These stories are fairly typical—in my high school days, kids were punched for being “fags,” though most of them weren’t gay (Hi, Ms Coulter!)– but what struck me about this particular story was the reaction of the Pueblo School District, which I think underscores the extent to which PC culture has permeated our institutions and is leading us, unwittingly, in the infamous Orwellian direction where some pigs are more equal than others:
Officials with Pueblo School District No. 60 said they began investigating the case Friday after Pueblo police told them of the attack.
”Given the level of violence involved and apparently being a bias-motivated crime, Pueblo City Schools is taking this matter very seriously,” said Greg Sinn, spokesman for the district. “The findings of our investigation may result in a recommendation of expulsion for all six suspects.”
The six were suspended Monday pending the outcome of that investigation.
[my emphasis]
It’s possible I’m overreacting to the statement, but the fact that the School District cited as one of the chief reasons for taking this matter “very seriously” the “bias-motivated” aspect of the attack points to the problem with so-called hate crimes: somehow, the beating is more severe—and more worthy of swift and draconian action—if the motivating factor happens to be, say, race or sexual orientation. Because evidently, it is worse to beat someone up because you don’t like the color of his skin or where he may or may not be burying his equipment than it is to beat him up because you don’t like the way he looked at you, or his hair tinting, or you find his taste in music is dubious.
And once you begin segregating out for special treatment “victim groups” and their attackers, you are necessarily setting the stage for an expansion of such considerations. Why, for instance, aren’t “wiggers” a protected class? Or hobos—who, it seems to me, are the most frequent targets of adrenaline junkies?
Likewise, you are also giving these protected groups a tool to be used vindictively. And in fact, I am in a legal battle now in which my adversary insists that she is being persecuted based on her sexual orientation and politics—a fact she has, by her own admission, used in the past to attempt to bully employers, critics, etc. And this kind of thing is hardly surprising, because it is a short trip from attaining victim status to being able to wield that status as a weapon, and because members of “victim groups” are just as capable of being unscrupulous as any other human.
Of course, I’m not talking about the victim in the story; by no account is he engaging in such behavior. But the point is, the teens who beat him should be prosecuted and expelled for having beaten him, not for having beaten him because he is gay. Because once you begin making those distinctions—once you start criminalizing people for what you believe may have been in their hearts—you risk the slippery slope to preemptive “conditioning”. And in fact, so-called mandatory “tolerance” courses are just such a thing.
Not only that, but you give legal advantages to certain protected classes—which condition rubs uncomfortably against the notion that we should all be equal before the law.
****
update Emma writes:
“hate crimes†or “bias motivated†laws don’t create protected classes. They create protected categories, like gender or race, or age, or religion or sexuality. So for example, picking a victim because of their race is what is importantâ€â€not the race.
This is the preferred semantic workaround for the “hate crimes” crowd, sure. But as others have noted, these “categories” contain men, whites, heterosexuals, etc. And while it is likely that people will be prosecuted additionally for “bias-motivated” crimes against gays or women or blacks, it is unlikely they will be prosecuted additionally under “hate crimes legislation” for crimes against whites, heterosexuals, and men. So we’re right back to de facto protected classes.
But none of that matters, anyway—because the fact is, we already have laws that punish assault. Adding special protected “categories” is not only redundant but it is likewise problematic, not the least for creating, before the law, protected classes as a matter of practical application.
You don’t prosecute what is in someone’s heart. You prosecute him for his actions.
SWEET!! I’m gonna go kick my white hetero boss’s ass.
More pragmatically, are 16 year old kids, still bearing signs of a savage beating, really in a position to make a reasoned decision as to whether they want to be a certified “gay bash victim” in any Google search done on them for the rest of their lives? Not sure what I think about that, but on balance, it seems rather as if the unshakable digital permanence of this story could have more implications for this kid’s life than the beating. Maybe.
Which is why, historically, the prosecutors never had to prove motive. Motive is too tricky and too personal and too irrelevant. Intent is hard enough to prove at times, with motive you run the risk of losing a solid conviction due to the presence of evidence whose prejudicial effect outweighs its probativve value.
And with including motive you risk more of a media circus which again will militate against a solid conviction. If you want to include motive as a factor, then motive should be taken into account at sentencing as a factor towards sentence length. Sentencing guidelines do include (IIRC) factors such as the age and physical condition of the victim.
I presume you are prepared for this part of your post to be ignored in the rush to condemn you as being pro-violence against gays, right?
BECAUSE OF THE…
Antidotally (through children of people I know) homosexuality is VERY accepted in today’s kids. Could be this kids got beat up, and just happens to be gay. Regardless, beating someone up is either a crime or it isn’t. Motivation is irrelevant.
It truly becomes interesting when a minority beats up (and kills) a gay man, because the event will be ignored, and eventually made to go away.
Did the school adminitrator really say:
“Of course they beat him up because he was a homo. I mean, just look at him!”
The pansy-assed Left are very big on criminalizing the ideological content of violence because they are still struggling with the concept of personal accountability on the whole. As they see it, most acts of violence are ultimately attributable to social, economic, and racial factors by which the personal cuplability of the individual is mitigated. It is not enough, then, that some animal cracks open the skull of a convenience store clerk for a fistful of dollars because, somehow, that would be a crime of economic desperation. Real Bonnie and Clyde. But if you can hang a charge of hatred for The Other on a similarly violent person, it is so much worse because the perpetrator wasn’t really sticking it to The Man; he was hating, which makes cracking open that skull the greater crime.
