Why do we have Hate Crimes?

[BillE]

Why should there be a special category for crimes committed because the victim happened to be Jewish, Gay, black, Muslim, or whatever? It's like being charged with two crimes, one for the crime itself and another for Prejudiced hate(thought crime).
I really can't see any difference between killing someone for $10, or because the guy cut you off at an intersection, then killing someone because they were Jewish or gay. The other person still ends up dead. What is the reasoning behind the hate crime laws?

Your thoughts on this.

I posted in R/T because most hate crimes are usually religiously motivated. (Gays, Jews come to mind)

[knowbody0]

1. we need to abolish religion

and outlaw marriage of same race people

then there will be peace on earth

[larrysh]

3. I know in Harris County, Texas hate crime laws wouldn't mean

much. Harris County sends more people to death row or life without parole than any other county in the USA. Doesn't seem to matter much
the reason someone did what they did....people here stick a needle
in 'em without much provocation....

[knowbody0]

4. has that helped or hurt the crime rate?

[Warpy]

2. I don't see making hate a separate crime

After all, we might have to include the group that has been victimized the most by hate crime: WOMEN.

However, I do think the motivation needs to be considered at time of sentencing.

[Atman]

7. Warpy, your post is exactly why we should NOT have "hate" crimes.

You immediately marked off your territory as to what YOU consider "the most victimized" members of society. I'd bet blacks would argue with you. Or gays. Maybe Jews or Bush supporters. And that is exactly why we have hate crime bills...some politician somewhere pandering to people who feel their own plight is more deserving of recognition than everyone else's. But consider this: if you kill a cop, he is just as dead as the single mother killed across town, or the gay man beaten to death in the heartland, or the fireman who dies fighting an arson blaze.

Killing people is a crime. Making it MORE of a crime to kill someone because you ostensibly "hate" them is just plane goofy. I guess if someone beats a gay couple to death, as long as they go to court and profess their love for all gays, and claim they're secretly gay, too, well then the judge would have to offer a lighter sentence. Since 'motivation' seems to be important. The old lady at the 7-11 who got her head bashed in with a 2 liter liquor bottle (the vid made the rounds here for a while) is still dead. But fortunately, the creep who killed her should be able to walk because he didn't HATE her -- after all, who could hate a nice old grandma like that? -- he merely wanted her money. But if she'd been black, or a gay black Jew, then that same killer should be tried for greater crimes? I don't get it.

Killing is killing. I don't like the idea of placing a greater value on one's life over another simply because of their social status or particular ethnicity. Open the vain and we all flow the same shade of red.

[Warpy]

12. Gee, I thought I was clear in saying hate shouldn't be a separate

crime. I'm not one to believe in thought crimes.

However, when it's a clear cut case of ritualized hate against a random stranger, it should be considered in sentencing. We need to get those guys off the street for a longer time than some bozo who gets hammered and kills another bruiser in a bar fight.

[Atman]

17. Is there ever really a "clear cut case?"

One man's Matthew Shepard is just some other guys' drunken Friday night. I wasn't implying you were FOR hate crime laws, I was just pointing out that the reasons you gave are actually the reasons why we actually have them -- because of people categorizing one death as more special than another. Cops want their deaths to be capital punishment, practically on-the-spot, because their job is so dangerous. But what about an unarmed teacher in an inner city school? I guess all I'm saying is that I'd like the panderers to pander to LIFE, valuing all of it and not trying to make some of our lives "special." This even goes through to so-called abortion rights. Valuing life means also valuing the living, breathing, viable life of the woman. And I'm sorry, but I am just as outraged at some asshole with the capacity to kill a dude using liquor as an excuse as I am with a person using his hatred of certain people. In the end, someone has lost a family member, a human being is dead, lives have been affected.

We're in basic agreement, I think. I just don't think it makes sense to say crimes against some are more horrible than others just because of the social status of particular victims.

[Warpy]

21. Matthew Shepard

[Atman]

25. That was a horrible crime.

How about the woman that drown her kids in the bathtub. Five of 'em! She didn't hate them. Oh, wait...she was crazy. So then, how about Tim McViegh? No, no...he didn't profess to hate anyone, as I recall. But he sure did get a hell of a punishment, and right quick!

