Hate Crime Laws...

[Ben Kenobi]

Imran:

How does one distinguish a hate crime from an ordinary crime? Just because the victim is a minority, and the attacker comes from a majority group is not enough to prove intent.

[Imran Siddiqui]

A hate crime can actually be any sort of crime from vandalism, harassment, on up to Murder.

Yes, but if the factor of your hate can easily be determined as the source of the crime, the charge gets bumped up to the highest it can.

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.

If you beat him badly enough that he dies in the beating, that is usually enough to satisfy the test that you planned to kill him, UNLESS you were provoked into beating him (because he just killed your friend or something) then it is voluntary manslaughter.

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)

Yes they are. They are evidence of motive, which according to my Crim Law notes is a classic evidence of premeditation.

It is possible for a defense attorney to argue that the beating was spontaneous, that some silly thing touched him off.

Only if it was a sudden impulse of passion caused by a serious and highly provoking injury, which would be sufficient to excite a reasonable person, without a cooling off period.

There are TWO classic catagories of voluntary manslaughter: fighting and adultery. If the killing is committed outside of that, it's murder. And if you intended to kill the person you killed, it's 1st degree, premeditated murder. You must intent to kill someone because of their race, sex, etc, for a hate crime (that is the only way to kill someone solely on the race, sex, factor), therefore if it ain't premeditated, it ain't a hate crime.

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.

So wait, you get bumped in the street, and then take out a lead pipe and started beating the guy down because he was an Asian, THAT isn't intended? THAT isn't premeditated?

Speaking of idiocy...

--

Oh, and I'm still waiting for that non-premeditated hate crime example please.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How does one distinguish a hate crime from an ordinary crime? Just because the victim is a minority, and the attacker comes from a majority group is not enough to prove intent.

Of course not. However, if the person is guided solely by feelings of hatred towards the minority group, that does prove intent... intent to kill a minority because of the hatreds of the attacker.

[red_jon]

Can I just say thanks to the posters who have used this for intelligent discussion such as Imran and gsmoove23.

In response to those who stated that it would create an 'us and them' and gay/black people will gain more rights I already stated that, in my eyes, the laws would be pointless if they did not apply to ALL members of society. And I'd love to know what planet you're living on if you think that gay people have more rights.

I shouldn't really have mentioned what happened to me - I didn't report it because it wasn't really much at all. I was in Spain and I was with a coupla friends. We walked down the street past a pool where some guys were. I was just looking over at them when a couple of other (presumably English) guys walked up to me, called me a *** and belted me, then ran off.

I would, of course, be against hate crimes if they didn't apply to everyone.

[gsmoove23]

Jeez, spend a day away from your computer and this gets buried on page 4. No one else is interested in this? Well, I always gotta get the last word so...

if the factor of your hate can easily be determined as the source of the crime, the charge gets bumped up to the highest it can.

Your statement seems to be based on nothing more then wishful thinking. Explain to me how this is true, expecially with non-felony charges which we haven't discussed.

By offering prosecutors a law that recognizes and is well suited towards a particular crime which is prevalent in our society the public is better able to hold him accountable when he doesn't use it to better effect. Before hate crime legislation there were no laws that could explicitly be used for these sorts of crimes which have a significantly different effect then non bias crimes. You've been trying to argue that pre-meditation addresses the crime when the concept of premeditation has nothing to do with a bias crime and while you may believe that proof of bias precludes pre-meditation that is not a fact recognized by the courts. It is simply one factor that might support an arguement for premeditation.

If you beat him badly enough that he dies in the beating, that is usually enough to satisfy the test that you planned to kill him, UNLESS you were provoked into beating him (because he just killed your friend or something) then it is voluntary manslaughter.

That would not be enough unless a person could foresee the amount of force used resulting in death. Punching and kicking a guy for 20 minutes as opposed to punching him a few times and him falling, cracking his head on the concrete.

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)

Yes they are. They are evidence of motive, which according to my Crim Law notes is a classic evidence of premeditation.

Thank you, you just made my arguement. There is a difference between proof and evidence, if you'll notice I said its not PROOF and you replied yes it is, its EVIDENCE of MOTIVE(both terms not being PROOF).

Only if it was a sudden impulse of passion caused by a serious and highly provoking injury, which would be sufficient to excite a reasonable person, without a cooling off period.

This is not true. There is no assumption or requirement that people act rationally. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor, he must prove that the assailant considered his action before it took place and if the assailant is an irrational person this is harder to prove. The beating could be sparked by an arguement where the victim says something that any rational person might let slide or might not even notice but in some way touches off the assailant. In the case of a hate-crime a person might be angered that during an arguement a black man looked him in the eye and talked back to him. The person might be highly irrational already, maybe drunk... He throws a punch... There is no proof in that example as of yet that the action was pre-meditated.

