This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Hate Crimes

edited October 2009 in Politics
Well, Obama has added the LGBT community to the people protected under hate crime laws. That is all fine and dandy, but I am not sure whether this does more harm or good.

To me this more or less is just something that points out some sort of arbitrary difference between people and says "you are too weak to protect yourself, which is why we will protect you for you". I am very much for equal rights and equal protection, but I am definitely not for special protection. A crime is a crime and the reason it was committed for should not necessarily factor into the sentencing. Differentiation due to gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, nationality or what have you should not be granting special protection, even if it was cause for special disadvantages in the past.
«13

Comments

  • edited October 2009
    How is a hate crime law any different than thought police?

    If I kill someone why should my punishment be any different based on whether or not that person belongs to a protected class?
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • edited October 2009
    How is a hate crime law any different than thought police?
    Steve, you actually need to have thoughts to attract the attention of the "thought police", so you don't have anything to fear from them.

    Murder, like any other crime, is defined, differentiated, and stratified by mental state. How is that any different from your feared "thought police"?
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • To me this more or less is just something that points out some sort of arbitrary difference between people and says "you are too weak to protect yourself, which is why we will protect you for you".
    Is this not exactly the function of the laws? If laws were not written to protect those who can't protect themselves, we'd be in a state of nature.
    A crime is a crime and the reason it was committed for should not necessarily factor into the sentencing
    The reason a crime is committed is a huge factor in the sentencing, and even in determining what crime it is. The reason a crime is committed can mean the difference between negligence/manslaughter and murder.
    I am very much for equal rights and equal protection, but I am definitely not for special protection. [...] Differentiation due to gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, nationality or what have you should not be granting special protection, even if it was cause for special disadvantages in the past.
    In the past? Look around you. Unless you're trying to ignore it or are genuinely ignorant, it's hard to miss the discrimination, hatred, and even violence that takes place against the LGBT community every day, that results from nothing but a person's sexual orientation. These crimes are genuine hate crimes, regardless of whether or not that's in the letter of the law, and to say that it is "special protection" to call them what they are is outrageous.
  • Murder is stratified by mental state. However, I'm not so sure if we should stratify it by this kind of mental state.

    Obviously there's a difference of intent between murdering with a plan, a fit of rage, or an accident. But hate crime doesn't examine presence or lack of intent, it examines the reasons for the intent. Should it really matter if I plan to kill someone because of racism, money, a personal dispute, or what have you? Planning to murder someone I think is equally bad for any reason. Why should we punish people more who plan to kill gays or jews because of homophobia or anti-semitism than we punish someone who plans to kill for financial gain or political reasons?
  • edited October 2009
    To me this more or less is just something that points out some sort of arbitrary difference between people and says "you are too weak to protect yourself, which is why we will protect you for you".
    Is this notexactlythe function of the laws? If laws were not written to protect those who can't protect themselves, we'd be in a state of nature.
    Yes, exactly. However, my objection is that I think the LGBT community is not weaker than the rest of society, but the intent behind this law practically declares them as such. The same with other distinctions protected from "hate crime".
    A crime is a crime and the reason it was committed for should not necessarily factor into the sentencing
    The reason a crime is committed is ahugefactor in the sentencing, and even in determining what crime it is. The reason a crime is committed can mean the difference between negligence/manslaughter and murder.
    This is a distinction in how a crime was committed. It isn't a distinction of motive but a distinction of whether a motive was present or not.
    I am very much for equal rights and equal protection, but I am definitely not for special protection. [...] Differentiation due to gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, nationality or what have you should not be granting special protection, even if it was cause for special disadvantages in the past.
    In the past? Look around you. Unless you're trying to ignore it or are genuinely ignorant, it's hard to miss the discrimination, hatred, and even violence that takes place against the LGBT community every day, that results from nothing but a person's sexual orientation. These crimes are genuine hate crimes, regardless of whether or not that's in the letter of the law, and to say that it is "special protection" to call them what they are is outrageous.
    Even at present it doesn't matter. I object to the sheer idea of "hate crime". Almost every crime committed against a specific person is made out of hate. If I kill my neighbor because I hate his guts because he wronged me in the past, is it any different to a guy who kills someone because he's black/gay/jewish/whatever?

