Do you think that the concept of 'hate crimes' are just?

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

Should there be a legal classification for hate crimes, or should the law should be impartial to a persons belief (as asshole-ish as it may be), and simply recognize that a crime has been committed and then punish that crime?

[Bluebear]

1. Empatically, yes. Sorry, the crime is NOT all that matters.

Hate crimes blend civil rights violations into the crime as well.

[LostinVA]

2. Oh boy

I hate how popcorn gets stuck in my teeth.

(I know you don't mean it this way, but this should be... interesting.)

:popcorn:

[Bluebear]

3. see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1494723&mesg_id=1494995

[LostinVA]

10. Oh ho -- I stand corrected

Thanks, Bluebear.

And, the OP of that is... telling.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

15. Sorry, thats the libertarian side of me.

I guess I just feel that (at least in the case of murder. I haven't decided about other cases. Someone, I don't remember who gave a good example of graffiti on a wall versus someone painting swastikas on a jewish tombstone) murder is simply a crime so heinous that there should not be any reasonable way of making worse punishments for it because of the reasoning behind it (of course this is not taking into account self defense or the varying degrees of murder)

In any event, it will be interesting to see how people feel about the subject and their rational behind it.

[IndianaJones]

24. Lets look at murder....

A black man is killed by a group of white men who use racial slurs while beating him to death.

In your view, murder is committed and the men are sentenced according to the guidelines of punishment. End of story.

The local community is torn by riots, and in retribution, white people are injured or killed.

Do you feel that this scenario should not be taken into consideration? How would that be possible without hate crime legislation?

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

30. Each of these white men would most likely be sentanced to at least 15 years in prison for the murder

With that 15 (this is an approximate, I don't really know the punishments) I would assume one would add assault charges to each of them, as well as any applicable laws that deal with torture and harassment, plus any punishments that exist for gang violence.

Some posters also felt that terrorism could also be added to the charges. In this particular case, I think that that would also be applicable. My real issue is the fact that 'hate crime' just lumps all of these together.

"The local community is torn by riots, and in retribution, white people are injured or killed."

And then all those that committed crimes should be charged with whatever crimes they committed.

[IndianaJones]

31. Your post seems to indicate that society has no responsibility to protect its members. nt.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

37. On principle, I think that society can only JUSTLY punish people for acts they have committed

not acts they might commit. I should be able to buy c4 at walmart. There should be no crime in owning explosives, but as soon as I use them, there should be hell to pay.

I put emphasis on justly because sometimes preventative measures have to be taken. I'm still on the fence on issues like these, as there are very valid points to both sides

There has always been difficulty balancing safety and freedom, and it is incredibly important to discuss the pros and cons of every aspect of our society. Thats what allows it to improve. It is times like these that make DU interesting.

[IndianaJones]

38. So you feel that an individual or group that commit a crime based on...

race, gender or orientation are not responsible for the societal impact of their crime, whatever that impace may be?

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

40. I'm not sure.

My opinions aren't set in stone yet. My initial response is to lean towards answering yes, however I have seen several well reasoned opinions on this thread (yours included) that are making me lean towards no.

[treestar]

50. I have a libertarian side also

I see where you're coming from. I don't like any law that makes the identity of the victim so relevant that it makes it look like it is worse to murder someone from a particular group. I can accept it if there is some other rationale.

My state has a law punishing attacks on old people more. Not even as a hate crime, no such thing has to be proved. Just the victim's age.

So you could say what, old people are worth more than younger? But I guess the rationale could be punishing a defendant who picks on those less likely to be able to defend themselves. Maybe a murderer is worse if he kills a helpless old person than when he kills someone that could fight back.

Hate crimes I can accept as having the rationale that if intent is proved, there is an intimidation factor - a threat against everyone of the race or group in question. If a white murderer kills people who are not white with a message that's why he/she did it, then they are terrorizing the rest of the local population of that group. Which threatens to upset society more, and the law exists to help keep order.

[Sapphocrat]

112. Ding! Ding! Ding!

"...if intent is proved, there is an intimidation factor - a threat against everyone of the race or group in question ... then they are terrorizing the rest of the local population of that group."

That's it.

