Why Hate Crime Laws are Stupid

[LiveUninhibited]

Live Uninhibited asks why so called hate crimes motivated by race are different than crimes merely motivated by hate of one individual to another?

Um, why? Are we trying to say it's more acceptable to kill or harass somebody based upon a personal grudge than a ridiculous ideology? Are racist killers a higher risk to society than people who kill for personal reasons?

I'll tell you why...because a race hate crime is one that threatens not only its specific target, but the race of that victim, too.

And since the purpose of law is to maintain a functional civil society, the crime against order of a hte crime is more threatening to that society than a crime of hate directed at only one person.

I often agree with you, but not here. A race hate crime suggests that the person may be more likely to target another person for their race in the future, but attacking somebody because you personally dislike them means you'll be a threat to other people you dislike, for whatever reason, in the future. Both criminals seem equally threatening to society. Both should be locked up if they act with violence because neither general racism nor specific dislike are excuses for violence.

Do you at least have a study to show that people who commit a violent crime based upon race are more likely to recidivate than people who commit a violent crime against a stranger for some reason that wouldn't fall under hate crimes?

 

[Gunny]

Here are my reasons for concluding that hate crime laws are stupid. Please disagree with any or all of them as thoughtfully and reasonably as you are able.

1. They are unneccesary. The criminal acts themselves are already against the law and judges already have significant latitude when it comes to sentencing.

2. Juries are already asked to bear the heavy burden of determining whether the defendant is actually guilty of committing the crime for which he is accused. To burden the jury further with a secondary determination regarding the defendants motives is unfair to both jury and defendant.

3. Introducing the motivation element to the trial process naturally biases the jury toward believing the defendant is guilty of committing the crime in the first place.

4. Perhaps a bit more nebulous, but it seems to me that hate crime laws represent the implicit policing of thought.

I didn't think proving the stupidity had to go any further than defining the term.

 

[Amanda]

I would like to ask the supporters of hate crime laws what they are trying to accomplish that isn't possible if something is merely illegal.

 

[editec]

Live Uninhibited asks why so called hate crimes motivated by race are different than crimes merely motivated by hate of one individual to another?

Um, why? Are we trying to say it's more acceptable to kill or harass somebody based upon a personal grudge than a ridiculous ideology? Are racist killers a higher risk to society than people who kill for personal reasons?

I'll tell you why...because a race hate crime is one that threatens not only its specific target, but the race of that victim, too.

And since the purpose of law is to maintain a functional civil society, the crime against order of a hte crime is more threatening to that society than a crime of hate directed at only one person.

I often agree with you, but not here. A race hate crime suggests that the person may be more likely to target another person for their race in the future, but attacking somebody because you personally dislike them means you'll be a threat to other people you dislike, for whatever reason, in the future. Both criminals seem equally threatening to society. Both should be locked up if they act with violence because neither general racism nor specific dislike are excuses for violence.

Do you at least have a study to show that people who commit a violent crime based upon race are more likely to recidivate than people who commit a violent crime against a stranger for some reason that wouldn't fall under hate crimes?

Yeah, I can see your point, and it is true that sociopathic personalities threaten us all.

But it's not the outcome of that person that matters, its the outcome of fear they are creating which matters.

If you are just one more person that might be hurt by a sociopath, well...you don't feel TARGETED by them.

But if that sociopathic personality is ANNOUNCING that they are TARGETING you because of your race, their EFFECT on civil society is FAR more damaging.

That's the reasoning behind making race hate crimes a different class of crime than other crimes.

Hate crimes are terrorism.

Their purpose is more than just to hurt the victims, but to hurt the CLASS that their victim belongs to.

 

[AllieBaba]

So are crimes against innocent children.

So is it a hate crime when a man beats his 4 year old to death?

Of course not. That's why he does less time than a man who spray paints a garage with a racial slur.

 

[William Joyce]

If we must have "hate crimes", can we not also criminalize

Hate Crime Hoaxes?

Because these happen all the time, and they actually serve to hurt whites!

