairly correct though I would be even more suspicous of the application of such laws.

[Каие]

We've got three threads on this area already man. But I'll answer anyway, Hate crime legislation is poorly applied and although I think the concept is advantageous I do not agree with how our governments deal with it. A man should be prosecuted for the crime itself, with intentions carefully weighed in sentencing, not the other way around and prosecuted due to intention and the crime added in later.

If that makes sense.

[Oglethorpe1983]

Nothing I could say...could be said better then this... as sad as this is...this isnt fiction...its reality

[Dr. Croccer]

Depends. If a guy shot a guy for purely, say, accidental reasons, like in a bank robbery, and the latter happened to be, say, black, then he shouldn't get a longer sentence than usual. But if a known Neo-Nazi skull s a bunch of skinned black corpses he killed earlier, give him 10 extra years. Not because he hates blacks but because he's a danger to society because of that hate. It's the same reason we arrest terrorists, it's not because they're Muslim, but because they're fanatics and ergo have killed people and ergo are a threat to society and ergo should be imprisoned.

[MasterOfNone]

Hate is an attitude, and is not a crime.

I agree with The Man. When we start applying such unjust laws it makes people unequal before the law and stirs up the kind of resentment the law aimed to defeat in the first place.

I really cannot see how anyone with any sense would support such laws.

[Incontinenta Buttox]

I'm wondering what you all think of the idea of Hate Crimes, restriction on freedom of speech on that related topic, etc etc.

It's bollocks.

I don't understand why hate crimes are worse than any other crime. Why is a racist murder so much worse than any other murder? The victim is just as dead after all.

Crime is crime.

[Copperknickers II]

Hate is a crime in itself. We need to show that it is not acceptable, therefore it is obvious that whilst you get punished for assualting/murdering etc, someone, you also get punished for hating them because they are homosexual, black, or for any reason that is unprovoked.

[Scar Face]

Hate is a crime in itself.

Uhhh....kinda getting close to thought crimes, dont ya think?

[the Black Prince]

I agree with The Man. When we start applying such unjust laws it makes people unequal before the law and stirs up the kind of resentment the law aimed to defeat in the first place.

Err how?

Hate crimes don't make it a crime to hate gay people. A hate crime is not a separate offence tacked on at the end. You're not charged with assault and with racial hatred, you're charged with racially aggravated assault.

Hate crime is a misleading term. No one is saying its illegal to go around being sexist, only to act on it.

Hate crimes guarantee that the malice used in selecting the victim of the offence is punished as much as the physical action.

Hate crimes are good and here is why.

Under law, if you're victim is a vulnerable person, then the fact that you preyed on the vulnerable makes your offence worse and will attract a higher sentence. Vulnerability is a statutory aggravating factor.

Now, most minority/protected groups are considered vulnerable for the purposes of the statute. Preying on women, the elderly or gay people would automatically attract a higher sentence with or without hate crimes.

But hate crime legislation does not discriminate. Under the vulnerability laws, preying on an old person, a woman or a gay person is an aggravating feature. the opposite is not true.

Hate crime laws work both ways. Its not a worse offence if you target black people or gay people, its a worse offence if you target people on the basis of race or sexuality. So among the first people charged with a racially aggravated assault were a group of black people who beat up a white teenager.

[Viking Prince]

Err how?

Hate crimes don't make it a crime to hate gay people. A hate crime is not a separate offence tacked on at the end. You're not charged with assault and with racial hatred, you're charged with racially aggravated assault.

You are in error -- In Colorado and in Wyoming the crime is a seperate offense and it is really a device to allow piling on by the DA. It is also politically charged and ths impossible to lose the charge in a plea deal. I would still oppose if it was an add on chatge. It should only be a factor in sentencing. Hate crime legislation is simply a very polite way to legislate against speech. This may be popular, but it is not right.

[Scar Face]

tBP: You dont really talk to many people if you don't think hate crimes create anger and resentment. They reaffirm already existing divisions, and as I said, create anger. Not even those for hate crime laws deny this, because its in common knowledge.

[the Black Prince]

@Viking Prince,

I'm not in error, i'm just talking about a more superior legal system, that's all.

Scar Face, i was refuting the fact that hate crimes make people unequal before the law, because they do not. A hate crime is not a crime that can only be perpetrated by a person of a majority group against a protected minority group, the crime can be committed by anyone.

Part of the anger and resentment issue is because most people don't realise it, and opponents of hate crime capitalise on it.

I have in fact talked to many people about law and order, its my favourite brief to discuss when i'm canvassing. most people believe hate crimes protect minorities. that you get punished more if you attack a black person than a white person. Most people also don't believe me when i say this is not the case. You get punished more if your attack was racially motivated, regardless of whether it was white on black, black on white or blue on yellow. The sad fact is that while some black people have been convicted of racially aggravated offences, far more white people have been and of course, the former doesn't tend to get reported in the tabloid press because its not the right kind of news for their target groups.

If hate crimes worked they way most people seem to think they work, then yes, there would be definite and obvious causes for resentment and anger, which, ironically enough, would not doubt be expressed as hate crimes. The fact is the majority don't seem to realise that hate crimes protect them from aggressive minorities as much as they protect the minority.

[Strattios]

Hatred based on a difference such as sexual orientation or race is a motivation, not a furthering of the crime. To say "hate crime" should be the same as a "crime of passion" or a "crime of revenge" or any other. It is simply describing what is being charged as the motivating cause.

Then you get the ultimate in biases. In my law class we studied a case where there was what some of you would call a "skin-head", that is to say a man who had an out spoken dislike of Jews. Then there was a neighbor of his. A Jewish man who had an equal hatred of "skin-heads". Neither of these men had a criminal record. One day The Jew's house was T.P.'d nad anti-semetic signs were put in his yard. The Jew grab an aluminum bat and headed over to the skin-head's house while shouting for him to come outside and cussing at him. When the skin-head came out the Jew was coming up the man's yard with his bat raised as if to attack. The skin-head went inside and quickly returned. By now the Jew was about 15 feet from the skin-head's front door still cussing up a storm. The skin-head shot the Jew in the head one time.

When the police came, they hauled the skin-head off. At this point the teacher asked what we thought, and almost unanamously the class said that the skin-head was the only person to blame. Reason? He hated Jews which automaticaly made him guilty in their eyes, despite the fact that the Jewish man had, what in any other case, would have been called assault with a deadly weapon and that the skin-head acted in self defence.

The point; people have such illogical biases that they justify based on the fact that one person is discriminatory. When this person is invloved in an incident, they assume it was in some way their fault based on this descrimination. That, is also very wrong.

[the Black Prince]

hatred is indeed a motivation, and the motivation can indeed be an aggravating (or mitigating depending on circumstance) factor in the offence.

[Acco]

I'm wondering what you all think of the idea of Hate Crimes, restriction on freedom of speech on that related topic, etc etc.

Hate crime laws are not an infringment on freedom of speech. The laws do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression, the courts rather use the motive when they sentence the criminal...which isn't protected by the First Ammendment. I am for hate crime laws because I believe that those crimes which are more threatening to public safety should be taken more severely, when someone's identity is attacked for a specific reason, be it their sexuality or race or religion or ideology, society can suffer from disempowerment of a specific group. Furthermore, those who attack others based on differences is tearing a free society since people of a specific group will have their ability to live a normal life infringed...which is against our goals of freedom.

Most hate crimes may not be isolated incidents, there are cases where larger organizations have a goal of discrimination, having stronger penalties could destabilise said movements. In addition, if the society or government takes a stance against a certain position, such as a negative attitude toward people of a different race, people may change their values if in the hands of societal condemnation.