Except I wouldn't limit it to "the local population of that group." I'm just as terrorized by the murder of a 21-year-old transgendered man in Nebraska as I am by the murder of a 15-year-old black lesbian in New Jersey, as I am by the mass murders of a middle-aged, middle-class lesbian, her two young daughters, and her mother in Wales, as I am by the murder of a 13-year-old boy in Georgia who was merely accused of being gay.

It sends a message to all of us, everywhere.

Otherwise, you just explained exactly why we need hate-crime laws.

I have no idea why this subject continues to be questioned or discussed. The reason is blindingly obvious.

[Bluebear]

27. Let me guess: White heterosexual male?

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

34. Ouch.

I object to my race being brought into this, as it should be an arguement of principles, not people. But if it will satisfy you, then yes.

[IndianaJones]

36. You have to admit...the objection is a little ironic. nt.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

39. lol, indeed it is. . .

[BlooInBloo]

57. Reverse racism! Reverse racism!

:rofl:

[racaulk]

41. Isn't it funny that, in general, those who oppose hate crimes legislation

will never themselves be the victims of hate crimes? Hmmm...

:think:

[IndianaJones]

47. Wisconsin v Mitchell, a landmark hate crimes case....

involved a white youth being attacked based on his race. The Supreme Court unanimously found that the hate crimes law used to proscute the offenders did not infringe upon Constitutional rights.

[Balbus]

59. Made him look the fool.

[IndianaJones]

62. Not the intent...and in actuality the poster is 100% correct in their characterization. nt.

[racaulk]

71. Which is why I included the caveat "in general" in my post.

I'm not naive enough to think that members of the majority are never victims of hate crimes, because as the SCOTUS case posted upthread illustrates, they certainly can be.

But, in general, they're not.

[IndianaJones]

78. i've had enough of you. nt.

[racaulk]

81. You're on my ignore list now, freeper!

I'm gonna make you leave!

:rofl:

[LeftishBrit]

105. Actually, anyone can be the victim of a hate crime

There have been one or two successful prosecutions in Britain where it was demonstrated that *white* people were attacked just because of their race. For obvious reasons, victims of racial hate crimes usually aren't white. But there is no person in the world, who could not, under certain conditions, become the victim of a hate crime.

[treestar]

52. Isn't saying that a WHM has no right to differ on this the same

argument as the one that men have no right to an opinion on abortion? Just because it doesn't affect you directly and personally doesn't mean you don't live in the society. The law affects all of us.

And is it written neutrally, at least, in this day and age.

Further, a WHM could in theory be the victim of a hate crime. There could be a woman out there who wants to kill men, period. It may not be common. But it can happen, and to that male victim, it would mean something. I for one wouldn't sit there and cheer the perpetrator or say gee, one less white male is a good thing.

[IndianaJones]

53. I don't believe the poster is saying there is no right to differ....

just pointing out a trend in those that do.

[treestar]

55. It's ironic the other poster's sex, race and orientation were

snarkily stated to be the reason for his differing.

IOW, the person is being judged solely by his race, etc., which is ironic.

We need to get away from the idea it is OK to do to white males the same thing we object to them doing to others. And not every white male is really privileged. Only an elite are. The rest are the ones we talk to on the message boards.

[IndianaJones]

58. I don't see it that way at all...to deny that sympathy to minority issues is not based...

on ones own status is naive. I can say with near 100% certainty that the vast majority of those that oppose hate crime legislation are caucasian and heterosexual. Is there any way to deny it? The frustration felt by members of groups that are routinely discriminated against or in some cases, denied basic rights is the culmination of centuries of experience. The poster was correct in his characterization, and it was not by accident. You must agree that if the majority of white heterosexual males were of a more accepting mind, there would be no need to make such distinctions. As it stands today, the man with a boot on their necks is not a black homosexual.

[racaulk]

6. Pass the salt.

Agreed, this should be interesting...

:popcorn:

[LostinVA]

9. It usually is

[IndianaJones]

4. Hate crime legislation is not only just, but necessary in a society that...

claims to be lawful.

[BlooInBloo]

5. Worse yet - I'm a straight white man who thinks the concept is perfectly just...

... The idea that the law, irrespective of hate crimes, is "impartial to a persons belief" is completely asinine, of course.

You've spoken like a good straight white man though - wish I could toe the line with ya.

