New York immigrant dead in apparent hate crime

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Let's say I ran a lady over with my car. Let's say rebecca did the same thing, just in a different place at a different time. The two ladies who died had the same race, same ethnicity, same sexual orientation, same religion, they were both wives, both daughters, both mothers.

Let's say I did it because I wanted to kill someone. I wanted the rush of knowing I killed a person.

Let's say rebecca did it because she was trying to avoid hitting a baby in a carriage.

Same punishment?

[mRx 16]

The precise definition of a hate crime varies from state to state. Some states define a hate crime as any crime based on a belief regarding the victim's race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry. Some states exclude crimes based on a belief regarding the victim's sexual orientation. Others limit their definition to certain crimes such as harassment, assault, and damage to property. In all states the victim's actual status is irrelevant. For example, if a victim is attacked by someone who believes that the victim is gay, the attack is a hate crime whether or not the victim is actually gay.

http://www.answers.com/topic/hate-crime

Right, this is what I thought. I think that's an important point that contradicts the assertion that the crime is classified based on characteristics of the victim. There's inevitably a strong correlation between believing someone to be gay and that person actually being gay, but the fact that the victim is gay is incidental to the classification as a hate crime.

So actually after reading the definition thoroughly, it appears that a hate crime is an additional charge to the primary one ( i.e. assault and hate crime, damage to property and hate crime).

So this would mean that the action of the criminal is not the basis for the crime but bias, or feeling toward that person or group is? So this is a crime based completely on thought. Wow.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

How is it based completely on thought?

The crime has to occur first. The hate crime charge doesn't exist if the crime wasn't committed first.

[mRx 16]

Let's say I ran a lady over with my car. Let's say rebecca did the same thing, just in a different place at a different time. The two ladies who died had the same race, same ethnicity, same sexual orientation, same religion, they were both wives, both daughters, both mothers.

Let's say I did it because I wanted to kill someone. I wanted the rush of knowing I killed a person.

Let's say rebecca did it because she was trying to avoid hitting a baby in a carriage.

Same punishment?

No. This deals with actions. You wanted to kill, you killed. Premeditated. This deals completely with you and your actions, not your victim's status or abstract ideas or biasis you had.

While in essence the effect was the same in both cases, the specific actions of you and her would determine your sentence.

[rebeccajo 14]

Let's say I ran a lady over with my car. Let's say rebecca did the same thing, just in a different place at a different time. The two ladies who died had the same race, same ethnicity, same sexual orientation, same religion, they were both wives, both daughters, both mothers.

Let's say I did it because I wanted to kill someone. I wanted the rush of knowing I killed a person.

Let's say rebecca did it because she was trying to avoid hitting a baby in a carriage.

Same punishment?

No. This deals with actions. You wanted to kill, you killed. Premeditated. This deals completely with you and your actions, not your victim's status or abstract ideas or biasis you had.

While in essence the effect was the same in both cases, the specific actions of you and her would determine your sentence.

How is that different from the concept of sentencing based upon a crime of hate?

[mRx 16]

How is it based completely on thought?

The crime has to occur first. The hate crime charge doesn't exist if the crime wasn't committed first.

But the actual crime is hate, a feeling or thought, which is a crime completely seperate from the actual physical crime.

I'm not saying I condone or support thoughts of hate based on orientation, gender, etc; I think it's classless, immoral, and shows a severe lack of intelligence, however, under the constitution, they are free to do so, just as I'm free to dislike or even hate those who use hate speech.

[Danno 1,228]

Problem with "hate crimes" is, there is it requires waaaay too much mind-reading.

That and, PC pressure causes enforcement to be inconsistent....(at best).

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/o...0,504953.column

[mRx 16]

Let's say I ran a lady over with my car. Let's say rebecca did the same thing, just in a different place at a different time. The two ladies who died had the same race, same ethnicity, same sexual orientation, same religion, they were both wives, both daughters, both mothers.

Let's say I did it because I wanted to kill someone. I wanted the rush of knowing I killed a person.

Let's say rebecca did it because she was trying to avoid hitting a baby in a carriage.

Same punishment?

No. This deals with actions. You wanted to kill, you killed. Premeditated. This deals completely with you and your actions, not your victim's status or abstract ideas or biasis you had.

While in essence the effect was the same in both cases, the specific actions of you and her would determine your sentence.

How is that different from the concept of sentencing based upon a crime of hate?

Because hate should not be a crime.

[Caladan 19]

Motive is often conisdered ameliorating circumstances in determining sentence.

Intent is weird in the law, which is to say that it's not ordinary English intent. The difference between murder 1 and manslaughter is intent, but that just goes to evidence of a plan or pre-meditation. (Compare the difference between "immigrant intent" and "desire one day to live in the U.S."; it's similar.)

So "intent" in other crimes goes to whether the person meant to commit the action that he did, not about what motivated his actions or whether his heart was pure. That's the difference in hate crime; it's a judgment on the other person's thoughts.

I generally think that discriminating between classes of people is a bad idea, even if for a nominal good. Leave that part up to sentencing where there's plenty of discretion built in already.

[Fandango 1,440]

Hmmm.

I don't get the 'inequality of punishment' bit.

Different crimes have always had different charges and sentences based upon the committed act. Otherwise, you wouldn't have 'murder one' or 'murder two' or 'manslaughter'.

Exactly.

Of course there are mitigating circs which define what category a homicide falls into, but I think what Matt is getting at (correct me here if I'm wrong, Matt) is that let's say a gay man was beaten to death for being gay....that's a hate crime. If a random man was beaten to death oh let's say because it was a gang initiation...that is not defined as a 'hate' crime.