 

[N4mddissent]

I have not personally reached a conclusion about how I feel about hate crime laws. On the one hand, I am a strong advocate of free speech, and dislike the idea of something as subjective as the specific motive of a crime being such an influential factor in sentencing. At the same time, I think the terrorism analogy is somewhat appropriate. 9-11 did not affect American military capacity in the least, but the perpetrators did not expect it to. Creating fear is a technique used by some groups to try to affect social policy.

I think hate crime laws have the potential to be abused or misused and that concerns me a great deal. At the same time I imagine the following scenario. If I went outside one day, and sometime during the night someone had painted a swastika on my house, I would think- what dumbass did this? To me, it would be similar to some idiot hitting my mailbox or keying my car. If however, I was the only Jewish family in town, and I awoke to find a swastika painted on my house, the effect, the perceived message, and my level of fear would be much greater.

I just haven't resolved my spite for those who want to use fear and intimidation to try and bully society with my distrust of the governments' and lawyers' ability to refrain from abuse of power, and my skepticism of the accuracy of the legal system in general.

 

[editec]

No law, however perfectly written, is impervious to abuse or simple stupid application of it, of course.

The potential that hate crime laws can be abused for political machinations is obvious.

The Twana Brawley case is an excellent example of that.

But was the flaw in the law, or in the application of that law?

So I personally believe if somebody has obviously charged someone with a hate crime, and it turns out they are definitely lying about it, then throwing the book at them is warranted.

Of course that should be the case any time somebody sets out to frame somebody for any crime.

And such an application of that response should make district attorneys pale in terror, too.

It seldom does, even when they've pretty clearly abused their authority, either out of laziness or for political purposes.

 

[AllieBaba]

And, just as an aside, I would like to remind those of us who most like to listen to themselves blather on and on and on...very few people, except pontificating assholes like yourselves, actually read all that shit.

Try to be pithy, for the love of God, and for the pity of all those who get finger cramps scrolling past your posts. You can always tell a crappy writer from a pro by the amount of needless and meaningless shit they insert into their commentary.

 

[Diuretic]

Allie, if you don't have a point then shut the fuck up.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm editing this bullshit so you can perhaps learn how to curb your ridiculous pontification factor:

P.S., your essays suck.

Deterrence theory huh? I wrote an essay on that a few years ago. I truncated it as it's somewhat long:

......


Certainty of getting caught can be a significant factor in deterrence, while severity of punishment is not. A reasonable degree of severity should be imposed for reasons of justice, catharsis, and incapacitation, but is not significant in causing further deterrence. Deterrence is also inapplicable to most non-economic crimes, and sufficient perceived certainty for deterrence is often not achieved. I have significant doubts that increasing the severity of punishment for so-called hate crimes helps with deterrence.

It's still too fucking long. WTF does that paragraph (wait..is it a sentence..is it a paragraph...is it BOTH?) mean? It means absolutely nothing. You prove nothing. You state an opinion without anything to back it up, not even a fucking reference. It is unnecessary and should be cut the hell out. And whoever writes "I have significant doubts" is an absolute zero in essay writing for the most part, unless there's some sort of support for the statement...and not half way through the essay, but in the first paragraph.[COLOR]

"I'd only observe"...Completely unnecessary, it's out of there. Nobody gives a shit what you'd only observe.

Beccaria and Bentham occupied different centuries "and that" AND THAT? Unnecessary, were you just trying to make a word count or what? while Beccaria, being...unnecessary, another word that doesn't belong and just junks things up. "Being a magistrate" is just a pompous way of saying "a magistrate" a magistrate in Italy, was concerned with crime, his Dei delitti e delle pene "is possibly" again, pompous, say "may be" the first criminological treatise, Bentham wasn't primarily interested in crime, he was a utilitarian philosopher Okay, I tried to pretty it up but that sentence doesn't make sense. Here's how it should read:

Beccaria and Bentham occupied different centuries. Beccaria, a magistrate, was concerned with crime; his "Dei delitti e delle pene" may be the first criminological treatise. Bentham, as a utilitarian philosopher, wasn't primarily interested in crime.

