Why hate crimes and other biases against racism are wrong

[Imran Siddiqui]

The effect of the murder by the KKK is worse than the effect of the murder by the drug lord, hence a harsher sentence is warranted for the crime by the KKK. The issue is not what the criminal believes, but how the criminal acts, and one action is clearly worse than the other.

Disagree. The effect is the same. One person is killed in both actions by a premeditated act. Other people being fearful that it might happen to them doesn't matter.

Yes, the issue is the act, and both acts resulted in one person dead. The actions are exactly the same. The beliefs of the criminal is the part that is different.

[Ramo]

Other people being fearful that it might happen to them doesn't matter.

Why doesn't it matter?

Consider the yelling fire in a crowded theatre example. The speech clearly doesn't harm anyone, but how people respond to the speech does. But the speech is prohibited (as it should be, IMO). Or do you disagree with the Courts' opinions on this?

[Shi Huangdi]

"Disagree. The effect is the same. "

Not nessecarily. The effect of the hate motivation in both the vandalism and the murder example is added terror to the community. Now, since both cases are premeditated murder the penalty will be severe no matter what, but the fact that is a hate crime could definitely be a factor in the decision as to whether to apply the DP or not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why doesn't it matter?

Because they aren't the victims. They simply suffer some emotional trauma. They can sue on intention infliction of emotional distress. Why say one premeditated murder is greater than another? It opens up a can of worms and makes everything a bit more politican (ie, what is hate... which groups are covered).

Consider the yelling fire in a crowded theatre example. The speech clearly doesn't harm anyone, but how people respond to the speech does. But the speech is prohibited (as it should be, IMO). Or do you disagree with the Courts' opinions on this?

Yelling fire in a movie theater is a direct cause to injury (so the injury is the guy's fault because of his negligence). Btw, it isn't the response to the speech, but whether any INJURY happened because of the speech. Then you prosecute based on the injury.

It's a question of proximate cause. Yelling fire is a proximate cause to the injury (ie, the negligence directly caused it). Others copying your crimes because you initiated a 'hate crime' is waay too remote. And besides there may NOT be any future injury based on this one crime. Terror to the community really isn't a part of proximate cause, because it really isn't a crime.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The effect of the hate motivation in both the vandalism and the murder example is added terror to the community.

And how do we measure how much terror to the community is worthy of extra punishment? After all Columbine could call for extra punishment (if the kids were caught) because it added terror to that community. So what if it adds terror to the community, that isn't what the law is there to prevent. It's there to lock up people for killing. Their motivation, if both crimes are premeditated, doesn't matter. Their motivation only matters if they are in a state of rage and cannot think clearly.

[Ramo]

Because they aren't the victims. They simply suffer some emotional trauma. They can sue on intention infliction of emotional distress. Why say one premeditated murder is greater than another? It opens up a can of worms and makes everything a bit more politican (ie, what is hate... which groups are covered).

Why say a premeditated murder is more objectionable than a spontaneous one? A climate where people are being terrorized for having the wrong sexual preference, religion, etc., is a more objectionable situation than one where such a climate doesn't exist. Thus, a greater sentence is warranted both as a deterrent and the need for more extensive rehabilitation.

Yelling fire in a movie theater is a direct cause to injury (so the injury is the guy's fault because of his negligence). Btw, it isn't the response to the speech, but whether any INJURY happened because of the speech. Then you prosecute based on the injury.

The injury isn't a response to the speech?

It's a question of proximate cause. Yelling fire is a proximate cause to the injury (ie, the negligence directly caused it). Others copying your crimes because you initiated a 'hate crime' is waay too remote. And besides there may NOT be any future injury based on this one crime. Terror to the community really isn't a part of proximate cause, because it really isn't a crime.

And I'm saying it should be a crime. In fact, I think "hate crime" should be renamed to "terror," and it be treated as a distinct crime.

[Shi Huangdi]

"And how do we measure how much terror to the community is worthy of extra punishment? After all Columbine could call for extra punishment (if the kids were caught) because it added terror to that community. So what if it adds terror to the community, that isn't what the law is there to prevent. It's there to lock up people for killing. Their motivation, if both crimes are premeditated, doesn't matter. Their motivation only matters if they are in a state of rage and cannot think clearly."

The state of rage and thinking clearly has to do with the murder 1/murder 2 distinction. Damage done to tjhe whole community is certainly a factor in determining the penalty for an act though, when sentencing it is of course reasonable to take into account the whole damage done by the action.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why say a premeditated murder is more objectionable than a spontaneous one? A climate where people are being terrorized for having the wrong sexual preference, religion, etc., is a more objectionable situation than one where such a climate doesn't exist

Because the premeditated people may do it again more readily than a sponteneous one? Doing a premeditated crime based on race is the same as a premeditated crime based on drugs, because it can definetly pop up again in both instances.

The injury isn't a response to the speech?

Yes.. but that doesn't matter as much as how proximate was the speech to the injury. There must be an injury.

And I'm saying it should be a crime. In fact, I think "hate crime" should be renamed to "terror," and it be treated as a distinct crime.

Well that's where we disagree. I have problems with criminalizing hate, because supposedly that sort of belief is protected. Terrorizing the community can also be said of KKK marches. We don't outlaw them (and we shouldn't).

The state of rage and thinking clearly has to do with the murder 1/murder 2 distinction. Damage done to tjhe whole community is certainly a factor in determining the penalty for an act though, when sentencing it is of course reasonable to take into account the whole damage done by the action.

Damage to the community? Why should that matter? Every crime in an urban area adds to 'damage to the community'. People are scared to live in that area when there are muggings and killings. Why is this any different than black people being scared to live an area because a black guy is killed?

[GePap]

I agree with Shi. Hate crimes increase tensions and fear within a community to a much greater degree than a premeditated murder based on greed or jelousy, becuase the subtext is that any fellow member of the group to which the victim belonged could be in jeopardy.

The states already has a long list of things which they can use to add more and more charges. I have no porblem with the state having a bias vs. ideologies that run counter to basic claims of the values of the state.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
This a frequently held debate here at Apolyton, don't know how many time I've stated my position. Anyway, hate crimes are worthy of harsher sentencing because of the terror affect. To go back to my usual tried and true example, take a step back from murder. Take the crime of vandalism. Say Michael the Great graffitis on a wall "YO MIKEY G BE DA ORIGINAL PIMP". Then say someone were to graffiti "KILL ALL ******S" or even "**** THE STUPID ******S" The latter two do more do damage, the second of the three perhaps going to inflict terror.

Now go back to murder. Take two examples. Say a drug lord orders hit on a rival drug lord. Then say a group of KKK members decide they want to have a bit of fun and lynch a black person. The second terrorizes an entire community to a much greater effect.

Drug wars would also terrrorize the community

[chequita guevara]

Hate should a factor in sentencing, but hate crime legistlation itself criminalizes thought. Yes I'm splitting hairs, but it's an important distinction.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hate should a factor in sentencing, but hate crime legistlation itself criminalizes thought.

I agree. I have no problem in hate being a factor among other things for sentancing, but for it alone to automatically result in extra years jail time is something I'm not in favor of.

[chequita guevara]

Hate crime legislation criminalizes thought. Factoring hate in at sentencing is taking motive and effect in consideration after an act.

[tinyp3nis]

What can be a hate crime anyway? How goes the definition, is it just skin deep? If white poor person desides he hates his white boss because his boss is so rich or whatever and kills him, is that a hate crime?