[WhollyHeretic]

7. A hate crime also has a larger impact on the community at large than a normal crime

[bryant69]

8. You commit two crimes

One crime being the murder, the abuse, the vandalism.

The second crime being the attempt to intimidate or scare a community.

Both crimes should be punished.

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

20. Fair enough.

I think that those are perfectly good reasons to prosecute someone who would otherwise simply be convicted of commiting a hate crime.

Perhaps that is the intended definition of hate crime, but I think that prosecuting them on already standing crimes is a better idea.

[Flarney]

22. I think it's fair to call the second crime "terrorism." n/t

[bryant69]

25. Indeed. n/t

[Hosnon]

77. That's a good take on it.

I used to be against hate crime legislation back in what I call my Axiomatic Days. However, I view things differently now and see the benefit of such laws.

[Zywiec]

89. So if there is a "regular" rape in your community

but not a "hate" rape. No other women in that community would be a little scared or intimidated? Have two crimes been committed in this case also?

[bryant69]

107. Well, I would say the general threat to women is implicit in the rape

One rape threatens all women, in a way. But hopefully our laws already take that into effect.

On the other hand, specifically picking a feminist leader or something and raping her, as a political act to intimidate women, would be a hate crime.

Bryant

[Birthmark]

11. In my opinion

Hate shouldn't be a crime in and of itself, though it should certainly figure prominently in sentencing if it is found that that is the cause of the crime.

[IndianaJones]

13. Hate crimes legislation does not address this at all...

it is in addition to an undelying offense.

[Birthmark]

35. Then problem solved. :) eom

[Coyote_Bandit]

12. Other

Hate crimes should exist and should carry a harsher punishment than comparable "non hate" crimes. However, some evidence should be required as to the "hate based" motive. Absent that evidence it should be treated as an ordinary crime rather than a hate crime.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

21. I think bryant69 had a good point on this.

Use the already standing applicable laws that a 'hate crime' violates.

[Coyote_Bandit]

46. Yes and No

I can't agree that there are two separate punishable offenses - the crime itself and the hate based motive. That would mean that a hate based motive without an accompanying offense might be made pnishable. As ugly as they might be I do not think it is acceptable to punish beliefs alone. I do think hate motivated offenses should be subject to harsher penalties provided there is evidence going to the hate motive.

[Kingshakabobo]

87. That's already the case...

The hate piece has to be proved to a the satisfaction of the court/jury..........otherwise, it falls back to the "underlying crime."

Assaulting someone who happens to be gay or African American doesn't a hate crime make.

[Coyote_Bandit]

116. Not necessarily

See this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2941697



I am also familiar with some local cases where the defendant, a black man, was convicted of a hate crime because his victim was white - even though there was no evidence presented of racial motive.

[IndianaJones]

14. I have to admit that I am very shocked at the results of this poll...

This is an inordinantly high percentage opposed to the concept of hate crime legislation for a progressive board.

[BlooInBloo]

16. Straight white men aren't any less so just because they're progressives.

EDIT: "Folks" -> "men"

[WhollyHeretic]

18. At first it was 17 to 1 and all of a sudden it's 22-9

[LostinVA]

19. I know

A bit Three Billy Goats Gruff, eh?

[WhollyHeretic]

32. I was thinking the same things

[WhollyHeretic]

33. delete dupe

[Boojatta]

56. Maybe some are concerned that "hate speech"

that does not fit the legal definition of incitement might be included in "hate crime."

[Kingshakabobo]

90. Maybe the ACLU held those same beliefs until the legislation was written...

......in a way that it settled their fears/doubts.

......it's true....Why "progressives" on this board can't grasp that concept is a mystery to me.



http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/12252prs20050526.html

ACLU Endorses Federal Hate Crimes Legislation for First Time, Says Conyers Proposal Properly Addresses Free Speech Concerns (5/26/2005)


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: [e-mail]



WASHINGTON - After more than seven years of expressing concerns that federal hate crimes legislation would chill constitutionally protected speech, the American Civil Liberties Union today endorsed a new hate crimes bill introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI).

The Conyers measure, which includes protections against hate crimes committed on the bases of gender identity and sexual orientation, also includes an explicit ban on the use of speech or association to prove criminal activity, unless it specifically relates to the crime.