Wow. That reads so much better. And look, it makes sense and doesn't have all that pompous bullshit and run-on nonsense. ].

However you have referenced Bentham's idea of rationality and in particular his Hedonistic Calculus, I'd have to point out that Bentham, in devising it, didn't intend it to apply to crime, it just happened it fitted the idea. But Bentham relied on the notional "rational man" (sic) to devise the Principle and to apply it to would-be criminals. In the manner so favoured by the utilitarians of the time, Bentham liked to construct a theory which would enable him to pull the levers. Unfortunately we know now that humans are more complex than Bentham allowed. But that makes sense. I mean Wundt didn't start his work until well after Bentham's time (Wundt was born the month after Bentham died) so Bentham had no recourse to psychology, folks were still using philosophy to try and work out mental processes.
Okay, instead of even trying to adjust it on the page, I'll just re-write it for you. You can thank me later, when you quit with the windbag posts:
With regards to Bentham, ...wait, what the hell was he devising? What the fuck is "it"??? Shit I'd kick your ass if I was a copy editor for this bullshit. But I shall plow ahead.

"With regards to Betham, he did not intend to apply it (whatever the fuck it is) to crime, it just happened to fit the idea (baseless, pompous, and what "idea"? I'd completely eliminate this line. Let's start again

Bentham relied on the notion of "rational man" to devise the Principle (wtf? more pomposity) and apply it to potential criminals. In the manner favored by utilitarians of the time, Bentham constructed a theory which allowed him to pull the levers. Unfortunately (?) we know now (how?) that humans are more complex than Bentham understood. When Wundt, who was born a month after Bentham's death, started his work, people were still applying philosophy to mental processes.

Anyway, you're right that certainty of detection and punishment (let's not forget that) is involved, indeed from memory that's part of the Hedonistic Calculus. Bentham, given he died in 1832, would have known that the policing of London and England was more than a bit patchy. Up until the formation of Peel's New Police in 1829 (which took a few years to become reasonably effective) there were parish constables and in London at leas the Bow Street Runners and Colquhoun's Thames Police. If you read the history of organised policing in London (and by extenstion, England) you'll see that the idea of a professional police force was strongly resisted by English politicians and the people generally. They were terrified of becoming like Napoleonic France. Two incidents allowed Sir Robert Peel, after years of trying, to get the Parliament to approve of his police - the Gordon Riots and the Wapping murders. Omg.
You are right that certainty of punishment is involved...that's part of Hedonistic Calculus. Bentham, having died in 1832, knew that the policing of England was more than a bit patchy. Until the formation of Peel's New Police in 1829 (which took a few years to become effective) there were parish constables, and in London the Bow Street Runners and Colquhoun's Thames Police. The idea of a professional police force was strongly resisted by both English politicians and the people, as evidenced by the Gordon Riots and the Wapping murders. England was terrified of becoming like Napoleonic France.

Bentham knew that no matter how harsh the penalty might be, the key was the probability of being caught. Prior to the New Police, even with the Runners, that probability was low, ergo the threat of punishment was not a major deterrent. Hence the application of the Hedonistic Calculus.

To hate crime legislation. The likelihood of being caught for a hate crime as opposed to a non-hate crime is probably about the same (unless the hate crime attracts extra police resources).

For the sake of the argument let's say there are two assaults in which the victim can identify the offender, assault A and assault B, then the chances of the offender being caught and convicted are the same. Let's say it's an 80% chance of being caught because apart from the classification of the crime all others things are equal. So, fear of apprehension is equal. The differential is zero. This assumes Bentham's rational man (an abstract notion if there ever was one).

Now let's say assault A was on a straight white male. And assault B was on a gay black male. (sorry to have to resort to ethnic and sexual inclination differences but they work because they're not subtle).

And now let's say that the perpetrators in both A and B forms of assault are homophobic white males who belong to a group that originally got together on Stormfront. Note - I'm exaggerating to make a point.

Which of the victims - the male in A or the male in B - is likely to be assaulted by these potential offenders?