Fuck da Thought Po-Lice.
The only thing about hate-crimes legislation that makes any sense is the notion that some clown who will hit a kid in the face with a can of Lysol (Lysol?!? WTF?) for being gay is likely to hit some other kid for no other reason than that he’s gay.
You’re a smart guy, and I encourage you to research out the answer to your questions. They have been answered. Here are a few tips to help you along the way:
“hate crimes” or “bias motivated” laws don’t create protected classes. They create protected categories, like gender or race, or age, or religion or sexuality. So for example, picking a victim because of their race is what is important—not the race.
Part of the justification for punishing these crimes more is because they have the effect, if not the goal, of harming more than the person who was hit. When neo-nazis beat up a jew, or when shiites threaten a sunni family, on that basis, their effect, if not goal, is to threaten and browbeat other jews or sunnis. Standard stuff, and quite within the legislative domain to pick out particular social evils for punishment.
Should we punish terrorism more, or separately, than the violent acts that the terrorists carry out? It would be similar to that. Same with how we punish more people who harm on the basis of someone being a cop or a judge or a crime witness—except there we actually ARE creating protected classes.
We are all equal before a law that protects categories. We are just not equal before the people who choose to commit crimes because of someone’s position before that category. And thats what the law is trying to correct!
It seems to me the fight for civil rights used to be about minority classes being treated equally under the law. Now civil rights are all about extra consideration under the law if the victim happens to be a minority class. Civil rights in today’s America seem to be less about equality under the law, and more about achieving moral superiority and power through victimhood.
I know he threatened you, but you’d best not push that hobo.
So as a white hetero Christian male my life isn’t worth as much in the eyes of the law as a black homosexual moslem.
My question to the Collective groupthink, which identity is more deserving of greater notice, the beaten black identity, the beaten female identity or the beaten gay identity?
And what happens if gay identity beats a black identity,
or a female identity beats a gay identity,
or a black indentity beats a female identity,
or a gay black identity beats a straight black identity,
or a lesbian identity beats a straight female identity
or a…I could go on but so many identites to identify I now have a headache.
Let’s expand the victim class to “human.”
The order of suits is all just as in Spades, syn. Duh.
Emmadine, “class” or “category” is a distinction without a difference. Regardless of which term is used, the end result is that a crime can be more (or less) harshly punished, based entirely on the perceived mindset of the perpetrator. The act itself becomes secondary. This goes directly against the concept of equality before the law.
I am reminded of a conversation I had a few weeks ago with a co-worker who recently graduated from high school. A homosexual was beaten in the street by two locals, and the story was in that day’s paper. She commented in an offhand, “I’m sure you agree” way that this story showed why hate crime laws are a good idea. I pointed out that assault is illegal, and asked why it should be any worse to beat up a gay man than, say, a woman who has recently graduated from high school. Judging by her reaction, she had never encountered such an idea. She was not outraged, but instead puzzled that anyone could fail to see why gays require special protection by the law. The concept of equal protection was entirely alien to her.
Precisely, Jeff. “Hate” crime is Thoughtcrime, pure and simple.
“We are the dead.”
— 1984
SB: ground46 beneath the iron boot of tyranny. Lefties love that image.
Personally, I think it’s high time that gay men, like manatees, be moved off of the Endangered Identities list and onto the Threatened list.
“So as a white hetero Christian male my life isn’t worth as much in the eyes of the law as a black homosexual moslem.”
uh. Did you read what I said about categories, not classes? It really looks like you didn’t. Or perhaps I did not explain well. To take your example:
Christian is a class. Religion is the category. Protecting just christians is protection of a class, protection of any attacks on the basis of religion is protecting the category of religion. We are all equal before laws that protect categories, but not all equal before laws that protect classes. At least on the books, as applied, things may be different. But thats a problem of prosecutors, not the law.
“And what happens if gay identity beats a black identity,”
And of all the bias motivated crime laws i’ve seen, none have mentioned the membership group of the attacker. Though as I pointed out above, some do single out membership group of the victim, such as judges and postal workers and cops and crime witnesses. However, those might not be truly about ‘bias.’ People are picking on a particular judge, not ‘judges’ in general.
“Emmadine, “class†or “category†is a distinction without a difference.”
Most certainly not. Given a category, we all are somewhere on that category—we all have a religion, or gender,etc… But not class. We are not all christian, not all black.
“Regardless of which term is used, the end result is that a crime can be more (or less) harshly punished, based entirely on the perceived mindset of the perpetrator. The act itself becomes secondary.”
The act is necesary. The mindset has always mattered. Look at how we punish murder different than manslaughter based on the mindset of intent to kill vs. negligence.
One good example of how protected classes are considered in crimes is the difference in the reaction to the murder of Matthew Shepherd and the murder of Jesse Dirkhising.
A protected class is to be victims only. Any evidence of a member of a protected class being a victimizer reduces the net victimization of the group and so must be ignored and buried.
See the rape currently being investigated at Duke, or what might be referred to as the Knoxville Horror.
Lineup’s wrong. Drop it.
(emphasis mine)
How is the law trying to correct that? It seems to me it is actually reinforcing the criminals notion of the difference.
Emmadine, should Asian or female drivers have their traffic fines doubled because their infractions have the effect of perpetuating harmful sterotypes?
