Why Hate Crime Laws are Stupid

[manifold]

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?

I think it would succeed in making the criminals more careful about sharing their "hate" thoughts. But I think hate laws are far more likely to intensify the hate they attempt to address than they are to diffuse it. People just don't respond well to being told what to think and what to feel.

 

[Diuretic]

All those things were already against the law.

FAIL.

What about the "increased deterrence" argument?

I think it would succeed in making the criminals more careful about sharing their "hate" thoughts. But I think hate laws are far more likely to intensify the hate they attempt to address than they are to diffuse it. People just don't respond well to being told what to think and what to feel.

If that's how the laws are perceived then the legislators need to do a bit of clarification. The law doesn't criminalise thought, there has to be action.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Hate crime is not thought crime. Thoughts are what we all have a right to. We can hate whoever and whatever we choose.

Hate crime is message crime. It is crime done in order to intimidate more people than the single target selected.

 

[manifold]

The law doesn't criminalise thought, there has to be action.

The thought the accompanies the action is still criminalized, no?

 

[Sky Dancer]

The law doesn't criminalise thought, there has to be action.

The thought the accompanies the action is still criminalized, no?

The thought is accompanied by speech--slurs, threats, vandalism and violent actions. No one is arresting any citizen on the basis of their thoughts.

 

[manifold]

The law doesn't criminalise thought, there has to be action.

The thought the accompanies the action is still criminalized, no?

The thought is accompanied by speech--slurs, threats, vandalism and violent actions. No one is arresting any citizen on the basis of their thoughts.

Right, they're being arrested on the basis of their actions, and PUNISHED on the basis of their thoughts.

 

[Diuretic]

The thought the accompanies the action is still criminalized, no?

The thought is accompanied by speech--slurs, threats, vandalism and violent actions. No one is arresting any citizen on the basis of their thoughts.

Right, they're being arrested on the basis of their actions, and PUNISHED on the basis of their thoughts.

Motivation is a valid consideration in sentencing.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The thought the accompanies the action is still criminalized, no?

The thought is accompanied by speech--slurs, threats, vandalism and violent actions. No one is arresting any citizen on the basis of their thoughts.

Right, they're being arrested on the basis of their actions, and PUNISHED on the basis of their thoughts.

They are facing charges based on the law. Their punishment when convicted arises from their unlawful actions. Do you approve of lynching, cross burning, defacing synagogue property with swastika to intimidate Jews?

These are the reasons we have hate crime. Are you going to tell me your protest of hate crime law has nothing to do with not giving a shit about oppressed groups?

Do you deny the Holocaust? What about ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Rwanda?

Motive is always considered in crimes of violence.

 

[manifold]

The thought is accompanied by speech--slurs, threats, vandalism and violent actions. No one is arresting any citizen on the basis of their thoughts.

Right, they're being arrested on the basis of their actions, and PUNISHED on the basis of their thoughts.

Motivation is a valid consideration in sentencing.

Why?

 

[manifold]

They are facing charges based on the law. Do you approve of lynching, cross burning, defacing synagogue property with swastika to intimidate Jews?

No

These are the reasons we have hate crime. Are you going to tell me your protest of hate crime law has nothing to do with not giving a shit about oppressed groups?

Yes

 

[Sky Dancer]

Thanks for your honesty. You don't give a shit about oppressed groups. May you never be a member of one.

 

[manifold]

I think you should reread your own question, douchebag.

 

[Diuretic]

Right, they're being arrested on the basis of their actions, and PUNISHED on the basis of their thoughts.

Motivation is a valid consideration in sentencing.

Why?

What was Bernie Madoff's motivation for his actions? I'm making an assumption here, I'm going to say it was naked greed. So, let's call him a thief (I know technically that's not what he did but it was a series of offences involving dishonest aquisition of other persons' property).

So, he stole out of greed.

But what if a thief (someone not as spectacularly guilty at Madoff) acts out of necessity?

