How are "hate crimes" even a catagory?

[MaryL]

Jurisprudence is based on evidence and facts. Like finger prints, CCTV footage, DNA and other verifiable facts. "Hate" is a is a fleeting emotional state, mercurial and how can you prove it? And why is that even an factor? Seems something else it going on here. If you can prove "hate" (or any emotion) should be factored into jurisprudence as provable extenuating circumstance with facts, please do.

 

[mudwhistle]

Jurisprudence is based on evidence and facts. Like finger prints, CCTV footage, DNA and other verifiable facts. "Hate" is a is a fleeting emotional state, mercurial and how can you prove it? And why is that even an factor? Seems something else it going on here. If you can prove "hate" (or any emotion) should be factored into jurisprudence as provable extenuating circumstance with facts, please do.

A "Hate Crime" was just a way for the left to install Social-Justice.
Unequal punishment for the same crime.

 

[Polishprince]

I guess its to make people feel better about being victimized if they are the victim of a non-hate or "Love Crime"

 

[Dekster]

Jurisprudence is based on evidence and facts. Like finger prints, CCTV footage, DNA and other verifiable facts. "Hate" is a is a fleeting emotional state, mercurial and how can you prove it? And why is that even an factor? Seems something else it going on here. If you can prove "hate" (or any emotion) should be factored into jurisprudence as provable extenuating circumstance with facts, please do.

Federal government needed to invent a way to get involved in what would otherwise be local/state cases i guess.

 

[White 6]

Federal government needed to invent a way to get involved in what would otherwise be local/state cases i guess.

Quite possibly. Pretty well means, if convicted rightfully, a state will not be the only enforcement of punishment and would require 2 pardons to get them off the hook for their crimes.
States also have hate crime legislation. I have not seen where both state and federal hate crimes charged and prosecuted on the same act. If you decide to kill somebody, just because you hate everybody of that race, creed or whatever, and you are caught, without a chance of not being convicted of state charges at trial, so confessing, you might want to confess to the hate crime in state as well, to avoid Fed entanglement and have lawyer for your or your chosen hate group petition the governor after the heat dies down, if the governor can be influenced in some way.

 

[DGS49]

"Hate crimes" are an excuse to get around the Constitution's prohibition of double-jeopardy. If someone commits a crime in a State, and the Feds are not satisfied with the conclusion of the proceedings (conviction and/or sentence), then the Feds will step in, prosecute him for THE SAME ACTS, only calling them a "hate crime," and pretend that it's not double jeopardy.

That's it.

It sucks. Thought crimes.

 

[Dekster]

Quite possibly. Pretty well means, if convicted rightfully, a state will not be the only enforcement of punishment and would require 2 pardons to get them off the hook for their crimes.
States also have hate crime legislation. I have not seen where both state and federal hate crimes charged and prosecuted on the same act. If you decide to kill somebody, just because you hate everybody of that race, creed or whatever, and you are caught, without a chance of not being convicted of state charges at trial, so confessing, you might want to confess to the hate crime in state as well, to avoid Fed entanglement and have lawyer for your or your chosen hate group petition the governor after the heat dies down, if the governor can be influenced in some way.

Might work. I mean a black ACLU lawyer defended the klan burning crosses.

To me, the standard for hate crimes would be more Justice Potter Stewart's' "I know it when I see it". I mean Matthew Shepherd--that was a no brainer hate crime. A lot of the stuff that passes as "racially-motivated" these days probably wouldn't make the cut if I were on the jury though.

 

[White 6]

Might work. I mean a black ACLU lawyer defended the klan burning crosses.

To me, the standard for hate crimes would be more Justice Potter Stewart's' "I know it when I see it". I mean Matthew Shepherd--that was a no brainer hate crime. A lot of the stuff that passes as "racially-motivated" these days probably wouldn't make the cut if I were on the jury though.

Usually boils down to known sentiments of the defendant, provable in court, often by their own words, social media posting, instant messages, emails and recordings, along with testimony from workplace interactions, past history and sometimes involvement in known hate groups and other witnesses at time of offense.

 

[shockedcanadian]

I've suggested that if one wants to apply such a law then make it more cut and dry. If someone commits a crime against someone who is clearly another race, charge them with a hate crime. No debate needed.

 

[Moonglow]

Jurisprudence is based on evidence and facts. Like finger prints, CCTV footage, DNA and other verifiable facts. "Hate" is a is a fleeting emotional state, mercurial and how can you prove it? And why is that even an factor? Seems something else it going on here. If you can prove "hate" (or any emotion) should be factored into jurisprudence as provable extenuating circumstance with facts, please do.

Jurisprudence is based on rhetoric it is not a science but an art.

 

[PeterPilot]

Jurisprudence is based on evidence and facts. Like finger prints, CCTV footage, DNA and other verifiable facts. "Hate" is a is a fleeting emotional state, mercurial and how can you prove it? And why is that even an factor? Seems something else it going on here. If you can prove "hate" (or any emotion) should be factored into jurisprudence as provable extenuating circumstance with facts, please do.

It seems to me that the criminal sanction should be applied only to a person's actions, not their frame of mind. The latter might be argued to the jury or the judge for sentencing considerations, but the crime itself should be one's actions, not one's thoughts.