"This carefully crafted measure shows that you can prosecute hate crimes without attacking freedom of expression," said Christopher E. Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel.

"Federal legislation addressing hate crimes is necessary because state and local law enforcement officers sometimes do not act because of either inadequate resources or their own bias against the victim," Anders added. "Congress should adopt this measure to place gender, disability, gender identity and sexual orientation in the same protected class as race, religion and national origin."

[Boojatta]

113. You could start a separate thread about this to increase awareness.

[Flarney]

17. Yes, because a hate crime is actually two crimes...

1. The crime against the individual(s) (assault, murder, vandalism, etc)
2. Terrorism against the class of people the hate crime was directed at

To say that motivation or intent doesn't matter is ridiculous. That's why we have different degrees of murder, for instance...first degree, second degree, manslaughter, etc...criminal intent is always relevant.

Edit: Thom Hartmann had an excellent few segments on this a couple of weeks back which laid it all out very logically.

[BOSSHOG]

23. The only thing I have to know to support hate crimes legislation

is that christian religious zealots are opposed to the idea.

[ProfessorGAC]

42. A Little Sand In Those Gears, Though, Boss

While i agree with you, Billo supports them. Now i'm confused. Radical right zealots are against it, and O'Reilly is for it. Normally i would be for anything they're against, and against anything they're for. In this case, that litmus test fails.

(I'm in favor of them, btw.)
GAC

[BOSSHOG]

45. I prefer the opinion

of my lawn mower over bill's however his motive is to slam anyone who "hates" his side. Hate crimes exist and should be treated as such. I'm fortunate, however some wackjob might want to target balding military retirees with large penis's because he hates them. If I'm rationalizing correctly that would be the only reason he would attack me. Me and that critical thinking!

[ProfessorGAC]

49. That'll Teach Ya!

Like i said: I support those laws too, although i can't see that i would ever be a victim of one. Just that normally i would agree with your first post. "If they're for 'em, i'm agin' 'em." And vice versa.

But, here i've got two groups that i'd say that about, and one's for 'em and one's against. You see the dilemma. I actually had to make up my own mind! I'm worn out now.
GAC

[LanternWaste]

109. I'm not opposed to it at all....

I'm not opposed to it at all. And I think I would easily fit the contemporary, trendy definition of 'Christian religious zealot'.

[Turbineguy]

26. The classification

institutionalizes the crime, like "Road Rage". It makes the crime no longer just senseless. It gives the crime meaning. It elevates the act. So, no.

[IndianaJones]

28. It enables harsher punishment for conduct. nt.

[Turbineguy]

60. I don't think any of us are completely without

prejudice, whether it's toward the rich, pet owners, white heterosexual males, persons of color, gays or whoever. It's merely a question of degree

The fascination in this country of using the justice system to cure all social ills in my view, is flawed.

I try and behave myself in a manner consistent with living in a proper civilized society. It means that as part of living in a proper civilized society, I tolerate those who are not like me. That means the reason I do not go around beating up on gays (for example) is not because I fear legal retribution.

For some, legal retribution may be a deterrent. But that is an extreme as well as a shame. I have more interesting and better things to do with my time.

[IndianaJones]

66. I'm not suggesting solving societies ills...

it is about removing and punishing those that threaten society.

[LanternWaste]

110. eer pressure, social mores, manners, civility, etc....

"The fascination in this country of using the justice system to cure all social ills in my view, is flawed."

I don't think that is the case at all. I believe peer pressure, social mores, manners, civility, etc., are methods we all use which attempt to maintain a social balance, or in other words-- cure social ills.

[rucky]

29. MOTIVE is ALWAYS considered in a crime.

that's why we have 1st degree murder, 2nt degree murder, attempted murder, aggrivated assult, manslaughter (1st and 2nd degree), involuntary manslaughter.

Hate crimes should be at the top of the list. to have a federal hate crimes statute protects individuals from state-run courts to give hate crime a lesser pass due to the localized racism in a particular district.

so, not only yes, but hell yes!

[HamdenRice]

43. Correct -- with a slight semantic modification

When we speak of motive, we usually speak of the investigative phase of a crime -- that is, the police look for suspects based on motive.

