"Hate Crime" Legislation?

[piece-itpete]

So, if a bunch of black kids get whitey - on a whim - it's an additional crime, even though there is no malice aforethought? Or does having racist tendencies constitute conspiracy?

What if me and bunch of guys jump an Irish guy because he's wearing a green hat, but in court I mention my 1/8 Irish heritage? Simple assault?

What if I hit myself in the head because my drunken Czech side has a problem with my drunken English side?

Bitter! No, Lager! I'll show you limey!!

Pete

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

So, if a bunch of black kids get whitey - on a whim - it's an additional crime, even though there is no malice aforethought? Or does having racist tendencies constitute conspiracy?

What if me and bunch of guys jump an Irish guy because he's wearing a green hat, but in court I mention my 1/8 Irish heritage? Simple assault?

What if I hit myself in the head because my drunken Czech side has a problem with my drunken English side?

Bitter! No, Lager! I'll show you limey!!

Pete

Hate to spoil the fun, but being a member of another race is not enough. The proof requires that the member of the other race was targeted for the crime because of the race. If you punch someone because his dog dumped on your yard, it doesn't matter what the race is. It's still an assault, but not a hate crime. Now if you say, "you f'ing n***," while you punch him, it might be evidence of a hate crime, but the question of motivation would ultimately be for the jury.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by noonereal

No valid reason for such distinctions.

A crime is a crime.

First, to answer the concern about "thought crimes", nobody is criminalizing thoughts but actions. What hate crime laws do is infer motive and intent from the circumstances of the crime. The fact of the matter is we already do that. A good example of this is in the various levels of homicide, ranging from involuntary manslaughter to "murder one".

As far as hate crimes are concerned, what distinguishes them from other types of crime is the intended victim. When someone sets fire to a black church, places a bomb in a synagogue or beats and tortures a gay man and leaves him tied to a fence to die we have what I'll call two "categories" of victim.

In the first category you have the people directly affected by the act: the people killed, injured or otherwise traumatized while in the church or synagogue and the gay man left for dead. Then you have the other category of victim. That would be all blacks, all Jews, all homosexuals, all ( ).

The victims of the first category are selected because of who they are as members of an identifiable group. Their identities or actions as individuals are of no relevance to the perpetrators. It's the groups to which they belong that's important and, as a result, the crimes send a message to all the other members of the groups. That message is as follows: "This could have been you and at some future time it might be."

This is purely and simply terrorism and is deserving of increased penalties reflective of the broad ranging effect that it has on groups within our society and on society as a whole. The corrosive effects of hate crimes on our society go far beyond the narrow scope of the mere acts. Our response to hate crimes must reflect that greater peril.

John

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Boreas

First, to answer the concern about "thought crimes", nobody is criminalizing thoughts but actions. What hate crime laws do is infer motive and intent from the circumstances of the crime. The fact of the matter is we already do that. A good example of this is in the various levels of homicide, ranging from involuntary manslaughter to "murder one".

As far as hate crimes are concerned, what distinguishes them from other types of crime is the intended victim. When someone sets fire to a black church, places a bomb in a synagogue or beats and tortures a gay man and leaves him tied to a fence to die we have what I'll call two "categories" of victim.

In the first category you have the people directly affected by the act: the people killed, injured or otherwise traumatized while in the church or synagogue and the gay man left for dead. Then you have the other category of victim. That would be all blacks, all Jews, all homosexuals, all ( ).

The victims of the first category are selected because of who they are as members of an identifiable group. Their identities or actions as individuals are of no relevance to the perpetrators. It's the groups to which they belong that's important and, as a result, the crimes send a message to all the other members of the groups. That message is as follows: "This could have been you and at some future time it might be."

This is purely and simply terrorism and is deserving of increased penalties reflective of the broad ranging effect that it has on groups within our society and on society as a whole. The corrosive effects of hate crimes on our society go far beyond the narrow scope of the mere acts. Our response to hate crimes must reflect that greater peril.

John

Very good explanation. Thank you for making it much clearer.

Regards,

D-Ray