Emmadine,
This is progressive, communal nonsense. If I, a white male, am punched on the playground, then I alone am injured. If I call Hillary a Nappy Headed Ho, then she alone is slighted. And if you key my car, then it’s my car alone that has been keyed.
Why do I state the obvious? Because this pernicious depersonalization of “hurt” absolves the individual accuser of any responsibility for calibrating their emotions to the real effects of the slight.
As any 5th grade soccer player will attest, most schoolyard bumps and bruises deserve a “Suck it up!”, and a “It builds character.” Most athletes know this. But the nannying extrapolation of “offense” to a communal group preemptively counters this tough-love, Suck-it-up!-approach.
Imagine if Imus had told the Rutgers team to “Suck it Up!” and “Get over it.”
Why is depersonalization attractive to progressives? I think its because progressives are in the business of securing concensuses, not truths. For them there is more political “power” in huddling with a group of fellow “aggrieved” than there is in admitting the fallibility and transience of individuals’ personal emotions.
OT, kind of…It’s funny how the Prog’s see connections between everything – like between my car and Global climate, or between urban rape-stats and “the Patriarchy” – but they are adamant blind to any connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida.
Looks like a blind-spot to me.
Jeff, while I agree with you completely on your post, I would be careful with that last sentence. From my perspective, I wouldn’t exactly call that an accurate statement.
I would thing that some of the differences between Manslaughter and Murder in the First, to a degree, do prosecute based upon “what is in someones heart”.
I still agree with what you’re saying, as we’re adding a redundant layer of laws to account for situations that we’ve already accounted for (i.e., premeditated vs. crime of passion, etc…). However, as a blanket statement, I think you may be a little off.
But the law cannot ‘correct’ criminal behavior, it can only punish it.
If the punishment is variable based on the class/category of the victim, then the law has created protected and unprotected classes/categories…
Which causes even more division and dislike among the classes/categories
Pure, unadulterated bullshit.
Try prosecuting the black kid who beats up a white kid because the black kid hates all white kids with a hate crime.
I dare you.
The mindset has always mattered.
The mindset has always measured degree of malice and forethought, not type. If I plot to kill my husband because he’s a cheating liar or because I want the insurance money, what’s the difference? If I planned it ahead of time, I’m still charged with first-degree murder.
I get how sometimes someone might kill somebody only because they are a member of a group whom they want to intimidate. A Sunni killing a random Shia, for example, or a Blood killing a random Crip, or a black killing a random Korean.
The trouble with “hate crime” legislation in this day and age is that we already have conceived of special protected classes or categories or whatever you want to call them, and we’ve assigned them special privilege, if not on paper then certainly in the group consciousness. Certain people are assumed to be perpetual victims, and they get a pass when they behave badly. That’s not justice.
If a gay black woman killed me because she hates white Christian “breeders,” do you honestly think the media would demand that a prosecutor pull out the hate crime statute? You really think I’d get vigils on university campuses and op-eds in the WaPo or NYT? Would Nancy Grace get (more) apoplectic in my defense?
If you think so, you’re living in a different world than I am, with a different-colored sky.
So if a bisexual is attacked, is the perp’s sentence increased by only 1/2 of what it would if the victim was a fully-blown (sorry…) homosexual?
Nah. It’s still based on actions: if I shoot a gun randomly in the air and the bullet hits someone in the head, it’s manslaughter.
If I walk up to you, put a gun to your head and shoot you, it’s murder.
If I shoot a gun in the air randomly and the bullet stikes someone of a different race, sex, creed or disability, it’s a hate crime and thus murder.
Does this work for “whites” as well? If a black person assualts a white person, is that an injury to the “white community” that needs to be rectified?
Because, I hear there are some groups out there who are behind this idea 100%, like the KKK.
The action is the act of pulling the trigger. The ‘motivation’ behind those actions can determine the severity of the sentence.
In fact, to continue my great point, what if I fire a gun in the air yelling “Nappy headed hoes!”.
One bullet strikes a white guy and kills him and one bullet strikes a member of the Rutgers Girls Basketball team and kills her.
Is one death a hate crime that should be prosecuted more harshly and the other not?
So it’s murder everytime I pull the trigger of a gun regardless of where the bullet goes?
Dumb….
“You don’t prosecute what is in someone’s heart. You prosecute his for his actions.”
You fundamentally misunderstand a basic concept of our criminal law: mens rea. Wikipedia it. And think about it too. If a gun goes off killing someone do we punish somoeone for the act of setting off the gun? or for what is in their heart? (malice aforethough, reckless intent to harm, negligence etc..)
“And while it is likely that people will be prosecuted additionally for “bias-motivated†crimes against gays or women or blacks, it is unlikely they will be prosecuted additionally under “hate crimes legislation†for crimes against whites, heterosexuals, and men. So we’re right back to de facto protected classes.”
It would be very interesting to see numbers on this.
“But none of that matters, anywayâ€â€because the fact is, we already have laws that punish assault. “
I told you that you’re smart and you should look into this. I made the point that these crimes have further consequences besides the assault. Further consequences that we are making the decision are a social ill which we will use the criminal law to punish and correct. I gave the example of the jew and the sunni, that are targeted to intimidate other jews and sunnis. You get this don’t you? you get that this is the social evil that these laws attempt to correct.
Do you have a problem with punishing people who attack judges, or crime witnesses more than a regular attack? I would imagine not.