    In my opinion, sentencing should not be dependent on the motive. I am sorry, but declaring one group of people more off limits, with more severe punishment for crimes motivated by hatred against that group, is special protection of that group. Equality is not created by putting one group of people above all other groups.

    I do apologize though. My usage of "in the past" wasn't meant to convey that there is no longer any discrimination against gays. I am well aware and have witnessed enough of this unfounded discrimination.
    Post edited by chaosof99 on
  • RymRym
    edited October 2009
    Pragmatically, however, these sorts of laws do send a message, on the lower level of discourse, to the general citizenry that their bigotry will not be tolerated. What's the real impact here? The law will not likely dissuade any murderers from murdering. But, what it will do is further incite the bigots at the government's acceptance of whatever it is they hate. Inciting people like that is a great way to identify them, push them to extremes, and then arrest them when they eventually break a law.

    If we're going to have hate crime legislation at all, then LGBT should be included. The point of these laws is to send a message. For the average citizen, this sort of message is far more powerful, inciting, and effective than the government simply making the statement without the backing of law.

    I would personally argue that hate crime implies some level of premeditation, at least to the point that a proven hate-related murder should be handled somewhere between second and first degree.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • Pragmatically, however, these sorts of laws do send a message, on the lower level of discourse, to the general citizenry that their bigotry will not be tolerated. What's the real impact here? The law will not likely dissuade any murderers from murdering. But, what it will do is further incite the bigots at the government's acceptance of whatever it is they hate. Inciting people like that is a great way to identify them, push them to extremes, and then arrest them when they eventually break a law.
    Wouldn't we be better off if they didn't commit any crimes?
  • RymRym
    edited October 2009
    Wouldn't we be better off if they didn't commit any crimes?
    If someone is able to be incited to commit a crime due solely to the words and deeds of others which do not affect them in any way, then yes, I'd rather they show their true colors such that we can deal with them.

    Nothing is helping the anti-conservative cause more than the increasing craziness of the right in America today. I say Obama should step it up and incite them into a frothing fury. If he came out strongly for gay marriage, say, the right might just explode into total irrelevancy.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • edited October 2009
    If someone is able to be incited to commit a crime due solely to the words and deeds of others which do not affect them in any way, then yes, I'd rather they show their true colors such that we can deal with them.
    I guess your point is that even when not committing a crime, they will be causing continuous low-level damage to society.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • I'm in the "all crime is hate crime" camp. You don't blow a hole in someone's chest because you just care too much.
  • I'm in the "all crime is hate crime" camp.
    What about dispassionate killings for personal gain? The mob hitman probably doesn't hate the person he's shivving in the alley.
  • Why should we punish people more who plan to kill gays or jews because of homophobia or anti-semitism than we punish someone who plans to kill for financial gain or political reasons?
    Financial gain, political reasons, fits of rage, may all be one-time-only events and the people who murder for these reasons may be rehabilitated. If someone hates, say, mutants enough to kill someone merely because he is a mutant, how likely will it be that the murderer can be rehabilitated? If the hate is still there, the murderer may murder another mutant as soon as he is released from custody.


    What makes mutants as a victim class different? If you are a politician, you know that you may be targeted and you can take steps to prevent it. If you are in a bad domestic relationship, you might see violence brewing. But what if you're a mutant, just walking down the street, and a mutant hater decides to kill you for no other reasaon than that you are a mutant? How would you as another mutant feel reading that story in the newspaper? "Wow, I could be killed just because I'm a mutant. I can't help being a mutant, but people want to kill me because I'm a mutant."
  • I'm in the "all crime is hate crime" camp.
    What about dispassionate killings for personal gain? The mob hitman probably doesn't hate the person he's shivving in the alley.
    :facepalm: That's borderline sociopath behavior. A general underlying hatred for all other people is still hate. And don't start with the semantic argument, I'm on to what you're trying to do here. ;)
  • Why should we punish people more who plan to kill gays or jews because of homophobia or anti-semitism than we punish someone who plans to kill jews for financial gain or political reasons?
  • I think some people in this thread need to read up on what a hate crime is. All crime can not be a hate crime.
  • I think some people in this thread need to read up on what ahate crimeis. All crime can not be a hate crime.
    My point is that there shouldn't be worse punishments for committing a crime against someone else based on who/what they are. Simply raise the consequences of all similar crime. Don't reduce the punishment for murder due to "hate" back down to regular murder, increase the consequences for murder, period.

