Hate crime haters

[WillowTree]

Just a simple question, Willow. I notice W. Joyce and Yurt both seem to think hate crime laws are okay as long as they also protect white people/men. Others think hate crime laws are wrong no matter how they are written. I'm undecided.

I'd add one thing:

Also prosecute HOAX hate crimes, which are themselves a type of hate crime.

What is a hoax hate crime?

The most outstanding one I can recall is our dear Rev. Al Sharpton blaming NYC police officers for raping a little black girl... A total hoax.

 

[WillowTree]

How about the black panthers and the entire left wing news media wanting to lynch the white boys in NC for raping a black strippper.. turns out it never happened..

 

[Tech_Esq]

I can't tell if most people dislike hate crime legislation period or just dislike it because in their perception it doesn't protect white people (or white men, since gender is protected).

So which is it? There should be no hate crime legislation or it should protect white people, too?

Speaking from the legal perspective, I never really understood the value of adding time for someone's motive. In criminal cases, motive is not part of the case. I don't understand why you should bring in some other idea to specific cases categorized as "hate" crimes.

Crimes are not usually acts of love, so people shouldn't get too confused. If there is a specific action you would like to increase a penalty for, I think that's fine. Like in Virginia, we have Project Exile and the like, you commit a crime and have a gun on you, you sit an extra five years.

But, if you are punishing a specific action with more time, I think it should serve a "compelling state interest" like punishing people who use firearms when they commit a crime. If the action is merely obnoxious, I wouldn't see it as a compelling interest. There are many things that are obnoxious and offensive.

That's my take anyway. If you are not satisfied with the level of punishment you give a certain crime, then increase it across the board.

What if it is only considered for sentencing purposes?

That's pretty much the crux of it isn't it? Whether you make it an element of the crime or a sentencing consideration, you are still doing it to get "extra punishment." Making it part of sentencing means you get to admit as an "aggravating" circumstance. That way it doesn't even have to rise to the level of admissibility that it would in the trial portion. This would increase the likelihood that untrustworthy information would be given to the judge or jury to influence their judgment. I think it is safer to just have the crime and punish the crime in accordance with the sentencing guidelines.

I don't see the public policy benefit worth the potential miscarriages of justice by the state.

 

[WillowTree]

so,, one can say these false accustations against white people are hate crimes are they not?? meant to destroy lives and punish the innocent?

 

[Valerie]

Consider arson, for example.

Someone burns down a building for the insurance money vs someone burns down a building because it's a "black" church. If the value of the property is equal should they be considered equal crimes?

In contrast, what about an organization like E.L.F. (Earth Liberation Front) burning marinas down out of pure maliciousness. Do hate crime laws equally protect rich people who own boats vs the Marina being burned down for insurance money?

 

[Ravi]

That's pretty much the crux of it isn't it? Whether you make it an element of the crime or a sentencing consideration, you are still doing it to get "extra punishment." Making it part of sentencing means you get to admit as an "aggravating" circumstance. That way it doesn't even have to rise to the level of admissibility that it would in the trial portion. This would increase the likelihood that untrustworthy information would be given to the judge or jury to influence their judgment. I think it is safer to just have the crime and punish the crime in accordance with the sentencing guidelines.

I don't see the public policy benefit worth the potential miscarriages of justice by the state.

Does that mean you disagree with stiffer sentences for differing motives for murder?

 

[Ravi]

so,, one can say these false accustations against white people are hate crimes are they not?? meant to destroy lives and punish the innocent?

In some cases, probably so...but you'd still have to prove the motive to commit a fraud upon someone was race based.

 

[WillowTree]

Consider arson, for example.

Someone burns down a building for the insurance money vs someone burns down a building because it's a "black" church. If the value of the property is equal should they be considered equal crimes?

In contrast, what about an organization like E.L.F. (Earth Liberation Front) burning marinas down out of pure maliciousness. Do hate crime laws equally protect rich people who own boats vs the Marina being burned down for insurance money?

but why not a white church? why did you specify a black church?

 

[WillowTree]

so,, one can say these false accustations against white people are hate crimes are they not?? meant to destroy lives and punish the innocent?

In some cases, probably so...but you'd still have to prove the motive to commit a fraud upon someone was race based.

that's what we are saying,, nobody can prove a thought can they?

 

[Ravi]

Consider arson, for example.

