Hate Crime Laws...

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Re: Hate Crime Laws...

Originally posted by red_jon
According to a poll by the Gay Times, 29% of gay men have been a victim of homophobic crime.

http://www.gaytimes.co.uk/gt/default.asp?poll=display&pollID=13

I'm only 18, not flamboyant and have been myself (though I never reported it).

Do strciter laws need to be in place to stop this kind of thing?


My personal opinion is, if someone attacks someone because of what they are they are more likely to do it again - so a tougher penalty should be impsed. However, this should apply to any section of society who are attacked - if a someone is attacked for being white or straight, then they too should be protected.

What do you think?

Getting back to the original post.

If someone is attacked for being white, or black, or gay, or rich, or poor, or Catholic or liberal or whatever - I don't think this should be a hate crime. There are already laws against beating people, and those laws should be enforced, of course. There are all kinds of motives and I can see problems drawing a line, here.

'Intent to terrorize the group the victim belongs to' wasn't in the original post. I think that this intent would make the subsequent crime a hate crime, because it becomes more than a crime against the victim - there's intent to affect an entire group, which would not be punished by the existing law that makes assault a crime.

[Cyclotron]

It seems like a crime should be prosecuted based on the act, not the type of victim or the personal hatreds of the criminal.

If hatred is not illegal, why should hatred make murder (or any other crime) more illegal? We should pass hate crime legislation on the same day we outlaw hate (never).

[Imran Siddiqui]

It seems like a crime should be prosecuted based on the act, not the type of victim or the personal hatreds of the criminal.

This isn't how the criminal law works. It requires a criminal act (Actus Reas) and ALSO a requisite mental state (Mens Rea). Without the proper mental state, the punishment for the crime is reduced.

[gsmoove23]

You argue that they are addressed by the system of felony degrees because these crimes will obviously be considered malicious. That is not true unless the only evidence that the crime was pre-meditated or deliberate has to do with the fact that the defendant hated the victim's group. Otherwise the felony degree would be the same as a similar non-hate crime and the sentencing will depend largely on the whims of the judge. It is not addressed. You'll do better with your arguement that it doesn't need to be addressed.

Why a seperate crime status, because these crimes have a direct effect on the communities or groups they are directed against. These are terror crimes, they spread fear in their target groups. If they are not addressed apropriately they can result in retaliatory attacks or greater tension.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You argue that they are addressed by the system of felony degrees because these crimes will obviously be considered malicious. That is not true unless the only evidence that the crime was pre-meditated or deliberate has to do with the fact that the defendant hated the victim's group.

Um the evidence that the crime had to due with hating the victim's group IS sufficient grounds for premeditation.

Otherwise the felony degree would be the same as a similar non-hate crime and the sentencing will depend largely on the whims of the judge. It is not addressed.

Do you know ANYTHING about the criminal law? The JURY decides which degree of a crime the person is convicted of. I'll say it again, the JURY, not the whims of some judge.

These are terror crimes, they spread fear in their target groups. If they are not addressed apropriately they can result in retaliatory attacks or greater tension.

Increasing the degree of the conviction isn't addressing it properly? What would you do, have everyone that has done a 'hate crime' be executed?

[gsmoove23]

Sentencing, the operative word is sentencing. The judge decides sentencing within the guidelines of the law. The prosecutor decides which degree of crime the defendant is accused of. The jury decide guilty or innocent.

"Um the evidence that the crime had to due with hating the victim's group IS sufficient grounds for premeditation."

Um, no. Pre-meditation means the perpetrator thought of the crime before hand. The fact that he hates the group is no proof of this. For first degree you have to prove pre-meditation and deliberate act in most states. These can just as easily be proven by other aspects of the crime.

Two identical crimes, except one is a hate crime, would in most cases get the same degree.

[Ozz]

Gays just want to be equal with Jews. Smack one and
it's assualt and a hate crime.And the rest of us remain 2nd class citizens with only an assault charge.

Hate crime, or the new aristocracy. King Alfred knew
this system... 100 cattle for a killing a noble, 10 for a freeman, 1 for a serf.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The judge decides sentencing within the guidelines of the law. The prosecutor decides which degree of crime the defendant is accused of. The jury decide guilty or innocent.

Oh, so the jury doesn't decide between different charges? So the prosecutor cannot assert different charges and have the juries decide between them? That's news to many juries around this country (especially ones that are asked to decide between different degrees of murder).

And you are being naive if you think that prosecutors don't go for the highest charge they can get. That means the highest degree for premeditated crimes (of which hate crimes are).

That is why there are so many cases where the jury rejects a first degree murder charge and gives a second degree murder conviction instead. That's mainly because prosecutors tend to go for 1st degree for just about anything.

Pre-meditation means the perpetrator thought of the crime before hand. The fact that he hates the group is no proof of this.

Um, no. Isn't a hate crime a crime that is committed because of the race, sex, or sexual orientation of a person? So if a person commits a crime based on, say, sexual orientation (like Matthew Shepard), it cannot be anything but premeditated. You have to think about killing a gay person before you actually do it.

If you happen to kill one in the process of an argument, that isn't premeditated, but that isn't a hate crime either.