I know it's abstract but that's the point. Hate crime laws are predicated on the basis that an identifiable group (and yes that could be heterosexual white males) is more likely to be victimised by potential offenders who have a greater predisposition to commit crimes against members of that identifiable group. Therefore there should be a greater deterrent in terms of sentence availability to the courts to discourage such crimes.

I know the objection on deterrence grounds, but it's not new, it goes back to the criticisms of Bentham's idea of the rational man. However allowing the courts a greater sentence option is, as you've pointed out, about more than just simple deterrence. It's also about societal condemnation. That carries a powerful message about a society's values and as such is a political as much as a jurisprudential reason for having hate crimes.

I suppose I just went for the short explanation in my post.

No, it wasn't short. I could rewrite it and it would make better sense, get your idea across and read better and it would take me 5 minutes.

It's long-winded and infuriating as it stands. Figure out how to edit your work. People are suffering. Show some mercy. Once I waded through your drivel it was actually sort of half interesting, but I had to chop it up and take out all your self-aggrandizing bullshit to make it sensible.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm editing this bullshit so you can perhaps learn how to curb your ridiculous pontification factor:

P.S., your essays suck.

Deterrence theory huh? I wrote an essay on that a few years ago. I truncated it as it's somewhat long:

......


Certainty of getting caught can be a significant factor in deterrence, while severity of punishment is not. A reasonable degree of severity should be imposed for reasons of justice, catharsis, and incapacitation, but is not significant in causing further deterrence. Deterrence is also inapplicable to most non-economic crimes, and sufficient perceived certainty for deterrence is often not achieved. I have significant doubts that increasing the severity of punishment for so-called hate crimes helps with deterrence.

It's still too fucking long. WTF does that paragraph (wait..is it a sentence..is it a paragraph...is it BOTH?) mean? It means absolutely nothing. You prove nothing. You state an opinion without anything to back it up, not even a fucking reference. It is unnecessary and should be cut the hell out. And whoever writes "I have significant doubts" is an absolute zero in essay writing for the most part, unless there's some sort of support for the statement...and not half way through the essay, but in the first paragraph.[COLOR]

"I'd only observe"...Completely unnecessary, it's out of there. Nobody gives a shit what you'd only observe.

Beccaria and Bentham occupied different centuries "and that" AND THAT? Unnecessary, were you just trying to make a word count or what? while Beccaria, being...unnecessary, another word that doesn't belong and just junks things up. "Being a magistrate" is just a pompous way of saying "a magistrate" a magistrate in Italy, was concerned with crime, his Dei delitti e delle pene "is possibly" again, pompous, say "may be" the first criminological treatise, Bentham wasn't primarily interested in crime, he was a utilitarian philosopher Okay, I tried to pretty it up but that sentence doesn't make sense. Here's how it should read:

Beccaria and Bentham occupied different centuries. Beccaria, a magistrate, was concerned with crime; his "Dei delitti e delle pene" may be the first criminological treatise. Bentham, as a utilitarian philosopher, wasn't primarily interested in crime.

Wow. That reads so much better. And look, it makes sense and doesn't have all that pompous bullshit and run-on nonsense. ].

However you have referenced Bentham's idea of rationality and in particular his Hedonistic Calculus, I'd have to point out that Bentham, in devising it, didn't intend it to apply to crime, it just happened it fitted the idea. But Bentham relied on the notional "rational man" (sic) to devise the Principle and to apply it to would-be criminals. In the manner so favoured by the utilitarians of the time, Bentham liked to construct a theory which would enable him to pull the levers. Unfortunately we know now that humans are more complex than Bentham allowed. But that makes sense. I mean Wundt didn't start his work until well after Bentham's time (Wundt was born the month after Bentham died) so Bentham had no recourse to psychology, folks were still using philosophy to try and work out mental processes.
Okay, instead of even trying to adjust it on the page, I'll just re-write it for you. You can thank me later, when you quit with the windbag posts:
With regards to Bentham, ...wait, what the hell was he devising? What the fuck is "it"??? Shit I'd kick your ass if I was a copy editor for this bullshit. But I shall plow ahead.