“How is the law trying to correct that? It seems to me it is actually reinforcing the criminals notion of the difference.”
The law corrects it by punishing the criminal for picking on the difference. Like the law corrects stealing by punishing people who steal.
“Try prosecuting the black kid who beats up a white kid because the black kid hates all white kids with a hate crime.”
I don’t know about kids, but charges certainly seem to happen a lot, according a dated world net daily article:
“Although “hate-crime” legislation has been championed by minority groups in hopes it would discourage racially motivated crime, a recently released FBI crime report reveals that a higher percentage of blacks than whites are charged with race-biased “hate crimes.””
How about answering my question, Emmadine?
What if I fire a gun in the air yelling “Nappy headed hoes!â€Â.
One bullet strikes a white guy and kills him and one bullet strikes a member of the Rutgers Girls Basketball team and kills her.
Is one death a hate crime that should be prosecuted more harshly and the other not?
Mens Rea can’t be used to punish selection of a victim because the criminal intent is already there.
Furthermore, I do object to punishing killing judges, postmen, cops, milkmen, whomever, more harshly. My life is worth just as much as theirs.
My life is worth as much as any cop or minority!
a recently released FBI crime report reveals that a higher percentage of blacks than whites are charged with race-biased “hate crimes.”â€Â
Well then it’s obvious that the statute isn’t working, is it? White people were supposed to bear the brunt of hate crime legislation.
Do you have a problem with punishing people who attack judges, or crime witnesses more than a regular attack? I would imagine not.
These aren’t hate crimes. Judges or witnesses or police aren’t more valuable than regular folks; rather, there has been an assault on the justice system.
Furthermore, “judge,” “witness,” and “cop” are roles, not permanent identity markers. You aren’t born a cop, and you can be a witness one day and not a witness the next.
TW: Use yer reason77, eh?
In for a penny, in for a pound.
Motive is not intent. Motive is why you did the act, and has never been one of the necessary elements of a crime. The prosecution has had to determine (a) did you do the act; and (b) what was your intent when you did the act.
Intent means did you intend this or the natural consequences of this action? It has nothing to do with why did you intend to do this; the criminal law has never required the prosecutor to go that deep into intent.
The only time you would find motivation would be if the defense would bring it up, such as in self-defense.
Yes, I did the act that killed him.
Yes, I intended to kill him.
But, I did it because he was trying to kill me.
The last one is motivational, but is not raised by the prosecution, it is raised by the defense to exonerate otherwise criminal actions.
Again, adding motivation to the prosecutor’s burden may do more harm to cases which otherwise be easy convictions. And it factionalizes the population even more by clearly stating that some citizens are more valuable than others. It is not a direction we should be going in; the criminal justice system developed and operated for hundreds of years without inquiring into motivation and changing something that has worked this way for so long should be done with great reluctance as more harm than good is likely to result.
If a highway sniper shoots a guy in a Miata, the headline will read: “Driver may have been shot for being gay!”
But if the highway sniper is a black moslem and shoots exclusively white people the headling will read: “Highway Sniper Shoots Random Drivers!”
What if you kill a gay man not because you hate gays, but because he flirted with your boyfriend.
Remember a few years back – on some trash-talk show, a gay man admitted he had a crush on another man (who was straight) on camera. The “crushee” later killed the gay man. He had been embarrassed. Was this a hate crime?
And, regardless – aren’t we primarily concerned with punishing those who, you know, KILL another person? Of secondary concern is the politics of the case.
emmadine, I do not think you understand mens rea fully.
The best example was the killing of a husband because he was a cheating SOB or for the insurance money. mens rea is the same – hatred or venality or whatever aside. It was an intentional act, meant to kill. A manslaughter would be different – bar fighter intends to hurt foe, but not kill, etc.
Don’t confuse mistake, passion or other mitigating factors with “hate” as an aggravating factor.
“What if I fire a gun in the air yelling “Nappy headed hoes!â€Â. “
I believe bias crimes work on how you picked your victim. Did you pick your victim because of bias? It doesn’t look like it in your hypo.
“Well then it’s obvious that the statute isn’t working, is it? White people were supposed to bear the brunt of hate crime legislation.”
World net daily seems to think that. But they are often wrong.
“Furthermore, “judge,†“witness,†and “cop†are roles, not permanent identity markers.”
Neither is sexuality or religion.
“My life is worth as much as any cop or minority!”
But if you die in an accident, your killer will be punished less than if you die due to murder.
“Intent means did you intend this or the natural consequences of this action? “
And like i said, consequences of a bias motivated crime go beyond the physical victim. I gave the example of ethnic cleansing. So the question could be, do you intend that the consequences of the crime go beyond the physical victim.
“Although “hate-crime†legislation has been championed by minority groups in hopes it would discourage racially motivated crime, a recently released FBI crime report reveals that a higher percentage of blacks than whites are charged with race-biased “hate crimes.
In my uneventful life, I certainly have been the target of racially based hate. I’ve had cars speed up to hit me, while young black men yell out the window that they “hate white women.” Last Spring I had some young girls yell race stuff at me (I later went and informed their VERY EMBARRASSED mother.) I doubt “hate” statutes would do a single thing to stop the racism that exists in the black community.