[gsmoove23]

Imran,

Again, juries simply decide guilty or not guilty. The prosecutors decide what degrees to offer, this has nothing to do with our arguement.

a hate crime can be committed without pre-meditation, I don't know why this would be necessary. Consider a man who kills someone he hates intensely. He did not necessarily pre-meditate the act. He might have been overcome with rage for whatever reason. I'm not going to go into detail about this it has little to do with our arguement either.

A man decides he is going to kill someone, later he carries out his plans. That is pre-meditated murder. If it comes to pass that the man was killed simply because he was white the fact that it was a hate crime has no effect on the sentencing unless hate crime laws are in effect.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Again, juries simply decide guilty or not guilty. The prosecutors decide what degrees to offer, this has nothing to do with our arguement.

They decide guilty or not guilty on a variety of different charges. You, erronously, believe they simply decide on one charge.

a hate crime can be committed without pre-meditation

It really can't. The underlying basis for a hate crime is premeditation. A killing or beating of someone because of their race. You would have to think of killing or beating him because of race, sex, etc., before you did it.

He might have been overcome with rage for whatever reason.

Hate crimes legislation would NOT deal with rage, nor should it. A man who is enraged because of provocation (which is really the only reason you'd be 'overcome' with rage) is not killing somone because of race. A homicide committed by an provoked person is not murder, it is voluntary manslaughter.

If he wasn't provoked, then being enraged wouldn't stop you from being prosecuted for premeditated murder if you thought about doing it before you did it.

A man decides he is going to kill someone, later he carries out his plans. That is pre-meditated murder. If it comes to pass that the man was killed simply because he was white the fact that it was a hate crime has no effect on the sentencing unless hate crime laws are in effect.

Actually it does. The fact that the man was killed solely because he was white is a factor which definetly establishes premeditation. I cannot think of a SINGLE case where you would kill someone solely based on race and it would NOT be premeditated. A hate crime must be premeditated.

Define 'later'. Later can mean one minute later, or even 20 seconds later. If you hesitate and think for a second and then shoot, the courts have said that is premeditated.

State (of Washington) v. Arata: "the law knows no specific time; if a man reflects upon the act a moment antecedent to the act, it is sufficient; the time for deliberation and premeditation need not be long..."

In your scenario, the killer would be convicted of premeditated (1st degree murder), mostly because of the fact he thought about killing the victim, because he was killed solely because he was white, before he fired.

[gsmoove23]

What the Hell are you talking about? The crime could be deemed pre-meditated for any number of reasons. If the evidence that it was a hate-crime is the only evidence to prove it was pre-meditated then that is the only occasion when a criminal would receive a heftier sentence because of a hate-crime.

If a person is walking on the street and decides to beat an asian man because he bumped into him and his victim dies as a result of the beating then it is not necessarily a pre-meditated crime. The fact that the man hated asians might have been one of the things which spurred him to fly into a rage plus he might have just lost his job, found out his girlfriend was cheating on him... It would not be a premeditated crime but it could very well be a hate crime.

[gsmoove23]

In some jurisdictions the premeditation has to occur only moments before the act, while in others it must precede the act by an appreciable amount of time.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If the evidence that it was a hate-crime is the only evidence to prove it was pre-meditated then that is the only occasion when a criminal would receive a heftier sentence because of a hate-crime.

Um... yeah! But EVERY hate crime is premeditated! If you kill someone because of their race, that is premeditated. You have thought about killing the man because of his race. If you haven't intended to kill the person because of his race, then it isn't a hate crime at all.

If a person is walking on the street and decides to beat an asian man because he bumped into him and his victim dies as a result of the beating then it is not necessarily a pre-meditated crime.

Um... actually, yes it is. If you get bumped into and get all mad and decide to beat down the person that bumped into you and he dies, THAT is 1st degree murder in ANY state in the United States.

Do you have any idea what your are talking about?

[Imran Siddiqui]

In some jurisdictions the premeditation has to occur only moments before the act, while in others it must precede the act by an appreciable amount of time.

And every jurisdiction would consider killing a person solely based on his race (which is what hate crimes legislation focuses on) to be premeditated, because you have intended and thought about killing the person because of his race.

If you have NOT thought about killing a person because of his race, then how the Hell can that be even considered a hate crime? The whole point of hate crimes legislation is to stop people from killing solely based on race! In order to kill solely based on race, you must think about the crime before committing it.

Do you not think that Matthew Shepard was premeditated? Do you not think that James Byrd was not premeditated? Come on!

[gsmoove23]

A hate crime can actually be any sort of crime from vandalism, harassment, on up to Murder. Most hate crimes are in fact not murder.

If you get mad and beat some asian guy and he later dies the burden is on the prosecutor to prove that 1st you planned to kill them. The simple fact that you hate asian guys is no proof that you planned to kill him. It is not PROOF that you even planned before hand to beat him up. PROOF must be given to establish this. Evidence that you hate asians is not proof, nor is the fact that you may have been yelling various racial slurs while kicking him(though this might be a good arguement for a hate-crime). These things do not preclude that you decided and planned beforehand to kill him or even beat him. It is possible for a defense attorney to argue that the beating was spontaneous, that some silly thing touched him off.

"Um... actually, yes it is. If you get bumped into and get all mad and decide to beat down the person that bumped into you and he dies, THAT is 1st degree murder in ANY state in the United States."

This comment is pure idiocy. Nowhere in that sentence is there any suggestion that the attacker planned to kill the victim, It would be up to the prosecutor to prove that or go for manslaughter. Are you just wasting time til you can go to bed?