"With regards to Betham, he did not intend to apply it (whatever the fuck it is) to crime, it just happened to fit the idea (baseless, pompous, and what "idea"? I'd completely eliminate this line. Let's start again

Bentham relied on the notion of "rational man" to devise the Principle (wtf? more pomposity) and apply it to potential criminals. In the manner favored by utilitarians of the time, Bentham constructed a theory which allowed him to pull the levers. Unfortunately (?) we know now (how?) that humans are more complex than Bentham understood. When Wundt, who was born a month after Bentham's death, started his work, people were still applying philosophy to mental processes.

Anyway, you're right that certainty of detection and punishment (let's not forget that) is involved, indeed from memory that's part of the Hedonistic Calculus. Bentham, given he died in 1832, would have known that the policing of London and England was more than a bit patchy. Up until the formation of Peel's New Police in 1829 (which took a few years to become reasonably effective) there were parish constables and in London at leas the Bow Street Runners and Colquhoun's Thames Police. If you read the history of organised policing in London (and by extenstion, England) you'll see that the idea of a professional police force was strongly resisted by English politicians and the people generally. They were terrified of becoming like Napoleonic France. Two incidents allowed Sir Robert Peel, after years of trying, to get the Parliament to approve of his police - the Gordon Riots and the Wapping murders. Omg.
You are right that certainty of punishment is involved...that's part of Hedonistic Calculus. Bentham, having died in 1832, knew that the policing of England was more than a bit patchy. Until the formation of Peel's New Police in 1829 (which took a few years to become effective) there were parish constables, and in London the Bow Street Runners and Colquhoun's Thames Police. The idea of a professional police force was strongly resisted by both English politicians and the people, as evidenced by the Gordon Riots and the Wapping murders. England was terrified of becoming like Napoleonic France.

Bentham knew that no matter how harsh the penalty might be, the key was the probability of being caught. Prior to the New Police, even with the Runners, that probability was low, ergo the threat of punishment was not a major deterrent. Hence the application of the Hedonistic Calculus.

To hate crime legislation. The likelihood of being caught for a hate crime as opposed to a non-hate crime is probably about the same (unless the hate crime attracts extra police resources).

For the sake of the argument let's say there are two assaults in which the victim can identify the offender, assault A and assault B, then the chances of the offender being caught and convicted are the same. Let's say it's an 80% chance of being caught because apart from the classification of the crime all others things are equal. So, fear of apprehension is equal. The differential is zero. This assumes Bentham's rational man (an abstract notion if there ever was one).

Now let's say assault A was on a straight white male. And assault B was on a gay black male. (sorry to have to resort to ethnic and sexual inclination differences but they work because they're not subtle).

And now let's say that the perpetrators in both A and B forms of assault are homophobic white males who belong to a group that originally got together on Stormfront. Note - I'm exaggerating to make a point.

Which of the victims - the male in A or the male in B - is likely to be assaulted by these potential offenders?

I know it's abstract but that's the point. Hate crime laws are predicated on the basis that an identifiable group (and yes that could be heterosexual white males) is more likely to be victimised by potential offenders who have a greater predisposition to commit crimes against members of that identifiable group. Therefore there should be a greater deterrent in terms of sentence availability to the courts to discourage such crimes.

I know the objection on deterrence grounds, but it's not new, it goes back to the criticisms of Bentham's idea of the rational man. However allowing the courts a greater sentence option is, as you've pointed out, about more than just simple deterrence. It's also about societal condemnation. That carries a powerful message about a society's values and as such is a political as much as a jurisprudential reason for having hate crimes.

I suppose I just went for the short explanation in my post.

No, it wasn't short. I could rewrite it and it would make better sense, get your idea across and read better and it would take me 5 minutes.

It's long-winded and infuriating as it stands. Figure out how to edit your work. People are suffering. Show some mercy. Once I waded through your drivel it was actually sort of half interesting, but I had to chop it up and take out all your self-aggrandizing bullshit to make it sensible.