There are TWO classic catagories of voluntary manslaughter: fighting and adultery. If the killing is committed outside of that, it's murder. And if you intended to kill the person you killed, it's 1st degree, premeditated murder. You must intent to kill someone because of their race, sex, etc, for a hate crime (that is the only way to kill someone solely on the race, sex, factor), therefore if it ain't premeditated, it ain't a hate crime.

Who said manslaughter? I'm talking about the distinction between Murder 1 and 2. Murder 1 you usually have to prove premeditation AND deliberate action(clear headed).

So wait, you get bumped in the street, and then take out a lead pipe and started beating the guy down because he was an Asian, THAT isn't intended? THAT isn't premeditated?

Speaking of idiocy...

Damn, you just planted evidence in my story . Now there's a lead pipe? With the introduction of weapons it becomes easier to prove premeditation (He takes the time to pick it up in the street or he hid it in his jacket before he left the house) but of course you new that.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by 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.

Hate does not mean that you thought of killing someone and it certainly doesn't preclude that you thought of committing the specific crime. A hate-crime can be a result of a gut reaction to a group that results in a violent action. I'm talking about the distinction between murder 1 and 2 here. For murder 1 you must prove premeditated and deliberate action(clear headed).

[Imran Siddiqui]

By offering prosecutors a law that recognizes and is well suited towards a particular crime which is prevalent in our society the public is better able to hold him accountable when he doesn't use it to better effect.

Why don't we offer a law for EVERY particular crime. It isn't like the criminal justice system isn't crowded enough.

And what would this law due that premeditation wouldn't be able to? I see it as basically the exact same thing, so why not simply say, it's a factor to be used in premediation doctrine?

That would not be enough unless a person could foresee the amount of force used resulting in death.

Intent to cause serious bodily harm (ie, beating someone up), which results in death is premeditated murder.

There is a difference between proof and evidence, if you'll notice I said its not PROOF and you replied yes it is, its EVIDENCE of MOTIVE

Um... in every use of the word, evidence and proof are synonyms.

This is not true.

It's textbook defintion.

The beating could be sparked by an arguement where the victim says something that any rational person might let slide or might not even notice but in some way touches off the assailant.

Which is why to win on manslaughter there is a subjective AND objective test. If you can only prove the subjective, then it stays at murder and doesn't go down to manslaughter.

I'm talking about the distinction between Murder 1 and 2. Murder 1 you usually have to prove premeditation AND deliberate action(clear headed).

And what hate crime (as it is defined in every proposed hate crime statute I've seen) doesn't encompase premediation and deliberate action? You act like it is HARD to prove premeditation and deliberate action. Ever see Texas? They don't have problems with it there (and capital murder requires even a heightened standard of premeditation). Proving premeditation and deliberate action is not that difficult at all. ANY hesitation before the act is sufficient in a majority of states. Even California, which has a reasonable time period standard for premediation has said that 5 seconds is a reasonable time for premeditation and deliberate action.

Murder 2 is simply reckless homicide (depraved heart murder).

With the introduction of weapons it becomes easier to prove premeditation

Ok, even with his hands. He steps back, rushes the guy and punches him. He intents to cause serious bodily injury by continually punching him. Asian guy dies. That Murder 1. Easy case.

[gsmoove23]

Why don't we offer a law for EVERY particular crime. It isn't like the criminal justice system isn't crowded enough.

? Who said its crowded? This is not an adequate arguement, if the law is justified then it should be there, if its not it shouldn't.

And what would this law due that premeditation wouldn't be able to? I see it as basically the exact same thing, so why not simply say, it's a factor to be used in premediation doctrine?

You keep going back to the same arguement, its covered by premeditation, as if premeditation defines a hate crime. It doesn't. For the real question lets try this:

ex 1. a man has killed another man in a non-bias, cold-blooded crime and obviously planned the murder in advance(bought a gun the week before, staked out the man's residence), all successfully argued in court, he is sentenced for murder 1.

ex 2. a man has killed another man because the victim was a muslim, cold-blooded crime and obviously planned the murder in advance(bought a gun the week before, staked out the man's residence), all successfully argued in court, he is sentenced for murder 1.

The offenders have received exactly the same judgement. Now the judge may care to give the second killer a harsher sentencing then the first because he feels the crime carries more weight or he may not, depending on his politics or how he feels that day.

In this case the fact that it was a hate-crime has made no difference, do you think it has been adequately addressed? Thats the real question, if you think the second crime carries no more weight then the first why not argue that?

And what hate crime (as it is defined in every proposed hate crime statute I've seen) doesn't encompase premediation and deliberate action?

Link? Is there actually hate crime legislation that states hate-crime precludes premeditation and deliberate action?

You act like it is HARD to prove premeditation and deliberate action. Ever see Texas? They don't have problems with it there (and capital murder requires even a heightened standard of premeditation). Proving premeditation and deliberate action is not that difficult at all.

Thats funny. Is Texas still part of the US?

[QUOTE] ANY hesitation before the act is sufficient in a majority of states. Even California, which has a reasonable time period standard for premediation has said that 5 seconds is a reasonable time for premeditation and deliberate action.[QUOTE]

You seem to only have a one sided view of the law, guilty until proven innocent. As if the fact that in some jurisdictions the amount of time necessary before an act is premeditated is only moments its almost impossible to prove that it wasn't. As if it wasn't the prosecutor who had to prove that the pause took place, put a reliable wittness or two up on the stand. In fact the arguement you've made for the ease of proving premeditation makes me think that the term is unecessary. How could they possibly address hate-crimes?

Ok, even with his hands. He steps back, rushes the guy and punches him. He intents to cause serious bodily injury by continually punching him. Asian guy dies. That Murder 1. Easy case.

Again you're embellishing the evidence. I'm starting to see why you have such an optimistic view of the lot of prosecutors. Yes, if there were witnesses that said the man took a step back and paused that would be a case for premeditation(only a case, it would still have to be argued well, and God forbid the guy doesn't have a good defense lawyer). However, most fights I've been in there is no pause and there is no reason to assume from the original story that a pause existed. Again, why am I arguing, if its so easy to prove premeditation then how does it address hate-crimes?

Oh, and serious bodily harm would not include a few punches that unluckily resulted in death once the guy hit the floor, especially if they were not followed up by kicks once on the ground. The word SERIOUS carries a little more weight then you seem willing to give it. Remember you have to prove that the attacker planned beforehand to cause death or serious bodily harm which is likely hard to do unless the man is a very skilled fighter or very strong.

[gsmoove23]

Really I have to say I'm against over-applying hate crime laws. Simply proving that a man was killed or beaten because the attacker didn't like his group should be inefficient. It should be necessary to prove that there was a deliberate wish to express a message or that a very real message was sent to a target group.

For intance if a man is killed and its later found out that he was gay and the killer hated gays that shouldn't be sufficient. The idea is sending a message of terror to a group. Thats why I really don't like the title hate-crime. It should be terror crimes or something like that and also be able to extend to terrorist attacks.

[gsmoove23]

I've been looking for this, apparently some people don't believe as you do Imran...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/08/26/state2042EDT0200.DTL

The Associated Press
Monday, August 26, 2002

(08-26) 17:42 PDT REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (AP) --

A Redwood City man who was convicted of manslaughter and a hate crime for the 1999 slaying of a bar patron was sentenced Monday to 46 years to life in prison in San Mateo County Superior Court.

Wayne King, 39, who is white, was convicted in March of luring Brad Davis out of Shooters bar in Redwood City and sucker-punching him. Investigators said King didn't like Davis, who was black, talking to white women.

The punch knocked Davis down and he hit his head on the pavement. Davis died six days later without ever awakening.

King is a third-strike defendant who has spent much of his adult life in prison.

A jury found him guilty in March of involuntary manslaughter, battery and violating Davis' civil rights.

[Imran Siddiqui]

as if premeditation defines a hate crime. It doesn't.

It does.

Now the judge may care to give the second killer a harsher sentencing then the first because he feels the crime carries more weight or he may not, depending on his politics or how he feels that day.

In this case the fact that it was a hate-crime has made no difference, do you think it has been adequately addressed?

Hmm, the judge decides it wasn't a hate crime: capital crime (ie, execution). Judge decides it was... execution. Can you think of a WORSE punishment than execution?!

However, most fights I've been in there is no pause

So someone bumps you and then immediately jump on him?!

Remember you have to prove that the attacker planned beforehand to cause death or serious bodily harm which is likely hard to do unless the man is a very skilled fighter or very strong.

The planning can be five minutes or seconds before the act.

--

As for the case, you assume premeditation ONLY applies to murder. The punching (ie, the battery) was determined to be premediated (ie, he led him out of the bar to punch him). The result was involuntary manslaughter, but he was given the highest felony count for his battery charge. As the 'hate crimes' charge does is increase the sentance by 2 years (or something), and seeing as he is a 3rd strike defendant I don't see much difference in the sentancing.

The highest felony for battery, added to 3rd strike would give him a term of similar length. The hate crimes act basically did little if anything.