I am not belittling the Shepard killing. It was truly horrible. But again...why was it special? Was he killed any more dead than the people in the OKC bombing?

Yates, McViegh, Shepard...each case proves that the courts and prosecutors already have considerable leeway in the charges sought and the punishment handed down. What would be the ONLY difference in the McViegh case had he been found to have committed a "hate crime" against Americans? Probably that he'd still be alive now, ironically, exhausting appeals over the dubious meaning of "hate." What would be the difference had Matthew Shepards killers been convicted of a hate crime? Would Matthew be alive today? On one web site devoted to his case, a headline connotes the site as a memorial to all those "...who have been murdered simply because of who they are." I'm sorry, that granny who was knocked over the head with a liquor bottle wasn't offed because she posed a threat to the large man stealing money from the till. She was offed because of who she was...a store clerk. Had she been a librarian, she almost certainly wouldn't have been killed. So again, what is the list of whose lives are worth the most? Is it a declining scale, or is everyone on the list considered "equal." Or at least, more equal in the eyes of the law than those who didn't make the cut?

[serryjw]

19. No I don't think so

I think (hate crime) murder should hold a stiffer penalty than just murder. There are many extenuating circumstances why some one murders some else( spousal abuse). When some one commits a hate crime there are no special circumstances and they are targets because of WHO they are, not because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time. There is degrees of evil( as we have seen in the last 6 years!)

[Atman]

20. What are the degrees of DEAD?

We have manslaughter and first-degree murder. Different levels of punishment for the same crime, depending upon the circumstances. Why isn't this enough? Could you please outline the categories regarding those lives you feel are more special than others? If I lose my wife and kids to a random murder in the big city, will I be less traumatized than if the murderer had yelled "I hate you, crackers!" before taking their lives?

[serryjw]

26. Your wife and child being killed is tragic

but the reason that the 3 Muslims in their store were shot is more serious in penalty. WHY? because it's about the motivate of the crime not the victims them self.

I died of the flu or did I die of the a flu pandemic? The latter can potentially turn into a witch hunt for all Muslims. The message must be sent. Killing a cop has always held a tougher penalty an killing you or I.

[BillE]

10. But motivation is considered when deciding

what to charge the person with(i.e. first degree murder, manslaughter, etc), but hate crimes go a step further by making it a separate crime.

example:

Hate crimes: murder, assault, vandalism

Regular crimes: murder, assault, vandalism

Hate crimes have harsher penalties.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

14. Sorry to bust your bubble but motive is not an essential element

of a crime. However, intent, (mens rea) is. Motive can go to explain a crime but it is not an essential element that the state has to prove.

[Exultant Democracy]

5. Why are you defending criminals?

Motive is usually used as a factor in sentencing, a guy who robs a store because he is hungry and poor should be giving a chance before a guy who beats up a person because of race, religion, sexual orientation ect...

[BillE]

16. You are right, motivation is the key

and a judge will usually take it into account when sentencing if he is allowed.

I am not defending the criminals, I am criticizing a system which seems to be redundant.

[Der Blaue Engel]

6. You mean why do we have hate crime legislation?

Well, here's one explanation:

When it enacted the Hate Crimes Act of 2000, the New York State Legislature included legislative findings that offer a survey of the various arguments for hate crime legislation. The legislature specifically found that:

"Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes. In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore, our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravity of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their recurrence. Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity."

I have no problem with hate crime legislation. I do think hatred of women should be included in its parameters, and yes that would encompass a huge amount of crime.

[beam me up scottie]

11. Thank you.

The fact that hate crimes exist is enough of an explanation for me.

[BillE]

24. Suppose that white people become a minority

in the U.S., will they have to change it to include white people? There's always going to be groups targeted whether they or minority or not. Being applied will ultimately create an unfair system. If it is designed as a deterrence then it is a wasted effort like the death penalty.

[Der Blaue Engel]

28. Ah, the "what if white people become a minority" card

Hate crimes send a message. They are intended to dehumanize the individual as well as the group to which the individual belongs.

When we live in Mirror World and people of color have power over white people, then, yes, attacks upon white individuals with intent to dehumanize the entire community should be included in the definition of a hate crime.