When the crime is being prosecuted, we look for "mental state," a broader concept that includes various levels of motive. The reason that "motive" is too narrow, is that there are criminally punishable mental states that are without intentional motive, such as extreme recklessness or criminal negligence.

The system of levels of homicide are really complex and vary from state to state, but many include first degree murder, depraved heart murder, felony murder, second degree murder, manlslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and criminally negligent homicide -- all gradations of the same act, which is the killing of a human being, the catch-all term for which is "homicide."

Sometimes the levels of mental states of criminal codes are described as including: intentional, knowing, reckless or negligent.

This means we already have fine gradations in the law in terms of how we differently punish mental states accompanying the same act.

[porphyrian]

44. The concept is just, but should be unnecessary. Hate crime laws are bad law.

Their only redeeming value is in defining groups, such as homosexuals, who aren't acknowledged in other parts of the law as minorities. Without that, they are simply redundant punishments to be heaped upon the offender - there are already laws covering assault, battery, murder, terrorism, stalking, vandalism, etc.

[IndianaJones]

48. there are not laws covering societal impact of hate crimes, however...

thus the need for such legislation.

[porphyrian]

51. I'm sorry, what exactly do you mean by that?

If you mean spreading fear among the targeted population, that's covered by terrorism laws. If you mean the reinforcement of intolerance, that's a mind crime and shouldn't be a law. And, if someone acts on that intolerance, it is already covered by a law. Besides, that assumes that there are a whole bunch of people who can be swayed towards intolerance by acts of intolerance, and I'm just not buying that. Is that what you mean?

[IndianaJones]

fear in the population, unrest, retribution....

many ill effects that are realized when a hate crime is committed. Societal impact of hate crimes has been shown again and again, from race riots to fear, from revenge killing to suicide.

[porphyrian]

63. None of that is prevented by hate crime legislation.

It only allows for another level of punishment to be heaped upon those guilty of the crime. Revenge is not a sound reason for legislation, and laws are punitive, not preventative.

[IndianaJones]

64. it absolutely is prevented....

many of these situations arise in the absence of acknowledgement in the justice system. When that is shown, reaction is tempered greatly.

[porphyrian]

65. Sorry, that's a fallacy.

Laws are not preventative. They only apply when broken, which is after the fact. If laws were preventative, there would be no need for them once made. I don't think you can argue that any law has been that effective with a straight face.

[IndianaJones]

67. I can argue that hate crimes laws ease the impact to society....

due to the actions of those that commit them. I don't see how anyone can argue that they don't.

[porphyrian]

69. No you can't, because you can't prove who intended to commit hate crimes...

...with and without the laws. You can only measure the number of times those laws are broken. It's apparent that you don't understand.

[IndianaJones]

70. My proof is simple....

hate crimes laws are on the books, they have been successfully prosecuted, and they have withstood Constitutional challenges through unanimous Supreme Court decisions. I got the law, history and the Constitution on my side. Sounds like you got sour grapes.

But apparently you understand your position.

[porphyrian]

72. Oh, horseshit.

The only things on your side are ignorance and the mistaken belief that laws are preventative. Don't try to inflate your "team" against my logically-sound argument when you can't come up with a decent rebuttal.

[IndianaJones]

73. Your logic has basis in the fact that everything seems to operate in the opposite fashion

to what you present as "fact": the laws exist....they are successfully argued before juries which render verdicts on them in much the same fashion as any other crime. Of course, claming over and over that no law exists that is preventive in nature is your idea of a logically sound argument...whats latin for "because you say so"?

Gotta go to lunch. Oh yeah...always remember to buckle up...it prevents injury....and its the law.

Just for clarificatin, who is "my team". I see only you and I in this particular sub thread.

[porphyrian]

75. That you don't, and maybe can't, understand has been established.

Unfortunately, I don't think I can explain it any simpler than I have already. Laws are not preventative. If they were, we wouldn't use them once made. Every instance of a law being broken proves it isn't preventative.

You know, instead of wasting my time, why don't you reread our conversation until you get it or go away.

[IndianaJones]

76. Ha. I suppose there's no preventive medicine either?

Cause the mere fact that people still get sick makes it so.

Hey doc, I cut down my salt intake, and exercised...I still had a heart attack. This isn't preventive medicine!