When I made my original comment in this thread regarding hate crimes, it was because of the ridiculousness of 'we think it might be a hate crime cos slurs were used'....Hello? A man was beaten to death, obviously there was 'hate' involved which to me is defined by the actual killing rather than the name calling.

[mRx 16]

Hmmm.

I don't get the 'inequality of punishment' bit.

Different crimes have always had different charges and sentences based upon the committed act. Otherwise, you wouldn't have 'murder one' or 'murder two' or 'manslaughter'.

Exactly.

Of course there are mitigating circs which define what category a homicide falls into, but I think what Matt is getting at (correct me here if I'm wrong, Matt) is that let's say a gay man was beaten to death for being gay....that's a hate crime. If a random man was beaten to death oh let's say because it was a gang initiation...that is not defined as a 'hate' crime.

When I made my original comment in this thread regarding hate crimes, it was because of the ridiculousness of 'we think it might be a hate crime cos slurs were used'....Hello? A man was beaten to death, obviously there was 'hate' involved which to me is defined by the actual killing rather than the name calling.

You're right, Lisa.

And to further point out the injustice and inequality, look at a simple assault. The victim feels the brunt of the inequality, for the law doesn't see their pain as worthy of punishment as much as it sees another victim's who was assaulted exactly the same.

[HAL 9000 96]

I guess we could think about motives- stupid as they may be. Take out the anti- component of it and you likely don't have much of a motive to commit murder. Hence, hate.

Well let's not even talk murder. Let's talk simple assault.

Why would a punishment vary depending upon what color/sexual orientation you identify with?

This is a prime example of a law that creates an inequality.

While it's not right to assualt someone of another sexual orientation, it's not right to assualt anyone. Favoring groups with increased punishment towards their offenders, only creates more inequality, and group segregation.

Completely agree with you. Nevertheless, motives are what they are.

[HAL 9000 96]

I guess we could think about motives- stupid as they may be. Take out the anti- component of it and you likely don't have much of a motive to commit murder. Hence, hate.

Well let's not even talk murder. Let's talk simple assault.

Why would a punishment vary depending upon what color/sexual orientation you identify with?

This is a prime example of a law that creates an inequality.

While it's not right to assualt someone of another sexual orientation, it's not right to assualt anyone. Favoring groups with increased punishment towards their offenders, only creates more inequality, and group segregation.

You're judging only the outcome of the crime though and ignoring the motive. For example, the sexual orientation of the victim is not evidence enough to call it a hate crime, but if the only reason that the crime was committed was because the victim was gay, then it is a hate crime.

If a straight, white man were targeted for a crime simply because he was a straight, white man, then that would be a hate crime too.

What if someone was targeted for wearing a hat, or walking a dog, or even being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Every crime could therefore be a hate crime. See how ridiculous it can get? The punishment a criminal is given should only correalate with the action, not the status of the victim.

Motive is used to prove a crime, not determine harsher sentences based on victim group affiliation.

Someday, our society will be at a point where crime will just be crime.

Hmmm.

I don't get the 'inequality of punishment' bit.

Different crimes have always had different charges and sentences based upon the committed act. Otherwise, you wouldn't have 'murder one' or 'murder two' or 'manslaughter'.

The degree of murder deals with the specific action; not the victim. (i.e. premeditated, non-premeditated, assault without intention of murder, heat of passion, temporary insanity, etc) None of the specifics deal in any way with the victim.

The Federal creation of the "hate crime" is just another way for government to pander to a specific class of American, which is an inequality. If you and I were both assaulted by the same person, shouldn't we be entitled to equal justice under the law?

Hate crime legislation is targeted to combat the motive authorship of a hate crime.

Much like the death penalty is legislated to combat the motive authorship of murder.

You, as a white American, are not subject to having a cross burned in your front yard. Enough said.

[HAL 9000 96]

Hmmm.

I don't get the 'inequality of punishment' bit.

Different crimes have always had different charges and sentences based upon the committed act. Otherwise, you wouldn't have 'murder one' or 'murder two' or 'manslaughter'.

Exactly.

Of course there are mitigating circs which define what category a homicide falls into, but I think what Matt is getting at (correct me here if I'm wrong, Matt) is that let's say a gay man was beaten to death for being gay....that's a hate crime. If a random man was beaten to death oh let's say because it was a gang initiation...that is not defined as a 'hate' crime.

When I made my original comment in this thread regarding hate crimes, it was because of the ridiculousness of 'we think it might be a hate crime cos slurs were used'....Hello? A man was beaten to death, obviously there was 'hate' involved which to me is defined by the actual killing rather than the name calling.

Circumstance is indeed a bit wacky.

People die in fights and robberies, etc.

We're losing sight of ####### is wrong with a subset of society perpetrating unspeakable acts of hate merely based on motive. Remove the motive factor from most crimes and you remove the crime itself. Or at least that is the legal rationale.

[mRx 16]

Hate crime legislation is targeted to combat the motive authorship of a hate crime.

Much like the death penalty is legislated to combat the motive authorship of murder.

You, as a white American, are not subject to having a cross burned in your front yard. Enough said.

That's what they want you to think. The legislation is created to favor minority groups, which are strong among Democrats. Just the way that Republicans pander to corporations. It's no different.

It creates an inequality in the law, which under the equal protection clause, 14th amendment, is unconstitutional.

Regardless of how you or I feel about a cross burning on someone's property, regardless of the victim, the action is still arson, and perhaps damage to property.

Just because a minority(hate group) wishes to hate another group, that doesn't give the State any right to come in and create an inequality in an attempt to engineer our society. It doesn't work. It never will.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Matt85