Hate Crime In America: Liberian Boy Beaten In Philadelphia

[C0ckney]

tmm, your jusitification doesn't make sense.

if a guy beats someone up to rob them, then there are even more possible victims than if he beats someone up because of their colour or creed. so according to your logic robbers should receive a harsher punishment because they're a greater 'threat to society'.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Sprayber



Why

Because the affect of hate crimes are intended to go beyond those who were directly attacked and make a victim the entire (ethnic, religious, sexual orientation, etc) community, in the same way terrorists intend to terrorize many by attacking a few.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Sava


I agree.

I don't see how the motive makes the crime any worse.

The punishment should be severe no matter what the motive.

In other cases, why should the attacker get off easier because he beat up someone because of money, for instance? Or because a guy was cheating on his wife?

Hate crime laws are just stupid.

I'm not saying the punishment for this crime should be less severe. I think it should be the same (or possibly more severe). It's that the motive for a specific crime SHOULD NOT MATTER in determining punishment.

Note, that does not mean that some involved in an accidental death should receieve the death penalty... I am talking about specific crimes only...

meaning, someone charged with Murder One, should not get a less severe penalty than a "hate crime" Murder One count...

this would not mean someone would be charged with Murder instead of Involuntary Manslaughter or Negligent Homicide, etc...

ZOMFG I agree with Sava!!! Hate crime legislation is akin to mind police.

[Zkribbler]

The Mad Viking is correct!

Hate groups, such as the KKK, and some individuals have used crimes such as lynchings, murders, castration as a way, not only of injuring the direct victim but also of terrorizing that victim's ethnic group into submission. Hate crimes are crimes aimed an an entire group, not just at the direct victim. Thus, they are more heinous.

Ogie's argument that "Hate crime legislation is akin to mind police" misses the point. We've long had laws based upon intent. For example, if you're driving down the road and accidentally cause an accident, that's negligence. But in you intentionally crash your car into someone, that assault with a deadly weapon. The only difference is intent.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Ogie's argument that "Hate crime legislation is akin to mind police" misses the point. We've long had laws based upon intent. For example, if you're driving down the road and accidentally cause an accident, that's negligence. But in you intentionally crash your car into someone, that assault with a deadly weapon. The only difference is intent.

We have long had definitions of crimes that dealt with premeditation for sure. i.e. murder one vs. unintntentional manslaughter. The result is the same someone died. What we haven't had to date is a special definition of crime that deals solely with intent/motive as hate crime legislation does. That seems to be the realm of sentencing to allow jduges rightly so to impose maximum sentencing in cases where motives and circumstances were especially aggregious.

One could argue attempted murder etc. speaks to an intent but it also speaks to actions taken (albeit ineffectively) to carry out a crime. Now perhaps some of the legal wizzes here may state or show otherwise but I think wrt hate crime legislation it speaks solely to the crime of having hateful thoughts. Granted a crime has been comitted for which the piper must be paid for that specific crime but that doesn't lessen the implication of hate crime legislation being merely a means to artifically change sentencing guidelines which is the appropriate means to address the issue IMO.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
I agree with the concept of hate crime, killing someone because he is gay, or different religion, or different race is worse than killing someone for money.

Thats why in my opinion Hitler was worse than Stalin

So killiing millions of people because of their race is better than killing millions because of their class

[lord of the mark]

Originally, IIUC, the concept of hate crime was NOT for things like murder, which are subject to potentially severe punishment anyway, but for things like vandalism. Someone who paints "Kill the Haitians" on say, a highway bridge, is impacting my community, in ways that someone who paints "tommy and susie forever" is not. Both are illegal, and NOT subject to 1st amendment protection - but one wants to be able to have severe penalties for the former, that would be totally inappropriate for the latter.

[mrmitchell]

Zkribbler, The Mad Viking, Edan

In addition to those reasons:

One of prison's purposes is to prevent criminals from becoming repeat criminals. They do this by rehabilitation and locking them up longer.

A hate criminal is less likely to be figured out and soothed by rehabilitation than someone who "only" killed in a passionate moment (wife cheated on him, like some of you have suggested) or a gang robber. When they get out, chances are if they've kept their hatred, they specifically will commit a hate crime again, or they'll continue to spread a message of hatred that will inevitably cause more crimes.

For the same reasons, longer prison terms are necessary for these criminals, if not life sentences, until they give up their hateful ways.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
A hate criminal is less likely to be figured out and soothed by rehabilitation than someone who "only" killed in a passionate moment (wife cheated on him, like some of you have suggested) or a gang robber. When they get out, chances are if they've kept their hatred, they specifically will commit a hate crime again, or they'll continue to spread a message of hatred that will inevitably cause more crimes.

For the same reasons, longer prison terms are necessary for these criminals, if not life sentences, until they give up their hateful ways.

Do you have any proof indicating a higher rate of recidivism for people who commited "hate crimes" than for people who commited regular crimes? If not, then your statement is false.

[Sprayber]

So a man that beats his wife is only guilty of a hate crime if he has a problem with women in general and not just his wife in particular?


What exactly proves a person is guilty of a hate crime (where there is no bed sheets or tattoos to give it away)?


Who exactly is protected and who is not?

How severe or trivial must an action be to be considered a hate crime?

Just a few things I'd like to get straight. (not to say non straight is bad.)

[SlowwHand]

What have you got planned?

[Sava]

I'm seeing some horrible supporting arguments for hate-crime legislation in this thread.

Hate-crime legislation is basically an indirect attack on the first amendment. Because you are punishing someone more severely because of motive, you are basically punishing someone for their political views.

If two guys get beat up really bad, almost to the point of death, but one guy is beat up because he owes money, and another got beat up because he is black... why should one attacker get a more severe punishment?

Both attackers committed a vicious crime and should be punished equally as severe.

Hate crime legislation.

Morons who defend stupid legislation.

I guess if someone you guys know is the victim of a violent crime, you better hope it is racially motivated so the attacker gets a more severe penalty.

I don't know how you guys can sit there and say a "hate crime" is worse to society than any other kind of crime.

ALL CRIME IS BAD!!!!

if you get attacked and beat up really bad, it doesn't matter the reason why, THE ATTACKER SHOULD BE PUNISHED!!!! the attacker should not get a less severe punishment because the motive isn't a "hate crime"

oh no, I was beat up in a robbery... the attacker gets a less severe penalty...

that's the genius of hate crime legislation

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Sava
if you get attacked and beat up really bad, it doesn't matter the reason why, THE ATTACKER SHOULD BE PUNISHED!!!! the attacker should not get a less severe punishment because the motive isn't a "hate crime"

oh no, I was beat up in a robbery... the attacker gets a less severe penalty...

that's the genius of hate crime legislation

Well said.

[Kontiki]

Piss-poor logic

[Odin]

Sava being in agreement with a racist: