BF2S Forums What is a Hate Crime?

Oh you don't know how I'd like to answer this question.

In fear of getting a 3-day vacation I'll choose my words carefully.

A hate crime is when persons of one ethnic group target their victem strictly on the basis of race.

Is this Law applied uniformly?  I don't think so.

Just watch the SP episode on this.

If you get in a fight with a black man over a girl or parking spot or if its maybe money related, than its not a hate crime.
If you are walking down the street and see a black man and say "woot there goes a nigger" and than you go and beat him up, than its a hate crime.

But too often people and media jump the gun and proclaim every conflict involving two races/religion a hate crime. We come again to the same old "news is business" factor and hate crimes are good for business.

blisteringsilence wrote:

Is it ethically justified to criminalize thought in the United States? At what point does our freedom of speech overrule this "societal harm?"

It is not the thought that is a crime, it is the action. These are things that are already crimes.

An example that occurred recently in my area:
Jewish cemeteries/plots were being targeted by vandals, who were destroying headstones and painting swastikas on everything with a Jewish name.

Now, obviously destroying headstones and spray-painting graffiti are already illegal. So why make this a harsher punished crime by making it a "hate crime?"

The answer is actually easy. These types of crimes escalate. Hate crimes turn into bigger crimes. The term "Race Riot" was formed by such hate crimes getting out of hand. One group commits a "hate crime" and the group that was targeted will often retaliate. Next thing you know, your town is on fire, the national guard is called in, and you are getting hosed off the steps of the capital... But you don't mind because it washes the tear gas out of your eyes...

With hate crimes you dont just hurt an individual or cause property damage, you also damage the society and bonds between different groups in that society. Thats why society gives you a bigger punishment.

If you're going to have 'hate crimes' I believe the only difference should be that you get specific counceling to try and remove whatever prejudice caused the 'hate crime'. The prison term or whatever punishment should remain the same, 'hate crime' or no 'hate crime'.

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

We don't consider motive and intent in our judicial system. That's why we only have "murder" as a charge and not first-, second- and third-degree murder, manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.

Sorry folks, but as much as some of you want to scream "thoughtcrime!", hate crime legislation doesn't criminalize thought any more than a first-degree murder charge does. Intent matters. Otherwise if you're going to stand against hate crime legislation, you'd better take the intellectually honest road and campaign to do away with the different charges for murder and other crimes that are currently based on the intent of the perpetrator.

Yes it does. Hate crime legislation is an enchancement to punishment for an otherwise outlined crime. You are confusing motive with mens rea.

My argument is that a crime is a crime is a crime. No special exceptions, no special treatment. I like PureFodder's approach. I think Zeidmaan and IG-Calibre are simply incorrect.

What it all comes down to for me is that you cannot criminalize what people think. The protection of the minority (no matter how repugnant) must come before the comfort of the majority. And before you start crowing about how hate crimes legislation does this, know that it doesn't. These laws have been in place since 1969, with no reduction in hate crimes.

The only thing hate crimes laws do well is give the media something else to blather about.

And for those who disagree with me, let me pose this question:

Is a man who murders a black man any more guilty (or liable) if he murders him for money, or because he's black? I don't think there's an ethically justifiable way to say he is.

IG-Calibre wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

We don't consider motive and intent in our judicial system. That's why we only have "murder" as a charge and not first-, second- and third-degree murder, manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.

Sorry folks, but as much as some of you want to scream "thoughtcrime!", hate crime legislation doesn't criminalize thought any more than a first-degree murder charge does. Intent matters. Otherwise if you're going to stand against hate crime legislation, you'd better take the intellectually honest road and campaign to do away with the different charges for murder and other crimes that are currently based on the intent of the perpetrator.

Yes it does. Hate crime legislation is an enchancement to punishment for an otherwise outlined crime. You are confusing motive with mens rea.

My argument is that a crime is a crime is a crime. No special exceptions, no special treatment. I like PureFodder's approach. I think Zeidmaan and IG-Calibre are simply incorrect.

What it all comes down to for me is that you cannot criminalize what people think. The protection of the minority (no matter how repugnant) must come before the comfort of the majority. And before you start crowing about how hate crimes legislation does this, know that it doesn't. These laws have been in place since 1969, with no reduction in hate crimes.

The only thing hate crimes laws do well is give the media something else to blather about.

And for those who disagree with me, let me pose this question:

Is a man who murders a black man any more guilty (or liable) if he murders him for money, or because he's black? I don't think there's an ethically justifiable way to say he is.

