What do you think of hate crimes?

[DaShi]

I pity whoever responds to those examples.

[Heraclitus]

I pity whoever responds to those examples.

Schlemiel.

[DaShi]

You are too easy.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Aren't a lot of crimes hateful even when not hate crimes?

Yes- the whole "hate crime" issue is extremely vague.

This issue in Britain is a lot more interesting, because you've got the specific laws against incitement to racial hatred.

[Elok]

Where opinions constitute mens rea, and concide with actus reus, they impact on punishment. It was around before the US constitution existed, and was a feature of criminal law that the US constitution never changed.

You've had over 200 years to address this issue in your constitution, if it's really so bothersome. Go to it.

Okay, after digging around on Wikipedia, mens rea translates, essentially, to "criminal intent," while actus reus is the actual crime. Thank you for showing off your legal Latin, but your argument is...actually, wait, WTF is your argument? Your example of a boxer would illustrate intent to harm versus non-intent, but I assume you're not arguing that a white man who beats a black man up over a woman, a poker game or anything else is in any way less criminal-minded than one who does it to teach the ******s their place. The main distinction is that the racial one has the element of intimidating other black people.

That's called "terrorism," and I see no reason to consider the KKK any different from Al-Qaeda or Timothy McVeigh except WRT magnitude and type of crime. Hate crime is normal crime accompanied by Constitutionally entitled foul opinions.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Thank you for showing off your legal Latin, but your argument is...actually, wait, WTF is your argument?

That the state of mind of the transgressor has a bearing on both the question of culpability, and is also a factor in how the severity of punishment is settled.

And that this is nothing new, at all.

Hate crime is normal crime accompanied by Constitutionally entitled foul opinions.

And normal crimes are just nasty accidents accompanied by Constitutionally entitled foul opinions. Mens rea is where it's at, baby.

[Kuciwalker]

Since when is deterrence the only function of criminal law?

Extra jail time wouldn't make Matthew Shepard whole, either.

[Kuciwalker]

No but that doesn't mean that it doesn't add an additional dimension of heinousness to the crime.

Can you provide a coherent explanation of what you mean by "heinousness"?

Rape is rape but we make a distinction when a 14 year old girl is raped.

For, allegedly, preventative reasons.

[Kuciwalker]

What's with the "introducing" there? That makes it sound like something new, which it isn't.

Criminal law and penology has never been purely about the transgressor and the victim. The impact on wider society has always been a consideration, and laws have adapted to reflect social mores accordingly. I can give you examples of this from the 10th century AD if you'd like.

As a practical matter the United States had few laws where a person's politics entered into the question of mens rea, apart from purely incidental cases, e.g. if political opinions were used to prove motive in a specific case.

[Kuciwalker]

That the state of mind of the transgressor has a bearing on both the question of culpability, and is also a factor in how the severity of punishment is settled.

And that this is nothing new, at all.

That doesn't mean all "state of mind" tests are created equal, particularly not under US law.

[Elok]

That the state of mind of the transgressor has a bearing on both the question of culpability, and is also a factor in how the severity of punishment is settled.

And that this is nothing new, at all.

Yes, I know that, and such a thing makes sense when distinguishing between the different degrees of murder: guy gets angry while drunk and stabs his buddy vs. guy spends weeks planning murder and forming an alibi. The cold-blooded, deliberate killing is considered more vicious than the temporary loss of self-control. Discriminating does not make any sense in this context, unless you believe in punishing people for having the wrong opinions.

And normal crimes are just nasty accidents accompanied by Constitutionally entitled foul opinions. Mens rea is where it's at, baby.

And foul opinions about race/religion/sexual orientation should be punished worse than foul opinions about, say, cheating at poker because...?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

And foul opinions about race/religion/sexual orientation should be punished worse than foul opinions about, say, cheating at poker because...?

Because of a few reasons. Firstly there's an argument to be made about the risks involved- that a violent crime driven by a clear agenda creates a greater climate of fear and risk.

Secondly, one can avoid getting killed for cheating at poker by not playing it. Stopping being black or gay is trickier, creating a greater fear of unavoidable risk in the wider public.

Third there's the social angle (which, as we've already covered, has been around a lot longer than the US has). It creates a greater sense of revulsion in society- or at least the sectors of society that matter in this sense (for good or bad.)

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Discriminating does not make any sense in this context, unless you believe in punishing people for having the wrong opinions.

When those opinions constitute mens rea, and are accompanied by actus reus, the law always has heartily discriminated. And probably always will.

[notyoueither]

Extra jail time wouldn't make Matthew Shepard whole, either.

Which murder victim has ever been 'made whole?'

Most if not all criminal codes of various states levy harsher sanctions for the taking of a life by degrees based on intent. I believe it is also common to differentiate different degrees of assault. I would suppose that part of the reason would be that some crimes of a type deserve harsher punishment and society would benefit from longer periods where people who commit them are isolated.

I see no reason not to add a kicker when the crime is based on racism, etc. I'm not seeing any good arguments against it. Certainly not arguments based on restitution or deterrence.

Incidentally, your original point was to the effect that the US doesn't have problems like the lynching of blacks anymore. That is obviously false.

[notyoueither]

Yes, I know that, and such a thing makes sense when distinguishing between the different degrees of murder: guy gets angry while drunk and stabs his buddy vs. guy spends weeks planning murder and forming an alibi. The cold-blooded, deliberate killing is considered more vicious than the temporary loss of self-control. Discriminating does not make any sense in this context, unless you believe in punishing people for having the wrong opinions

Or if you believe in punishing people for commiting crimes that have effects far beyond the direct victim.