The increased penalty for a hate crime also sends a message. It is this psychological component of the punishment for which the law is intended. It is society saying, "We will not tolerate this here." The assumption of societal acceptance of certain kinds of crime is what allows them to be perpetuated. Society must say very loudly and clearly that they are NOT accepted, and proponents of hate are on notice.

Ultimately, take note of who opposes hate crime legislation (Bush, Republican congress, the Christian "right," fundamentalists of every stripe ... in short, people who promote hate), and who supports it: the ACLU, human rights organizations, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, just to name a few. I think that speaks volumes.

[beam me up scottie]

30. And thank you again.

take note of who opposes hate crime legislation (Bush, Republican congress, the Christian "right," fundamentalists of every stripe ... in short, people who promote hate), and who supports it: the ACLU, human rights organizations, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, just to name a few. I think that speaks volumes.

After Matthew Shepard was murdered, Congress decided that sexual orientation shouldn't be added to current hate crime legislation.

It boggles the mind.

[SPKrazy]

34. Very Good Explanations n/t

[Tab]

8. I had a discussion about this with a friend of mine a few years back

His position was, a crime is a crime.

My point was, we already have graduated degrees of criminality. There's killing a person, but it's mitigated by "self-defense", "he was robbing me", "he was beating my child", to neutral ones like "he was in my way during a robbery", and on the opposite end of the spectrum, "he was a nigger/honky/fag/whatever".

So, if we're going to grant leniency for more "acceptable" reasons for killing, then likewise (my argument went) we should more greatly penalize the lesser acceptable reasons for killing (e.g.: indifference first, and then hate). Although, for me, it's a toss-up between indifference and hate. Both are reprehensible.

- Tab

[soothsayer]

9. Minorities need extra protection from the threatened majority

while the majority struggles to ultimately accept our presence in 'their' society. Those laws don't have to remain in place forever----just until we have equality. Until then, it's in the country's best interest to incentivize rednecks not to beat the hell out of gays, etc. Strongly forbidding and punishing that bad behavior will gradually help people accept the beautiful diversity that is the United States.

[haele]

13. I see "hate crimes" as a form of doctrinal terrorism.

It's a form of a "degree" - a crime where the intent is not to just harm the object of the crime, but to negatively influence others who share a strong commonality, such as religion, gender, race, etc. A person commits a hate crime when the motivation is based on targeting that group, rather than targeting an individual.

If you beat me and take my car, you did so because you targeted me as your personal prey, to immobilize and intimidate me, then take my car. It's almost a personal tie; not meant to involve anyone save you and me.
If you beat me because you thought I belonged to a group you hated, you were targeting that group. What you were doing was initiating terrorism against that group, and I just happened to be the first member you came across.
There's an ingrained pre-meditation involved that isn't necessarily there if you were pissed off and had the urge to take my car.

It's like the difference between first and second degree murder. Both are murder, but the supposed justification for committing the crime has to be considered when evaluating how "bad" the crime is in scale.
To require that there only be a "personal" connection between the parties and deny that group hate is a major factor in the commission of a particular crime lightens the scale on the side of the committer when one is attempting to evaluate what sort of justice should be met.

Just my two cents.

Haele

[marmar]

15. Because a hate crime is not a "normal" crime...

You could argue that it would not have happened were it not for the race, religion, sexual orientation etc. of the victim. A hate crime is not just directed at the victim - in essence it's an attack on an entire community, a form of terrorism.

[Solo_in_MD]

18. I think Hate Crime statues should be abolished...

they are a form of thought crime. In the case of a brutal assault or murder, why should the motiviation matter? Determine guilt or innocence of the act and go from their.


Dan

[beam me up scottie]

22. .

[Der Blaue Engel]

31. .

:cry:

[beam me up scottie]

32. I know.

I know.

:hug:

[Sinti]

23. It's supposed to be a deterrent, to keep the haters in line

If you have a history of being a hater, and you kill some member of the group you hate, they punish you more. It strikes me that it's intended to keep the haters in line, having little to do with murder itself. You won't stop a killer with it, but you might keep people's prejudices in the closet a bit more.