That statement implies to me that the law is intending to correct the inequality. Which is why I replied:
“How is the law trying to correct that? It seems to me it is actually reinforcing the criminals notion of the difference.â€Â
First, the law doesn’t “correct” stealing, it punishes people who steal, hopefully thereby detering other thieves. Second, what then are you trying to correct with this law, if not the prejudices of the perpetrator? Third, if this is what you are trying to correct, how does acknowledging the difference of his victims not reinforce his discrimination?
How in the world would you know?! That statement would certainly be used as in court as evidence of a bias crime.
Again, an accident is an act, not what’s in the killers heart….
You’re trying to defend the indefensible.
And really, Emmadine, the statement ‘picking a victim’ implies that we are all just potiential victims waiting to be ‘picked’ based on some bias in our potential attacker.
I think that gives us a window into the loopy world you live in.
“First, the law doesn’t “correct†stealing, it punishes people who steal, hopefully thereby detering other thieves. Second, what then are you trying to correct with this law, if not the prejudices of the perpetrator? Third, if this is what you are trying to correct, how does acknowledging the difference of his victims not reinforce his discrimination?”
I’m sorry. I mean “correct” to include all the things that our penal system does: deter, punish, remove from society, etc… I don’t see how we are reinforcing his discrimination—we’re acknowledging the difference he picked out, and punishing him for it. I don’t see how that reinforces anything. It punishes it.
“How in the world would you know?! That statement would certainly be used as in court as evidence of a bias crime. “
It could be. And the fact that you shot your gun in the air would be used to show that you weren’t picking your victim based on any criteria. My guess here is that you weren’t picking your victim based on race. You were shooting randomly. Now its possible to shoot randomly and pick a victim based on race: go to a Klan rally and open fire.
Funny, out in SF it appears the KKK and their sniper brigades have joined with United for Peace and Justice, Code Pink, ANSWER and the World Workers Party to help insure the Collective puts to end all ‘injustice’.
So the answer to your question Techie is no.
There’s a big flaw in that study, Emmadine, that makes it pretty much useless. It measures hate crime charges compared to the general population percentages. A better comparison would be comparing crimes committed by people of one race against people of other races, and then seeing how many of those were prosecuted as hate crimes. Another option would be to study hate crime prosecutions as related to total number of charges filed against people of a certain race.
Beyond that, though, there’s the greater problem of the amount prosecutorial discretion hate crime statutes allow. We’ve just seen a stunning case of a prosecutor stoking racial tensions for his own gain. Do we want to hand out a tool to prosecutors everywhere that would allow them to do just that whenever politically expiedient? The DA post is in most cases an elected office, and the people who hold that office are political beings. Mayors and other elected officials would also get in on the act, urging a certain course of action based not on a desire for justice, but on their own agendas. That’s too much power and too much discretion to hand out.
Going further, every high profile decision to apply or not apply hate crime statutes to a case would end up viewed in political terms. That would serve only to undermine faith in the justice system and stoke racial tensions–the exact opposite of what hate crime legislation is marketed as being able to do.
Yeah, we’re not reinforcing differences! We’re just punishing discrimination by discriminating!
Or geeks. Imagine how much more freely people could play D&D if they knew it wouldn’t get the crap beat out of them!
The very concept that some crimes deserve more punishment because of the person who was victimized, outside of a few, very limited areas, is corrosive to the concept of “equal before the law”. I don’t think it’s an issue to say “you attacked a kid, you get more time in prison”, because society needs to protect children and everyone is a kid at some time.
But to say “because of your ancestry, crimes committed against you are more serious” or “because of your mating preference, crimes against you are more serious”, implies that crimes against people OUTSIDE those groups are less serious.
And if people really want equality, they should shy away from trying to imply they deserve more protection than anyone else.
If you don’t see the inherent contradictions in that statement, I don’t think I can help you. Most, if not all, hate crimes are motivated by some perceived special status of the other, how does granting them a real special status under the law provide any kind of a deterent?
You can’t attack me! I have a penchant for buggery and you will spend many more years in jail for attacking me!
That’s still a criterion that requires mind-reading.
For example, there’s a shopping center here in KC that had a rash of robberies in its parking lots a few years back. People pretty much stopped going to that mall, with the result that all the stores went out of business. There’s your consequences beyond the physical victim; now you have to divine whether the perpetrators were out to get the shopkeepers. Hate crime or no?
Emmadine,
Your arguments that “hate based crimes” hurt more people than other kinds of crimes (i.e. society at large) is foolish. Are you saying that a criminal who is willing to kill just because harms society less than someone who kills because of race? (in other words, a serial killer is less of a societal menace than a race-based beating ending in death?). Or that criminals who kill because of gang-turf wars harm society less than someone who kills because he thinks the victim is jewish?
Really? You believe that?
Or that the classifications make any sense? If someone shoots you because they raped you and did not want you to talk it is not as bad as if someone else shoots a person because he is black?
Or delivering a beating to get money out of someone is not as bad as delivering a beating because the person is Asian?
that is simply idiotic – and it is the first step to thought police – we are now criminalizing ideas and thoughts. Typical leftist stuff here – straight out of the gulag of soviet Russia.
Please explain to me how adding to a sentence because someone hates a particular race is not criminalizing that person’s thoughts?
And, having to prove intent to do an act is not remotely the same thing as proving motive/thought. Intent is showing that a person intended to do the act and intended certain consequences. I.e., you show I deliberately pulled the trigger while pointing the gun at the victim, thus demonstrating that I intended to kill the person. Proving what I was thinking at the time is a different thing all together. You seem like a smart girl. Look it up. Do some research on it. Read a law book about intent in criminal acts versus motive. You’ll come to realize that I am 100% correct.