You carry the "name three" fallacy to new heights. Now its "name one". One lawbreaker....no preventive law. One case of hepatitis...no preventive medicine.

[porphyrian]

80. Apples and oranges.

The mere presence of the word "preventative" doesn't make the two comparable. And I can prove what laws are broken and how many times. You can't prove the same for laws being preventative, especially since the breaking of those laws proves otherwise. Look, take a logic class and come back when you have something.

[IndianaJones]

86. How 'bout laws that actually have the word "prevention" in the name? that apples and bananas too...

I'm sure you have an explanation for that from logic class too...

Maybe I should ignore that child access prevention law here? but if something went wrong, I would be accused of breaking that law. Then they would have to change the name, 'cause no one else has ever broken it I'm sure. I mean, it still has the same name.

[porphyrian]

92. The nazis called themselves the National Socialist German Workers' Party,...

...but that didn't make them socialists. Really, unless you have something intelligent to say, I'm done with this conversation.

[IndianaJones]

96. ahhh....so the laws aren't meant to prevent anything....

they just call them that. Suicide prevention laws - not meant to prevent anything, domestic violence prevention laws - totally misleading. Gotcha. Well....theres logic for ya.

[Kingshakabobo]

98. Are you actually arguing that laws on the books don't act as a deterrent to crime?

.....or did I not get enough sleep last night?

[IndianaJones]

99. exactly the argument...

and if one person breaks a law, it is no longer preventive.

[porphyrian]

101. I'm saying that laws aren't preventative, as evidenced by their being repeatedly broken.

Do speed limits prevent speeding? No, not by a long shot. The only deterrent is the threat of being caught breaking the law, which only works on law-abiding people and people in the presence of law enforcement (and sometimes not even then).

I have no idea if you got enough sleep last night.

[Kingshakabobo]

108. I don't know if you are playing word games or what?

There is a difference between "preventative" and "deterrent." If you don't think our laws have a deterrent effect than I don't know what to tell you.

[porphyrian]

111. I'm not playing games, I'm repeating the same facts.

If you don't understand, I don't really give a fuck, and I didn't ask for your opinion.

[Kingshakabobo]

114. Too bad. You'll get my opinion. Deal with it.

........and, yes, you ARE playing word games. Fortunately, most people on DU are smart enough to see through your games.

[porphyrian]

115. Ha! Yeah, but you're not one of them. - n/t

[Hosnon]

79. No one, I don't think, would argue that laws are preventative in the way

in which you describe.

However, laws are certainly meant to discourage or encourage certain behavior. In that respect, they are designed to influence (not absolutely control, i.e., prevent) future behavior.

[porphyrian]

82. Yes, but the amount of influence towards prevention is dubious and largely unprovable.

In fact, the studies that have been done with the preventative properties of the death penalty, for example, suggest that it isn't preventative at all. People who believe in laws tend to obey those laws, and people who don't tend to break or ignore them. The mere existence of the law does little to influence their nature or behavior.

[Hosnon]

91. I agree that the influence of criminal law is probably the lowest. However,

law suchs as those related to tax and building construction/maintenance certainly influence behavior.

Laws, to me, are just one more tool that society has to push the masses - or, the "average" person - in a particular direction.

[porphyrian]

94. I'm not against laws, I'm against bad laws and the thinking that they are preventative.

And, if you think tax and building regulation laws aren't broken as much as other criminal laws, you aren't looking in the right place.

[Hosnon]

95. Again, I can't imagine anyone thinking laws are preventative in the

way you describe.

And, I never said laws aren't broken. That's not the point at all. The point is that a law is meant to discourage or encourage certain behavior. Will it do that perfectly, i.e., never be broken? Of course not. But laws are meant to affect and influence the aggregate in a statistical manner. In that regard, they usually work quite well but every law will influence to a different degree based on various factors.

[porphyrian]

100. Well, just look at what the other guy arguing with me is saying.

They seem to believe laws are preventative the way I'm saying.

And, sorry, but laws aren't really designed to be preventative, that's a misconception. Laws provide recourse against those who break them, and they are only as effective as their enforcement, trial and sentencing. If there is some preventative correlation, it really can't be proven anyway (you'd have to prove who intended to break the law both with and without its existence, and then whose mind was changed solely by the law being passed).