There's an old thought experiment about a bloke who steals medicine for his sick wife, you probably know it well.

Both steal but since both have different motivations then (allowing that the amount of value of stolen property is definitely a sentencing consideration) shouldn't the motivation of each be taken into account in sentencing?

I admit that deterrence isn't germane to this example, it's about appropriate punishment, I'm only using these examples to try and show why motivation should be a consideration in sentencing. The greedy thief should be sentenced more heavily than the needy thief.

 

[N4mddissent]

The thought is accompanied by speech--slurs, threats, vandalism and violent actions. No one is arresting any citizen on the basis of their thoughts.

Right, they're being arrested on the basis of their actions, and PUNISHED on the basis of their thoughts.

Motivation is a valid consideration in sentencing.

Motivation is actually taken into account when charging someone for a crime in some cases. At least intent is taken into account. It is the difference between manslaughter (not premeditated) vs. murder (premeditated). It is also considered in cases of accidental death through negligent behavior (involuntary manslaughter) and direct cause of death due to actions (voluntary manslaughter). I believe this is correct, but I am not a lawyer.

If a man walks in on his wife having an affair and in a rage grabs her and shoves her resulting in her falling, striking her head, and dying- he can be charged with manslaughter. If he leaves, gets a weapon, and goes back to the house and kills her, he will likely be charged with murder. Results are the same- she is dead. He is the cause in both scenarios. It is intent that makes the situations different. Isn't this similar to hate crime laws?

 

[manifold]

Motivation is a valid consideration in sentencing.

Why?

What was Bernie Madoff's motivation for his actions? I'm making an assumption here, I'm going to say it was naked greed. So, let's call him a thief (I know technically that's not what he did but it was a series of offences involving dishonest aquisition of other persons' property).

So, he stole out of greed.

But what if a thief (someone not as spectacularly guilty at Madoff) acts out of necessity?

There's an old thought experiment about a bloke who steals medicine for his sick wife, you probably know it well.

Both steal but since both have different motivations then (allowing that the amount of value of stolen property is definitely a sentencing consideration) shouldn't the motivation of each be taken into account in sentencing?

I admit that deterrence isn't germane to this example, it's about appropriate punishment, I'm only using these examples to try and show why motivation should be a consideration in sentencing. The greedy thief should be sentenced more heavily than the needy thief.

Ok, I understand your point with respect to "motivation," but I don't think your example applies to hate crime laws. The guy's personal views had nothing to do with anything in this example.

 

[manifold]

Right, they're being arrested on the basis of their actions, and PUNISHED on the basis of their thoughts.

Motivation is a valid consideration in sentencing.

Motivation is actually taken into account when charging someone for a crime in some cases. At least intent is taken into account. It is the difference between manslaughter (not premeditated) vs. murder (premeditated). It is also considered in cases of accidental death through negligent behavior (involuntary manslaughter) and direct cause of death due to actions (voluntary manslaughter). I believe this is correct, but I am not a lawyer.

If a man walks in on his wife having an affair and in a rage grabs her and shoves her resulting in her falling, striking her head, and dying- he can be charged with manslaughter. If he leaves, gets a weapon, and goes back to the house and kills her, he will likely be charged with murder. Results are the same- she is dead. He is the cause in both scenarios. It is intent that makes the situations different. Isn't this similar to hate crime laws?

Not to me it isn't. In both cases the guy is motivated by anger, no?

So which is it that matters in hate crime laws, the motivation or the intent?

 

[William Joyce]

Thanks for your honesty. You don't give a shit about oppressed groups. May you never be a member of one.

You mean white people? I didn't know you cared!

 

[N4mddissent]

Motivation is a valid consideration in sentencing.

Motivation is actually taken into account when charging someone for a crime in some cases. At least intent is taken into account. It is the difference between manslaughter (not premeditated) vs. murder (premeditated). It is also considered in cases of accidental death through negligent behavior (involuntary manslaughter) and direct cause of death due to actions (voluntary manslaughter). I believe this is correct, but I am not a lawyer.