We were discussing the difference between Murder 2 and Murder 1 with 'hate crime legislation'. You even said it yourself. So, look for a Murder 2 with a hate crime attached to it.

[Ramo]

Yes, I support "hate crime" laws. Intent is important in sentencing a person. That's why we have distinctions like manslaughter, second degree murder, and first degree murder.

If a cross is burned on a black guy's lawn, this isn't simple vandalism. It's intended to terrorize the black people in the community. As such, it should carry a heavier sentence than vandalism.

[gsmoove23]

It does.

Please explain. Your arguement so far is that its a natural conclusion of a hate crime trial. How does it DEFINE hate crime? How does it define or address an intentional message of terror sent to a community?

Hmm, the judge decides it wasn't a hate crime: capital crime (ie, execution). Judge decides it was... execution. Can you think of a WORSE punishment than execution?!

So how does premeditation address hate-crimes?

Since you didn't mention my request for a link regarding hate crime statutes I went looking. New York State Law specifies the offenses that can be assigned hate crime status and Murder 1 is not included. Interestingly Murder 2(the one without premeditation ) is included along with Manslaughter 1 and 2 and a large number of lesser offenses. Here ya go...

http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/hcandlaw/us_stats/newyork.html

You have so far talked only about the use of hate crimes in homocide cases but ignored the long list of lower level cases it can be applied to. Why is that? Perhaps because premeditation doesn't come into effect?

So someone bumps you and then immediately jump on him?!

I agree it sounds irrational, but we're talking about criminal acts. Often victims are astounded at the use of violence against them for reasons they could not understand.

Remember you have to prove that the attacker planned beforehand to cause death or serious bodily harm which is likely hard to do unless the man is a very skilled fighter or very strong.

The planning can be five minutes or seconds before the act.

This is a guideline not a law, so what? It does not mean if Joe pauses for 5 seconds its premeditated. You've gotta convince the jury. Got witnesses? Well, the victims dead.

As for the case, you assume premeditation ONLY applies to murder. The punching (ie, the battery) was determined to be premediated (ie, he led him out of the bar to punch him). The result was involuntary manslaughter, but he was given the highest felony count for his battery charge. As the 'hate crimes' charge does is increase the sentance by 2 years (or something), and seeing as he is a 3rd strike defendant I don't see much difference in the sentancing.

The highest felony for battery, added to 3rd strike would give him a term of similar length. The hate crimes act basically did little if anything.

Premeditated doesn't come into play here. Its Involuntary manslaughter cause the guy died. Its battery cause attacker punched him. The hate crime was violating Davis' rights(I'm not sure exactly what that means, perhaps obstucting his right to talk to white women). I don't understand what you mean by highest felony count. If you're talking about the number of years he was given sentencing is up to the judge. The hate crime was a state law that probably tacked a year on to his sentence.http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org...ats/calif.html

[Imran Siddiqui]

You have so far talked only about the use of hate crimes in homocide cases but ignored the long list of lower level cases it can be applied to. Why is that? Perhaps because premeditation doesn't come into effect?

We've only talked about murder so far. Premeditation in lower crimes is characterized by 'intent'. I'm sure you've heard talk about intent in lower cases, right?

offenses that can be assigned hate crime status and Murder 1 is not included.

Of course. Because if you are guilty of murder 1, you go to jail for life or are executed. Tacking on a hate crime wouldn't do anything for that. All I'm saying is that a 'hate crime' is taken into account to determine predetermination.

As for including Murder 2, I can only assume that it is included simply because of reckless heart murder (ie, when someone fires at an NAACP center and ends up killing a black dude). In reckless heart murders you can't charge with Murder 1, because you ain't shooting at a specific person. Then again, I don't think there should be hate crimes for this as well. Second Degree Murder and Aggravated Assault should suffice.

You do realize that I'm arguing against hate crimes legislation and saying that the criminal system can and does internalize it. Simply because some statutes and some cases throw in a hate crime doesn't prove anything on your part, because I think it is unnecessary.

I don't understand what you mean by highest felony count.

There are different felonies. There is first, second (and maybe third) degree battery (or aggravated assault).

I guess when it comes down to it, I don't want a 'tacked on' sentance. I think internalizing hate crimes in the criminal system by giving a higher degree felony conviction is by far good enough.

[gsmoove23]

Many hate crime laws do just that. The New York State one automatically gives a higher level offense. Premeditation and intent are not enough because they only imply premeditation or intent to commit the offense(murder, vandalism...) and can have little to do with the hate crime. Whats more, authorities have allowed these acts to go unpunished and sometimes committed them too many times in the past to not now acknowledge it in name. But if you want a practical reason too many riots, too much civil unrest has been the result of when these crimes were not adequately prosecuted.