[Hosnon]

102. Well, framing the debate in terms of prevention just seems odd to me.

Prevention seems to equate to perfect discouragement, which I think is extremely rare, if it exists at all. Laws, in the sense we are discussing them, merely increase the cost of doing a certain activity. The intent is that we can increase the cost enough (through not only laws but other mechanisms) so that a significant enough percentage of the population will refrain from that activity.

And laws certainly have other functions as well. You mention legal recourse. Consistency or predictibility is an extremely important function in commercial law. Laws can, and do, have more than one function.

But when discussing the "preventative" quality, I think it is more accurate to talk about the degree to which the law discourages or encourages a specific activity.

[porphyrian]

104. I think we're pretty much in agreement. - n/t

[IndianaJones]

88. Thousands of prevention laws exist on the books of every state...

the fact that people break these laws does not change their nature.

[Hosnon]

93. I think the hope of each law that is designed to discourage certain behavior

is that it will discourage it out of existence. However, that is merely the hope. In reality, it is unrealistic to rely on laws to do that. They are effective in discouraging behavior to an acceptable level in society as much as possible.

[IndianaJones]

97. I think its pretty realistic....most people do not break the law.

Regardless of that, to argue that a law is not preventive if one person breaks on it ludicrous.

[Hosnon]

103. I just think that the term "preventative" is misleading as it is one

end of the "Discouragement/Encouragement" spectrum.

And I agree. The effectiveness of a law should usually be looked at statistically. If 1 million out of 100 trillion break the law it is still a very effective law.

[treestar]

54. The thing is the system has to weed out a case where maybe

the hate crime grouping isn't relevant.

It's not impossible for a straight to murder a gay with no anti-gay motive. There could be another motive; say they are business partners and the one partner murders the other for the life insurance. Those happen between two straights. Maybe the straight would have murdered his partner either way. So it's possible and trial time has to be used to get this straight. You wind up taking testimony about how the defendant felt about homosexuality, the prosecution trying to prove it was a factor and the defense arguing things like: well, he had a gay business partner, so he was not against gays as a group, etc.

We have to be willing to pay that price in trial time. Many an American thinks writing the legislation ends it all. And then resists serving on juries. That's the real kicker. Americans who want the law to account for everything shouldn't be trying to get out of the consequences, that is, longer jury service.

[porphyrian]

61. Yes, that's another part of the problem. - n/t

[Hosnon]

68. Just? Justice is another one of those nebulous terms that I find pretty unhelpful.

The way I see it, there are at least two things that such laws attempt to discourage: 1) the "regular" crime, e.g., murder, battery, and 2) prejudice at a level that results in harm to others.

"Regular" crime laws seem to only target the first element. I see nothing wrong with discouraging the second except that there may be a danger of legislating thought if prejudice is legislated carte blanche. However, legislating prejudice that results in harm is the least dangerous to free thought.

Now, back to your question. I consider hate crime laws to be effective ways to discourage violence and prejudice. Both of those things should be discouraged (as much as is possible within certain limits). As a result, I'm generally in favor of them.

[NashVegas]

74. No, BUT

The legal system does need to take into account that where law-abiding, non-violent person A might have an attitude, person B has gone the distance of acting upon said attitude and may have motivation to continue to do so.

As a result, person B should have much stricter parole / probation (assuming what they've done is a prosecutable offense that doesn't come with a life (or death) sentence).

[slackmaster]

83. Yes, AND

It must be applied equitably, not used to give special "protection" (silly word if you think about it) to any particular type of person.

Hatred is a state of mind; many degree issues in criminal law depend on what a person was thinking when he or she committed the crime.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

84. Yes.

And anyone who argues it's a "thought crime" is an idiot.

[slackmaster]

85. Correct

:toast:

[LeftishBrit]

106. Yes.

Because 'hate crimes' not only cause direct injury to the victim, but are intended to intimidate an entire group of people.

[Unvanguard]

117. It isn't a matter of being partial to "a persons belief."

A bigot murdering someone isn't punished more harshly than a non-bigot murdering someone.

But when that bigot not only murders someone, but murders someone because he or she is black, or gay, or Muslim, then it ceases to be a simple murder and becomes also an assault on the group. That should indeed be subject to more severe penalties.