So arguing that we have always criminalized thought because of the intent element of a crime is simply untrue.
And before you know it, the hate is the crime. Even if it isn’t necessarily hate.
Lefties love “hate crime legislation” because it finally allows them to support something in the “tough on crime” arena and pretend that they are tough on crime.
If you dislike murder, make penalties for murder worse – like the death penalty. If you dislike assault/battery, make penalties worse.
But, they can’t do that. Instead, they have to find a way to make it about race.
I can foresee a future where criminals pick their victims based entirely on race to avoid picking the race that would get them a higher penalty if caught.
Yes, you’re right, it is dumb. Hence the reason you’re not prosecuted ‘just’ on the action, but often on the ‘intent’ of the action.
According to your statements, we could conclude that courts currently prosecute without consideration of intent. We know this to be 100% false.
So, again, ‘whats in your heart’ is taken into consideration. In other words, did you ‘intend’ to kill that person, or was it just an ‘accident’. What was the persons ‘motivation’. The simple act of the person being dead doesn’t determine the sentence.
Again, I agree with Jeff’s overall position. Adding ‘hate crime’, basically adds a redundant layer of laws to determine how long someones sentence should be. If we’ve already determined that the attack/murder was ‘premeditated’ (i.e., looking at their personal motivations, not just the overall act), do we really need to know that the source of the premeditation was because someone was black or white?
It’s saying the same thing, just in different ways. The only thing it does do is suggest that, all other things being equal (i.e., how the murder was committed), one persons life is worth more than another simply because one person was killed because they were of a different skin color, or sexual orientation, while the other person was killed because he fired someone from their job.
No, intent is not motive.
Intent is ‘what did you mean to have happen’?
Motive is ‘why did you mean to have that happen’?
Act and Intent are the two things the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to get a conviction. Motive has not been an element that must be proven by the prosecution.
Fair enough (intent vs. motive… I didn’t mean to confuse the two)… except ‘intent’ is still what’s in your heart. Intending to kill someone is a thought, period. You want to do harm. Why is irrelevant. I mentioned as much when saying why Hate Crime is a ridiculous add on.
They’re Wafrican-Americans, Kluxy.
Re: the update
Common libertarian mistake. Believing that law (a force) and justice (a rhetoric) should–or worse, can–be one, you’re easily dead-ended into arguing the (in)justice-serving meaning of existing laws.
But look at them, and listen to lawyers talk about them. Read these comments. Stop by the courthouse and watch a public defender plead some narcotized nigger with a wired-shut cop-broken jaw to a life-destroying sentence for made-up shit he doesn’t even know what it is.
Laws don’t mean anything. They only do things. Politics is not a signifying text. By treating it like one, as libertarians do, you lose–and I don’t mean arguments. You can win all of those. They have. And…what?
Nothing.
So, again, ‘whats in your heart’ is taken into consideration. In other words, did you ‘intend’ to kill that person, or was it just an ‘accident’. What was the persons ‘motivation’. The simple act of the person being dead doesn’t determine the sentence.
that’s not entirely correct. motivation is not the same thing as intent. And, intent is generally not proven by delving into the accused mind and thoughts.
Motive would be “I am going to kill my wife because she is cheating on me.”
Intent is showing that you purposefully took out a knife and stuck into your wife’s chest – which generally shows you intended to kill her. Or, you can show intent by showing that I said “I’m going to kill her” and then went out, bought a gun, and shot her.
But, generally, intent is demonstrated through actions, not thoughts. Can the prosecution show that you planned the crime out, because you attempted to establish an alibi, purchased certain tools, etc. – showing you had an intent to do what you did (i.e., it was not an accident or spur of the moment “passion crime”).
The prosecutor does not have to prove what the person was thinking to show intent, and usually does not try to.
Now, does a prosecutor often attempt to establish a motive? Yes, b/c it makes it easier for a jury to understand the crime if they know the motive and therefore it is easier to convict. Is motive an element of a crime that a prosecutor MUST prove? NO!
That is a huge difference from “hate crime”, where the prosecutor is attempting to prove what kinds of thoughts and beliefs the accused had that motivated them to commit the crime in the first place. I suppose this will basically criminalize belonging to certain groups, as membership in, say, a white supremacist group becomes prima facie evidence that you hate minorities.
It is a very, very slippery slope.
But prior to ‘hate crimes’, it was the action that determined intent:
His action of pointing the gun at a guy’s head and pulling the trigger shows he intended to kill willfully, ergo you committed murder
Hate crime prosecution requires mind-reading prior to the action:
Your intent to bash a gay caused you to willfully put a gun to this guy’s head and kill him; ergo it’s a hate crime.
Great Banana, I don’t disagree with most of your post. Except, while intent is demonstrated through certain actions, it’s still a thought. Motive is a thought that provides a reason for the thought of intending to do harm.
While intent can be seen easily in actions, it’s still a thought.
I think if you read what I’m actually saying I’m not really disagreeing with you.
I’m simply stating that ‘intent’, argued whichever way you want, is still a thought process. It doesn’t explain ‘why’ you are doing what you’re doing—which, as others have clearly noted describes motive—but it does explain that you’ve clearly thought about what you are doing and understand the consequences, on the victim, of your actions.