    That being said there's little point in consequences at all. Asshole-stupid violent racists/homophobes/whatever won't be deterred by possible consequences anyhow.
  • edited October 2009
    Rym and HJ pretty much summed up how I feel about this. As an established L of LGBT myself, this action on Obama's part sends a message to me that says "Oh hey, maybe you guys do count as people after all". Hearing a news story about a lesbian being gang-raped while being taunted for her sexuality, and then watching the ensuing internet-news-comment-war about weather or not that woman even -deserved- to be treated as a victim of hate, can be pretty scary. There are lots of special protections and/or privileges out there, shared by other minorities or the majority that have been consistently denied to us. What do you think that says to us? Even if this does nothing to reduce hate crimes, it's the message to me (and those lovable crazy-cons) that is most important - the government is becoming less tolerant of this slavering bullshit.

    Murder isn't the only way that a hate crime can be committed. Those guys would (allegedly) not have raped that woman if they hadn't known she was a lesbian. They did it not just to break her, but to break her for being what she is. As far as I'm concerned, that deserves extra punishment.
    In my opinion, sentencing should not be dependent on the motive. I am sorry, but declaring one group of people more off limits, with more severe punishment for crimes motivated by hatred against that group, is special protection of that group. Equality is not created by putting one group of people above all other groups.
    By that logic, I guess Obama should let some of those extra Secret Service agents go. :P

    Seriously, though. Isn't establishing the motive also establishing how dangerous the offender is, to some extent? Wouldn't it make sense to sentence him according to that? :\
    Post edited by loltsundere on
  • edited October 2009
    I am of two minds about this policy.
    If someone killed Adam our of hatred for his race or out of a dislike for him personally, I honestly think both situations should be treated equally under the law because the murderer's opinions should be irrelevant. Moreover, how can one prove why someone does something with any level of certainty. A person who is anti-Semitic might kill a particular Jewish person for a myriad of reasons either related or unrelated to the his/her hatred.
    This also creates a vast inequity based on motive. Should a murderer that kills Adam for a reason completely unrelated to hatred of a social group have a lesser sentence?
    However, I do like the public message this sends. Should we be altering law for a PR point, though?
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • My point is that there shouldn't be worse punishments for committing a crime against someone else based on who/what they are. Simply raise the consequences of all similar crime. Don't reduce the punishment for murder due to "hate" back down to regular murder, increase the consequences for murder, period.

    That being said there's little point in consequences at all. Asshole-stupid violent racists/homophobes/whatever won't be deterred by possible consequences anyhow.
    Fair point.

    I've just gotten into a number of arguments on this forum due to having a different definition of a word than other forum members. Agree on the terms used in the debate, and then proceed.
  • Maybe hate crimes should hold the same sentencing as normal crimes, except that they include some sort of additional obligatory sentence involving community service or re-education.
  • Maybe hate crimes should hold the same sentencing as normal crimes, except that they include some sort of additional obligatory sentence involving community service or re-education.
    "You are sentenced to 5 years of community service and then death."

    Talk about a fate worse than death. :P
  • "You are sentenced to 5 years of community service and then death."
    At least you get some work out of them. Better would be the option to live the rest of your life in community service, or to choose death. Never execute anyone against their will, but have the option of locking them up forever (for study/treatment in the case of the insane, for working in other cases) or killing them at their own request.