In our nation, as in many others, we have a problem. There are groups of us who are preyed upon by certain members of the majority, be that heterosexual, WASP, or whatever. When they come to your house, and burn stuff in your yard in the middle of the night, break your windows, generally harass and threaten you to the point that you're scared to go outside in the daylight, then you will understand why some fools decided we needed hate crime laws.

[Random_Australian]

27. Purpose of prison is to reduce the probability of future behaviours of

a certain type.

Sentences are seperated to allow offender to know that both the violent behaviour AND anti-social prejudice are unacceptable.

[Boojatta]

29. Maybe hate crime law helps morally educate the general public.

Why should there be a special category for crimes committed because the victim happened to be Jewish, Gay, black, Muslim, or whatever?

Is there a special category of the kind you say there is? If it is just a coincidence that the victim is whatever, then is the crime considered, under current law, to be a "hate crime"?

I can't help noticing that you capitalized all but one of the four items you listed: Jewish, Gay, black, Muslim. It just happens that the history of the USA included slavery that was legal under United States law. In other words, it wasn't merely unsystematic enslavement by a few outlaw lunatics. We're talking about systematic enslavement that took place with government fully accepting and even participating in the process. For example, if a police officer in a slave state happened to notice a fugitive slave...

[SPKrazy]

33. Because Hate Crimes

usually have fan clubs of other "haters" and therin lies the danger.

When other "haters" are emboldened by the committment of a "hate crime", there may be more hate crimes.

It is also probably a tool to take a crime out of state and local jurisdiction (in case of racial or religious prejudice) where prosecution might be influenced by local politics and attitudes and federal courts are presumably more consistent (that remains to be seen)

so, again:

1) to prevent other "haters" from being emboldened by the committment of hate crimes, and committing more of them;
and
2) to provide consistency under Federal civil rights laws as a "hate crime" and to reduce the possibility of local politics and attitudes affecting the outcome of a crime's trial

JMHO

[beam me up scottie]

35. Good point.

In the deep south, lots of amurKKKins don't believe in hate crimes.

[dattaswamI]

36. Human love Vs fatherly love of God

Human love Vs fatherly love of God

The Lord is the father of all the souls. Your love on another human being is only brotherly love. The love of the father is far greater than the brotherly love. You are criticizing your father for punishing your brother! The father tries His best to transform His son. On the first day of the war Ravana was defeated by Rama. Rama could have killed him on the very first day. But Rama, asked Ravana to go back and think that night. The Lord punishes any one as last resort. Even then, the Lord doesnot have anger or hatred. The punishment is only the last method attempted for transformation. There also the aim is only transformation. But when you punish your enemy such aim does not exist. Therefore the punishment by Lord is also reflecting His divine love and kindness on the soul. Due to such sacred aim the Lord is authorized to punish the soul. He is just like a teacher who punishes the student for his misbehavior. The teacher does not get any sin in such punishment. The reason again is that the intention decides the action.

Therefore when you live in the world, according to instructions given by the Lord, the Lord is pleased with you. The Lord will make you happy in this world. Your happiness in this world is an indication of His grace. Therefore you will be happy in the upper world also. He is the only one lord for both the worlds. Therefore if you are unhappy in the worldly affairs, you will be unhappy in the spiritual matters in the upper world also. If you are blessed in this world you are also blessed in the upper world. Therefore you follow His commandments and be happy in this world. When you are serving the Lord you should be happy in the sacrifice. You should not sacrifice to the Lord with unhappiness. The sacrifice with unhappiness will make the Lord unhappy. The result of such service is unhappiness in the upper world. Therefore it is better not to sacrifice if you are not happy. Why should you purchase the unhappiness with such sacrifice? Are you unhappy when you are sacrificing to your family members? Therefore the sacrifice without any force or unhappiness is not only waste but also brings negative results in the case of Lord.

In the case of family members if you sacrifice with unhappiness it is waste. Therefore the intention is very important for the Lord. You should not do any sacrifice aspiring something in return. Such sacrifice is only a business. The business done in the case of your family members may bring benefit or loss. But in the case of Lord the business always brings loss. Therefore live in this world according to the instructions of the Lord given to you with regard to other human beings. With regard to the Lord do sacrifice and service to the Lord to that extent only up to which there is no force or pain or business.
_________________
At the Lotus Feet of His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony

www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace
[e-mail]