That’s still thought.
And, for the record, I’m not saying belonging to a white supremacist group is a good thing.
But, many conservative groups get labeled “hate groups” by the left, and I can see where membership to certain groups will suddenly become evidence of “hate” in a crime, thus creating a back-door to criminalize belonging to certain groups.
Or to writing certain things. Say you get involved in a fist-fight and the other person happens to be a different race than you.
Now, let’s suppose the fight was just a typical street fight started over something stupid, nothing to do with race.
but, you have posted on a web-site and argued in various comment sections. How hard do you think it would be for a prosecutor to parse through those things and make a case that you are a “hater” and thus committed a “hate crime” by engaging in a street fight?
Great Banana, I don’t disagree with most of your post. Except, while intent is demonstrated through certain actions, it’s still a thought. Motive is a thought that provides a reason for the thought of intending to do harm.
While intent can be seen easily in actions, it’s still a thought.
Perhaps. But, it is a very simple thought, and it is a thought about performing an action that is criminal.
For instance, in a murder case, if the defense is “i did not do it”, all the prosecution actually has to prove is that you did it. the intent is inherent in the act (shooting someone, stabbing someone). Same thing with assault or robbery, etc.
It is only when the defendant is claiming some other defense, such as that they acted in self-defense, or were insane, would the prosecution have to try to really establish intent. And even then, it is generally established simply by showing what actions the person took, not what thoughts or beliefs they had.
Are there exceptions to this, of course, but the vast majority of cases fall into these categories.
Hate crime is about criminalizing the thought itself. It is asking WHY you did it – and if we don’t like the WHY, we are going to be even more stern with you.
That’s not a bug; it’s a feature.
(At least for those who support “hate crimes” legislation.)
Gray:
Let me take this one step further, breaking off on a tangent from the example you provided.
Let’s say you and I are standing in a room. I take my gun and point it at your head, pull the trigger and kill you with one shot (no one is around to witness this).
Does that mean I should automatically be charged with premeditated murder? All my actions, as figured out by forensic research, state that I shot you point blank range and it looks, for all intents and purposes, as though I intended to kill you.
However, what if I say that was just joking around like an idiot and pulled the trigger figuring the gun wasn’t loaded? My ‘actions’ state intent, my thoughts state I’m an idiot who did something extremely foolish.
Two crimes, committed the same way, but with different modes of intent not necessarily fully described by the actions.
No. That would depend on other actions prior to pulling the trigger–like stalking me, whatever…
Correct for all intents and purposes.
Perhaps an action like if you didn’t load the gun–like the way Brandon Lee was killed.
Actions state intent, the what, but actions can never state ‘why’. I’ll never know ‘why’ you’re an idiot–maybe because you are a racist! Hahaha!
Agent W, I don’t think you were arguing for hate crimes, it is merely that intent and motive are frequently confused because motive is a sub-part of intent. This is something that has to be drilled in the heads of law students, to get them to focus on the elements necessary for a crime to have been committed.
It is a distinction, but a necessary one.
For example, the old common law burglary* was ‘breaking and entering a dwelling house in the nighttime with the intent of committing a felony therein’. If the accused opened the door of another’s house at midnight and took a loaf of bread, there was a burglary. It did not matter why it was done (I was hungry; I’m mean; I dislike the householder). All that mattered was that the felony (taking the bread) happened. The act of taking the bread is sufficient to prove intent without having to ask the accused a single question, and without having to dredge up prior acts (which may be stricken from evidence as being more prejudicial in effect than the prior act’s probative worth, or heaven forbid, having the case overturned on appeal).
Motivation is difficult to determine from the acts of the crime in question without going into a fishing expedition into the accused’s past. The rules of evidence keep all but certain types of prior bad acts from becoming evidence in the current case for fear that the jury will convict merely because the accused is a ‘bad guy’ rather than the actual facts of the case before them.
Intent, though, can be determined from the facts of the charge against the accused. So excluding motivation is actually a protection for the accused as it excludes irrelevant and possibly inflamatory evidence from the jury’s consideration and keeps the focus solely on the charge in question. Prior convictions can be taken into account at sentencing and are because at that time the jury has already convicted on the accusation based on the facts that solely pertain to that accusation.
Again, this isn’t a slam; I’m just trying to make sure this crucial distinction is made clear.
*It’s been almost fifteen years since I had Crim Law, so the description of common law burglary may be a bit off, but that is how I recall the elements.
Freakin’ lawyers!
Oops – HATE CRIME!
As an addition, intent can be proven by having other witnesses of that event testify, or by the admission of evidence of that event.
(For instance: the deceased died of a particular poison that is not common to any household. A witness takes the stand and testifies that the accused bought that poison from him two days prior to the deceased’s death. The purchase of poison shows the accused had the means of producing just that kind of death. The accused is in a hole now.)
To get motive either prior acts not connected to the event have to be brought in, or hearsay (an out of court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter therein).
Hate crimes call for special exceptions to the Rules of Evidence, which are based on court decisions regarding the common law and the US Constitution’s amendments regarding what is evidence and what is not.
To truly get motive you have to cross-examine (question a hostile witness) the accused, which runs counter to the Fifth Amendment. To counter unrelated hearsay statements of others, the accused would be forced by the prosecution to take the stand in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Hate crime legislation runs counter to all currents of traditional Anglo-American jurisprudence by forcing the accused to make the burden of proof that he did not do the act with improper motivation. Forcing the accused to prove the prosecution wrong, shifting the burden from the prosecution to prove itself right beyond a reasonable doubt, is extremely dangerous as the state can always find the resources to get one person.