That has to be some some of the biggest tripe I've ever seen in USMB. If you don't understand something you have a choice:

1. Ask for it to be explained to you.
2. Shut the fuck up.

You don't get the choice of vandalising a post. Well you do but it makes you look stupid.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

And, just as an aside, I would like to remind those of us who most like to listen to themselves blather on and on and on...very few people, except pontificating assholes like yourselves, actually read all that shit.

Try to be pithy, for the love of God, and for the pity of all those who get finger cramps scrolling past your posts. You can always tell a crappy writer from a pro by the amount of needless and meaningless shit they insert into their commentary.

Most things can be stated with a pithy statement, but as far as providing support, well, sometimes you need to "blather on." Generally, an abstract is a pithy statement, but it doesn't prove anything to anybody. Sometimes it takes 20 pages to prove something to somebody who is skeptical. I've never seen a post here much longer than the average magazine article. I am sure you can handle it.

 

[1of43]

I like hate crime laws in theory, but I think they suck because of groups like the ACLU who try to turn every dispute into a civil liberties issue. They lend themselves too easily to bastardization by people who just want to abuse the system.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Hate crime laws are necessary.

 

[Father Time]

Hate crime laws are necessary.

Why?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Hate crime laws are necessary.

Why?

Because before we had them, there were lynchings of blacks. There was burning of crosses on the lawns of black people in order to intimidate them to move out of the neighborhood.

Because people are randomly targeted for violence in order to send a message of hate to an entire group. Because genocide still exists in our world. It existed in Rwanda, in Bosnia, in Nazi Germany.

It existed in the murders of Matthew Shephard and Mulageta Seraw. It is not ordinary assault or murder. It is used as a form of violence against an entire community. It is a form of domestic terrorism, IMO.


American Psychological Association issued the report Hate Crimes Today: An Age-Old Foe in Modern Dress. In the report Dr. Jack McDevitt, a criminologist, stated, "Hate crimes are message crimes. They are different from other crimes in that the offender is sending a message to members of a certain group that they are unwelcome."

The National Institute of Mental Health has funded the first major study of the consequences of hate crimes on victims, narrowing in on anti-gay hate crimes. Preliminary research indicates that hate crimes have more serious psychological effects than non-bias motivated crimes.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/hatecrimes.html

 

[manifold]

Hate crime laws are necessary.

Why?

Because before we had them, there were lynchings of blacks. There was burning of crosses on the lawns of black people in order to intimidate them to move out of the neighborhood.

Because people are randomly targeted for violence in order to send a message of hate to an entire group. Because genocide still exists in our world. It existed in Rwanda, in Bosnia, in Nazi Germany.

It existed in the murders of Matthew Shephard and Mulageta Seraw. It is not ordinary assault or murder. It is used as a form of violence against an entire community. It is a form of domestic terrorism, IMO.

All those things were already against the law.

FAIL.

 

[Valerie]

Why?

Because before we had them, there were lynchings of blacks. There was burning of crosses on the lawns of black people in order to intimidate them to move out of the neighborhood.

Because people are randomly targeted for violence in order to send a message of hate to an entire group. Because genocide still exists in our world. It existed in Rwanda, in Bosnia, in Nazi Germany.

It existed in the murders of Matthew Shephard and Mulageta Seraw. It is not ordinary assault or murder. It is used as a form of violence against an entire community. It is a form of domestic terrorism, IMO.

All those things were already against the law.

FAIL.

So the motive shouldn't matter when addressing the appropriate punishment? And since when is establishing motive "mind reading"? I agree with what Diuretic said, it's about deterrence.

 

[Diuretic]

Why?

Because before we had them, there were lynchings of blacks. There was burning of crosses on the lawns of black people in order to intimidate them to move out of the neighborhood.

Because people are randomly targeted for violence in order to send a message of hate to an entire group. Because genocide still exists in our world. It existed in Rwanda, in Bosnia, in Nazi Germany.

It existed in the murders of Matthew Shephard and Mulageta Seraw. It is not ordinary assault or murder. It is used as a form of violence against an entire community. It is a form of domestic terrorism, IMO.

All those things were already against the law.

FAIL.

What about the "increased deterrence" argument?