What you think is not a crime, at least not where I come from, however if you beat someone to death because they're "a fag"  well then that's a  prejudicedly motivated  murder. non? oui?

Specifically, then, is the murder any worse because you beat them to death because they're a fag, or if you beat them to death to steal their shoes?

I think not. A crime is a crime. Punish it accordingly.

IG-Calibre wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

Specifically, then, is the murder any worse because you beat them to death because they're a fag, or if you beat them to death to steal their shoes?

I think not. A crime is a crime. Punish it accordingly.

Would someone really mean to kill someone to steal their shoes?

edit

We don't consider motive and intent in our judicial system

Ah! that explains it right there.. here we differentiate between a murder that may have happened but wasn't intended & a murder that was intended because of being motivated by"hate"..

First:

Sadly, yes, someone might murder someone else to steal his shoes. I didn't make this up. Kind of disgusting, eh?

Second:

We don't consider motive, except as it applies to the mens rea of the crime. In that, there is a differentation between a crime with malice aforethought, and one without. Ethically, I have no problem justifying this. But, as a "hate crime" is by its very definition one commited with said malice aforethought, why not simply punish it so? Why create a special, new class?

Additionally, there are differentations between murder and homicide (and its subsets). Which makes sense, as US law is mainly based on English common law.

blisteringsilence wrote:

Yes it does. Hate crime legislation is an enchancement to punishment for an otherwise outlined crime. You are confusing motive with mens rea.

Nope, and neither is the prospective law. From your original post:

federal prosecution of people who "by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with... any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been" attempting to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as voting or going to school.

Historically, people engaged in those aforementioned six types of federally protected activities have been targeted for attacks by groups seeking to prevent others like them from engaging in those same activities, ie. the Ku Klux Klan attacking blacks attempting to vote. The idea behind such crimes is to send a message: vote and we'll get you, just like we got this one. Go to this school, and we'll get you. Come into our neighborhood and we'll get you. Do anything we don't want you to do, and we'll get you. The motive is terror, fear, manipulating a group of people into action or inaction by violence towards someone part of their group. That's not mens rea, the intent and desire to commit the act itself, but the greater motive behind the act itself, the situation created by the act. In this case, the act itself may be assault or murder, the intent behind it is to terrorize others.

blisteringsilence wrote:

What it all comes down to for me is that you cannot criminalize what people think.

You can't and you shouldn't. But there's a glaring difference between someone getting into a random fistfight and calling his opponent a racial slur and someone specifically seeking someone out to make an example of them to others like them, like the Zebra killers who targeted mixed-race couples.

blisteringsilence wrote:

The protection of the minority (no matter how repugnant) must come before the comfort of the majority.

I've said this before, here and elsewhere, but it bears repeating in this instance. I don't care what people think. They can think whatever bigoted, misogynistic, racist, discriminatory drivel they want. They can think it all damn day long, they can jump around and think it until whatever they've got that passes for brains liquifies and pours our their godsdamn ears. When they decide to act on it in a fashion designed to threaten and intimidate other people with violence, I've got a fucking problem with that.

blisteringsilence wrote:

And before you start crowing about how hate crimes legislation does this, know that it doesn't. These laws have been in place since 1969, with no reduction in hate crimes.

That's some bad reasoning right there. Murder laws have been on the books here since the inception of this nation and murder per capita is more common now than it was then. Laws don't reduce crime on their own, changes in societal structure have to occur as well. Laws don't magically stop crimes on their own nor are they intended to.

blisteringsilence wrote:

The only thing hate crimes laws do well is give the media something else to blather about.

Ain't that the truth. Hardly a day goes by where I don't seem some idiot ranting about how "all crimes are hate crimes" and "they're trying to create special, protected classes of people" and other such nonsense.

blisteringsilence wrote:

And for those who disagree with me, let me pose this question:

Is a man who murders a black man any more guilty (or liable) if he murders him for money, or because he's black? I don't think there's an ethically justifiable way to say he is.

Well, if he murdered him for money, the intent probably isn't to terrorize other people who happen to possess money. Someone murdering another person because of the color of their skin isn't more guilty or liable than someone motivated by other factors, but they are possibly making the attempt to victimize more people than just their current victim. Think of it as a variation on the old-school Mafia protection rackets. Either you and everyone like you does what they want, or something bad happens to you, and it almost always begins with an example of that "something bad" happening to someone like you, as an example, an object lesson for everyone else. That someone isn't the only victim, everyone else in that targeted group is.