In RE: Hearsay. This is an example I remember from law school:
An aircraft with a husband and wife crashes. They have wills that state if the wife dies first everything goes to the husband, and vice-versa. Their individual wills say if they die last then the money goes to eithers children from a prior marriage (i.e., wife dies first hubby gets all and it goes to his kids; hubby dies first wife gets all and it goes to her kids). A deputy is first on scene. He sees the wife is dead (she’s decapitated) and the husband says to the deputy “I’m not dead.” then expires.
Can the deputy’s testimony be used and how?
It can. He can’t testify to the content of the husband’s speech (I’m not dead) because that would be an out of court statement (non-sworn testimony – a deposition is considered in court testimony because it is sworn to) brought in to prove the truth of the matter therein (“I’m not dead.”) What the deputy can testify to is the husband spoke and he saw the wife was decapitated. Decapitated people are dead (please-no brain in a jar comments) and a person who is alive can speak.
She died first, he died second, hearsay is avoided.
Rather69 pedantic, I know, but welcome to the law.
I have a basic problem with the protection of male homosexuals under Title VII. In order to comply with Title VII if a heterosexual man desired to inflict physical bodily pain on a homosexual man he might opt to physically top his homosexual victim and initiate a violent fist-to-butt sex act (is prison lingo this is a.k.a a Greek ringer or a Greek Rocky, as in Balboa) resulting in the homosexual man’s nose going unbloodied yet his anus struggling to coagulate. Title VII fails to fully address protections for the safety and health of assholes, which is a prominent endowment to the sexuality of male homosexuals, or, if you will, a very tender sexual necessitation to these tenderest of men.
I have to say this much for emmadine—she does stay on the topic, mostly.
Thanks, Thor.
So…what did you use Mjolinor for, anyway?
I like emmadine, don’t agree with her, but she brings a real point of view and knows how to express and defend it. Our resident trolls should be taking notes, but they have probably already eaten all their crayons.
Is there any support for this assertion?
This (scroll down to “By bias motivation”) seems to suggest otherwise.
I play it actually. I us it to lay down the bass lines for Rob Zombie. 1960, 5, 5, yeah.
Moops, the FBI doesn’t decide who gets prosecuted. They’re investigators. They can investigate bias crimes against whites, heterosexuals and men to their hearts’ content, but if the U.S. Attorney doesn’t take the case to court, the FBI’s wasted its time and resources.
“Moops, the FBI doesn’t decide who gets prosecuted. They’re investigators.”
Here they’re just aggregating data reported by local law enforcement.
But where does this idea that minorities don’t get charged with bias crimes come from? I mean, here are some numbers, imperfect, that go one way. Any numbers at all go the other way?
Naw! I loves some Rob Zombie!
TW: dead82! Yeah! Yeah! deeeeeaaaaaaaad d82! Yeah!
if a white FBI agent shoots another white FBI agent while intending to shoot a black bank robber, could it still be a hate crime?
“Why is depersonalization attractive to progressives?”
Because they are ultimately anti-individualist. This is true of almost all political activism, and has been for over a hundred years. T
The fun has been watching the intellectual contortions the statists tie themselves into convincing themselves that their political aspirations are not betrayals of the nation’s founding principles.
I’m aware of the difference between intent and motive. Many of you are making too much of that last sentence, which was simply shorthand for you don’t want to start digging into people’s thoughts beyond their application to the actual crime (intent).
BoZ —
You are speaking in riddles. I wrote “we already have laws that punish assault”. This conceptualizes law as a force. What constitutes “justice,” on the other hand, is determined by a certain political consensus that is then enforced using laws created to do their bidding.
Having said this, you’re going to have to explain to me what you mean by this:
This is the second time I can remember where you’ve taken an oblique shot at libertarians. Pretend none of us here are as smart as you and try to lay the argument out in terms that make your point less opaque, please.
To say “politics is not a signifying text,” for instance, is complicated. Are you talking about the history of disparate political moments all joined under the same designation? Are you talking about the various subjective motivations that go into turning a belief into a policy? And aren’t policies merely textual indices of the politics that formed them?—with ideas about how we should then interpret and apply the laws that guard such policies also a consensual idea?
As everyone here knows, I advocate for an intentionalist approach toward texts, including legal texts. And if you want, you can do a site search for my discussions on the matter with a certain dumpling.
Or are you talking about personal politics? The “personal is the politica,” to use one fatuous example, argues that agency and politics are conjoined—that the “person” is inscribed by the politics that create and define “him”. Are you arguing that a person doesn’t signify based upon his or her actions?
I guess what I’m asking is, what do you mean by both “politics” and “signifying text”? Because I don’t think I can adequately defend “common libertarian mistake(s)” without being clear how you’re using the terms you select to prove the mistake(s).
I realize this (and that these are aggregate data from many police offices, not just the FBI), but, unable to find any statistics on actual prosecutions with a quick google search, I figured these would do as a rough proxy. Is there any reason not to use them, lacking better information?
Good enough. That answers my question perfectly. My apologies for sidetracking the conversation.
Only that the usefulness of the data to support the point are limited, which I gather we both now stipulate.