    Of course, in the instance of preventing/stopping a murder or other serious crime, law enforcement should still have the ability to use lethal force. The possibility of death is one of the risks of engaging in violent behavior.
  • edited October 2009
    Maybe hate crimes should hold the same sentencing as normal crimes, except that they include some sort of additional obligatory sentence involving community service or re-education.
    When they are minor crimes, most certainly. Racial slurs graffitied onto walls and cars should definitely land that person in a re-education program and then doing community service that benefits the group he/she disparaged.
    EDIT:
    "You are sentenced to 5 years of community service and then death."
    At least you get some work out of them. Better would be the option to live the rest of your life in community service, or to choose death. Never execute anyone against their will, but have the option of locking them up forever (for study/treatment in the case of the insane, for working in other cases) or killing them at their own request.
    Of course, in the instance of preventing/stopping a murder or other serious crime, law enforcement should still have the ability to use lethal force. The possibility of death is one of the risks of engaging in violent behavior.
    If someone is too violent, then work within the prison, let alone the general public, may be out of the question. I am right there with you on the issue of the death penalty.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • edited October 2009
    IMoreover, how can one prove why someone does something with any level of certainty?
    There are proof problems with every crime. How do you prove that a defendant formed the mental state of intent as opposed to the mental state of wantonness? Practically, it's a case-by-case thing. State of mind can be proven by testimony, physical evidence, or circumstantial evidence. If a defendant yells, "Kill the mutie!" before killing a mutant, that's pretty good proof that he killed because of hate. If he had a website where he published anti-mutant diatribes and then he killed a mutant, there's pretty good evidence that the killing was a hate crime.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • There are proof problems with every crime. How do you prove that a defendant formed the mental state of intent as opposed to the mental state of wantonness? Practically, it's a case-by-case thing. State of mind can be proven by testimony, physical evidence, or circumstantial evidence. If a defendant yells, "Kill the mutie!" before killing a mutant, that's pretty good proof that he killed because of hate. If he had a website where he published anti-mutant diatribes and then he killed a mutant, there's pretty good evidence that the killing was a hate crime.
    But why should hatred against a group carry a greater sentence than greed, envy, hatred against an individual? What about the nature of the crime makes is any worse and the others any "better"?
  • edited October 2009
    There are proof problems with every crime. How do you prove that a defendant formed the mental state of intent as opposed to the mental state of wantonness? Practically, it's a case-by-case thing. State of mind can be proven by testimony, physical evidence, or circumstantial evidence. If a defendant yells, "Kill the mutie!" before killing a mutant, that's pretty good proof that he killed because of hate. If he had a website where he published anti-mutant diatribes and then he killed a mutant, there's pretty good evidence that the killing was a hate crime.
    But why should hatred against a group carry a greater sentence than greed, envy, hatred against an individual? What about the nature of the crime makes is any worse and the others any "better"?
    Like I said before, I have a much easier time believing a murderer who killed for individual reasons can be rehabilitated than a murderer who killed a person merely because that person was a member of a certain group.

    If Sam killed Jack because he hated Jack for individual reasons, what reason does Sam have to kill anyone else? Jack is gone. However, if he killed Jack merely because Jack has the X-gene, shared by a significant portion of the population, I would be very concerned that Sam is going to go looking to kill more people with the X-gene.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • While that may be your personal feeling, is there any data available that can verify this? Is there any information regarding de-programing and re-education for convicts whose crimes can be linked to their bias/hatred?
  • While that may be your personal feeling, is there any data available that can verify this? Is there any information regarding de-programing and re-education for convicts whose crimes can be linked to their bias/hatred?
    I do not know.

    BTW, why would anyone kill Adam? I know art critics can be harsh, but does he really need to fear death for being an artist?
  • BTW, why would anyone kill Adam? I know art critics can be harsh, but does he really need to fear death for being an artist?
    Yes, they are the colorists! They would have the world in sepia or black and white!!
    I used him as an example because he is Jewish.

  • I used him as an example because he is Jewish.
    It's very hard to understand why anyone would be hating on Adam just because he's Jewish. But really, it's hard to understand hating anyone merely because of some group affiliation. That's just lazy. If you look hard enough, there are plenty of reasons to hate people on an individual basis.
Sign In or Register to comment.