Someone burns down a building for the insurance money vs someone burns down a building because it's a "black" church. If the value of the property is equal should they be considered equal crimes?

In contrast, what about an organization like E.L.F. (Earth Liberation Front) burning marinas down out of pure maliciousness. Do hate crime laws equally protect rich people who own boats vs the Marina being burned down for insurance money?

Yep. That kind of ties in to my question about terrorism...is it nothing more than a hate crime that should be dismissed? After all, E.L.F. is listed as a terrorist organization, is it not?

 

[Ravi]

so,, one can say these false accustations against white people are hate crimes are they not?? meant to destroy lives and punish the innocent?

In some cases, probably so...but you'd still have to prove the motive to commit a fraud upon someone was race based.

that's what we are saying,, nobody can prove a thought can they?

No, they can't and you can't convict someone of a hate crime by guessing their thoughts. You'd need concrete evidence, like a brick through a window saying die ******/whitey/whatever next to the dead bodies.

 

[Valerie]

Consider arson, for example.

Someone burns down a building for the insurance money vs someone burns down a building because it's a "black" church. If the value of the property is equal should they be considered equal crimes?

In contrast, what about an organization like E.L.F. (Earth Liberation Front) burning marinas down out of pure maliciousness. Do hate crime laws equally protect rich people who own boats vs the Marina being burned down for insurance money?

but why not a white church? why did you specify a black church?

It's just an example to consider.

Say someone was a known proud neo-nazi skinhead white supremacist who spoke of burning down that damn {insert slur here} "black" church if Obama won the presidency. And then the day after the election the church goes up in flames and they can prove he did it and what motivated him to do it. Is that crime equal to the owner burning it down for insurance money?

 

[KittenKoder]

In some cases, probably so...but you'd still have to prove the motive to commit a fraud upon someone was race based.

that's what we are saying,, nobody can prove a thought can they?

No, they can't and you can't convict someone of a hate crime by guessing their thoughts. You'd need concrete evidence, like a brick through a window saying die ******/whitey/whatever next to the dead bodies.

Most hate crimes are based on hear-say evidence right now.

 

[Tech_Esq]

That's pretty much the crux of it isn't it? Whether you make it an element of the crime or a sentencing consideration, you are still doing it to get "extra punishment." Making it part of sentencing means you get to admit as an "aggravating" circumstance. That way it doesn't even have to rise to the level of admissibility that it would in the trial portion. This would increase the likelihood that untrustworthy information would be given to the judge or jury to influence their judgment. I think it is safer to just have the crime and punish the crime in accordance with the sentencing guidelines.

I don't see the public policy benefit worth the potential miscarriages of justice by the state.

Does that mean you disagree with stiffer sentences for differing motives for murder?

Motive is not an element of the crime of murder. Here is a statute on first degree and second degree murder from two different states:

A person may be charged with first-degree murder if it is believed that the killing was committed willfully and with malice, deliberation, and premeditation.

Knowingly causes the death of another person or, with the purpose of causing serious physical injury to another person, causes the death of another person;

Don't be confused by the legal term of art "malice." This is an element that goes to mens rea this is the mental element of the crime that means they did not accidentally do the crime, but intended to do the crime. See here:

The mental component of criminal liability. To be guilty of most crimes, a defendant must have committed the criminal act (the actus reus) in a certain mental state (the mens rea). The mens rea of robbery, for example, is the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property.

 

[Ravi]

that's what we are saying,, nobody can prove a thought can they?

No, they can't and you can't convict someone of a hate crime by guessing their thoughts. You'd need concrete evidence, like a brick through a window saying die ******/whitey/whatever next to the dead bodies.

Most hate crimes are based on hear-say evidence right now.

I don't know if that is true or not but you cannot convict someone without concrete evidence according to how the law is written. That isn't to say there aren't any miscarriages of justice...don't get me started on the death penalty.

 

[Valerie]

Consider arson, for example.

Someone burns down a building for the insurance money vs someone burns down a building because it's a "black" church. If the value of the property is equal should they be considered equal crimes?

In contrast, what about an organization like E.L.F. (Earth Liberation Front) burning marinas down out of pure maliciousness. Do hate crime laws equally protect rich people who own boats vs the Marina being burned down for insurance money?

Yep. That kind of ties in to my question about terrorism...is it nothing more than a hate crime that should be dismissed? After all, E.L.F. is listed as a terrorist organization, is it not?