If a man walks in on his wife having an affair and in a rage grabs her and shoves her resulting in her falling, striking her head, and dying- he can be charged with manslaughter. If he leaves, gets a weapon, and goes back to the house and kills her, he will likely be charged with murder. Results are the same- she is dead. He is the cause in both scenarios. It is intent that makes the situations different. Isn't this similar to hate crime laws?

Not to me it isn't. In both cases the guy is motivated by anger, no?

So which is it that matters in hate crime laws, the motivation or the intent?

I'm not sure. As I said, I am no lawyer and as yet, I am undecided on hate crime laws. Would you find it acceptable if hate crime laws were based on intent rather than motivation? For example, if someone assualted an individual with the intent of intimidating other members of that individual's social group, it could be charged differently? Would evidence of intent, including the suspect's ideological views or statements which indicated a desire to intimidate the group be permissible? What about the lack of a clear motivation? If it is a random beating that cannot be attributed to anger, but it is a beating that could only serve purposes of intimidation? Would this constitute premeditated intent to intimidate?

 

[manifold]

Motivation is actually taken into account when charging someone for a crime in some cases. At least intent is taken into account. It is the difference between manslaughter (not premeditated) vs. murder (premeditated). It is also considered in cases of accidental death through negligent behavior (involuntary manslaughter) and direct cause of death due to actions (voluntary manslaughter). I believe this is correct, but I am not a lawyer.

If a man walks in on his wife having an affair and in a rage grabs her and shoves her resulting in her falling, striking her head, and dying- he can be charged with manslaughter. If he leaves, gets a weapon, and goes back to the house and kills her, he will likely be charged with murder. Results are the same- she is dead. He is the cause in both scenarios. It is intent that makes the situations different. Isn't this similar to hate crime laws?

Not to me it isn't. In both cases the guy is motivated by anger, no?

So which is it that matters in hate crime laws, the motivation or the intent?

I'm not sure. As I said, I am no lawyer and as yet, I am undecided on hate crime laws. Would you find it acceptable if hate crime laws were based on intent rather than motivation? For example, if someone assualted an individual with the intent of intimidating other members of that individual's social group, it could be charged differently? Would evidence of intent, including the suspect's ideological views or statements which indicated a desire to intimidate the group be permissible? What about the lack of a clear motivation? If it is a random beating that cannot be attributed to anger, but it is a beating that could only serve purposes of intimidation? Would this constitute premeditated intent to intimidate?

How can you prove that was the intent? In the other example, the intent was clearly to kill the person. And that should certainly be reflected in sentencing. But how can you ever be certain about the intent to intimidate? What if it wasn't the intent at all, but it was the effect?

 

[Valerie]

The thought the accompanies the action is still criminalized, no?

The thought is accompanied by speech--slurs, threats, vandalism and violent actions. No one is arresting any citizen on the basis of their thoughts.

Right, they're being arrested on the basis of their actions, and PUNISHED on the basis of their thoughts.

Here's the argument:
SYMPOSIUM ESSAY: THE INHERENT UNFAIRNESS OF HATE CRIME STATUTES

America's embrace of hate crime statutes as weapons against crimes motivated by bias is proving to be a well-intentioned mistake. These statutes are applauded because they often require judges to impose enhanced penalties when biased motive is proven as an element of the offense, as opposed to permitting judges to treat biased motive as one factor among many to be considered at sentencing. Hate crime statutes are claimed to be an appropriate legislative response to the problem of bias-motivated crimes because these crimes are inherently worse than parallel crimes not motivated by bias.[1] Unfortunately, such statutes are not the valuable law enforcement tools their advocates claim them to be. They are not merely a strong social statement disapproving of bias-based crimes. On the contrary, because hate crime statutes limit judicial sentencing discretion, they serve as powerful prosecutorial weapons that transfer control over criminal proceedings from judges to prosecutors in a way that undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system.

So maybe there's a better way?