Not sure? It just struck me as a good example of non-minorities needing to be equally protected from hate crimes.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Consider arson, for example.

Someone burns down a building for the insurance money vs someone burns down a building because it's a "black" church. If the value of the property is equal should they be considered equal crimes?

In contrast, what about an organization like E.L.F. (Earth Liberation Front) burning marinas down out of pure maliciousness. Do hate crime laws equally protect rich people who own boats vs the Marina being burned down for insurance money?

but why not a white church? why did you specify a black church?

It's just an example to consider.

Say someone was a known proud neo-nazi skinhead white supremacist who spoke of burning down that damn {insert slur here} "black" church if Obama won the presidency. And then the day after the election the church goes up in flames and they can prove he did it and what motivated him to do it. Is that crime equal to the owner burning it down for insurance money?

That's why there is a range in the sentencing guideline. If the judge feels that this was an especially bad case of arson, then he gives him the max, say 25 years in prison (which, in Virginia because of "truth in sentencing" laws gets him a minimum of 23.5 years in prison). The guy that burnt down his property for money may get 10 years under the same statute. What's the problem?

 

[Ravi]

That's pretty much the crux of it isn't it? Whether you make it an element of the crime or a sentencing consideration, you are still doing it to get "extra punishment." Making it part of sentencing means you get to admit as an "aggravating" circumstance. That way it doesn't even have to rise to the level of admissibility that it would in the trial portion. This would increase the likelihood that untrustworthy information would be given to the judge or jury to influence their judgment. I think it is safer to just have the crime and punish the crime in accordance with the sentencing guidelines.

I don't see the public policy benefit worth the potential miscarriages of justice by the state.

Does that mean you disagree with stiffer sentences for differing motives for murder?

Motive is not an element of the crime of murder. Here is a statute on first degree and second degree murder from two different states:

Knowingly causes the death of another person or, with the purpose of causing serious physical injury to another person, causes the death of another person;

Don't be confused by the legal term of art "malice." This is an element that goes to mens rea this is the mental element of the crime that means they did not accidentally do the crime, but intended to do the crime. See here:

The mental component of criminal liability. To be guilty of most crimes, a defendant must have committed the criminal act (the actus reus) in a certain mental state (the mens rea). The mens rea of robbery, for example, is the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property.

Isn't it true though that sentencing can be reduced or added to depending on motive?

 

[WillowTree]

Consider arson, for example.

Someone burns down a building for the insurance money vs someone burns down a building because it's a "black" church. If the value of the property is equal should they be considered equal crimes?

In contrast, what about an organization like E.L.F. (Earth Liberation Front) burning marinas down out of pure maliciousness. Do hate crime laws equally protect rich people who own boats vs the Marina being burned down for insurance money?

but why not a white church? why did you specify a black church?

It's just an example to consider.

Say someone was a known proud neo-nazi skinhead white supremacist who spoke of burning down that damn {insert slur here} "black" church if Obama won the presidency. And then the day after the election the church goes up in flames and they can prove he did it and what motivated him to do it. Is that crime equal to the owner burning it down for insurance money?

what if an atheist burnt down a church,, would it be worse if they burnt down a black church or a white church???

remember the last election???? hang obama in effigy,, outrage.. hang sarah in effigy.. they get a pass.. I just don't see the value in that kind of thinking do you?

 

[Valerie]

but why not a white church? why did you specify a black church?

It's just an example to consider.

Say someone was a known proud neo-nazi skinhead white supremacist who spoke of burning down that damn {insert slur here} "black" church if Obama won the presidency. And then the day after the election the church goes up in flames and they can prove he did it and what motivated him to do it. Is that crime equal to the owner burning it down for insurance money?

That's why there is a range in the sentencing guideline. If the judge feels that this was an especially bad case of arson, then he gives him the max, say 25 years in prison (which, in Virginia because of "truth in sentencing" laws gets him a minimum of 23.5 years in prison). The guy that burnt down his property for money may get 10 years under the same statute. What's the problem?

In that particular case, the hate crime status might be redundant, so I guess there is no problem. What's the problem with expanding the sentencing guidelines, if we agree a range of sentencing guidelines make sense, then what's the problem with giving the judge even more leeway in the case of a particularly heinous or malicious crime? Essentially just one more notch on the spectrum of punishment, so to speak.