Why I support Hate Crime legislation

[Taverner]

While it is true that a crime is a crime, and whether the person has hate in their intent while committing the crime as opposed to greed - giving special additional sentences for hate crimes is necessary. Why? Same reason the Death Penalty is often recommended in cases where a police officer is killed. We want to deter not only crime, but specifically we want to rid our society of these specific crimes.

It's one thing if you are afraid to walk alone at night for fear of a mugger. It is quite another if you are also afraid of being killed based on your orientation or race. Because of this additional fear, there should be an additional crime.

Now I understand Bill Maher's point about Hate Crimes being legislation that "make women nod." He actually has a point. He's wrong, but he does have a point. His argument is that a crime is a crime. And while this is true, you have to look at things from the viewpoint of the potential victim. Like the case above, imagine you are a lesbian walking through downtown Gotham City. If you have to worry about muggers, that's one thing. There are a number of measures you can use to protect yourself: don't carry cash or just carry $50, don't wear expensive jewelry etc. Now try the only way to deter a hate criminal: don't be gay. How easy is that? Even if you aren't outwardly flaming, a number of things could still get you killed in a hate crime. What if the criminal saw you and your girlfriend kissing? What if the hate criminal knew you? From the viewpoint of the victim, you are trapped. You're gay, and with some people, this is all that is needed to warrant an attack.

Hate Crime legislation, while ineffective (studies show that they don't make much of a difference), they do at least slap additional punishment for crimes that as a society, we simply do not want in our community. And I think part of why they don't work deterring crimes comes from the punishments not being much of a deterrent. An additional 2-3 years or an extra fine isn't going to scare many people away.

So in order for Hate Crime legislation to be effective, we need to increase the punishment - so that gay bashers, troll rollers or lynch mobs think twice about doing what they do.

[Deep13]

1. Common crime has a certain degree of randomness.

So-called hate crime targets specific classes of people, usually for just being who they are (or for exercising fundamental rights like religion). In addition to deterring criminal intent generally, hate crime laws seek to deter the kind of predatory, out-group aggression that that generates crimes against unpopular groups.

[Taverner]

5. Great point

I only wish I would have had the brain cells at the time to have made it

[acmavm]

2. You point of view is interesting. So you're saying that GLBT people should

have more legal protections than the woman, thinking she is safe in her home, who is raped during the middle of the night? Or the woman going to her car after dark (from where does NOT matter) and is attacked, beaten, raped, and oftimes murdered?

Murder, rape, assault and battery carries the same damn pain and suffering for everyone. You say GLBT people are singled out? Well let me tell you something, women have always been the victims of these crimes too. I know a few.

[Taverner]

4. Point made - however

Look at it this way. If a lesbian woman is attacked, beaten, raped, and murdered in her home it is not a hate crime. However, if a straight woman is attacked for being a lesbian and beaten, we do have a hate crime. The whole issue is that we want to eliminate the intent of a certain crime.

I'm not saying the straight woman who is attacked, beaten, raped and murdered in her home doesn't deserve justice. The way the laws are written today make sure that if her killer is found and brought to justice, they face murder one charges.

[Dr. Strange]

7. Just certain crime?

The whole issue is that we want to eliminate the intent of a certain crime.

I'd like to eliminate the intent of lots of other crime, including the lesbian in the first example. It may not have been a politically incorrect crime, but it still seems serious to me.

[Deep13]

10. The penalty for rape is already pretty severe.

I tend to think the concerns you mention are built into it. In this state it is a 1st degree felony (5-10 yrs. actual) which is the most severe there is except for murder which is its own catagory. A rape that results in death is a capital offense.

[acmavm]

11. UM, ever do any research on how ofter these penalites are handed out?

Occasionally if it's a high-profile case, but generally the life of a woman is a pretty cheap commodity.

[Taverner]

13. "...generally the life of a woman is a pretty cheap commodity"

That is a different issue. A terrible one that needs action on its own. But it is unrelated to hate crimes - unless of course you want to slap hate crimes on that - which may not be such a bad idea. Usually rapists and serial killers targeting women do it out of a sexualized hatred towards the feminine gender. Not always, but more often than not.

[Deep13]

14. Excuse me? Not in my jurisdiction it isn't!

We pursue rape cases aggressively here and I don't think we are atypical. I'm happy to say we have not had a rape-murder in a long time here. If the defendant does not get a harsh sentence, then it is because it either was not reported or for whatever reason the jury did not convict on the most severe count of the indictment. Generally, I find that juries believe the victim. Unfortunately, the typical sex offense case we have is not what you describe, but rather cases where a child is the victim. As you can imagine, the court takes a rather negative view of that. If the victim is under 16, the law makes the case easier to prove than an adult victim. If he or she is under 10 it is a mandatory life sentence.

Also, we have Megan's law too for when the non-lifers get out.

[dsc]

16. actually a law has already been passed for women

it is called the crime against women act and it is over 10 years old.

[Devlzown]

3. I'm on the fence on this one --

mainly because I don't give a shit what they do with people who commit violent crimes. I think the penalties for selling and buying drugs are outrageous, as are the penalties for many other non-violent crimes. But if someone is violent toward another -- whether it's because of hate or whatever -- I believe that person should pay.

[noonwitch]

6. I think hate crimes legislation should only apply to non-violent offenses

Violent offenses should have a stiff penalty regardless of motive. If someone kills you because you're gay and he doesn't like that or because you remind him of his mother, either way, the killer should get the maximum sentence.

It's the property destruction-type of offenses in which someone is targeted, that need to be differentiated from regular offenses in that category, because the intent is different. A perpatrator who carves "John loves Mary" in a tree is committing malicious destruction of property. A perp who paints a swastika on a jewish family's garage door, or who burns a cross in a black family's front yard, is committing an act that intends to intimidate someone and can be interpreted as a threat of violence. It should be treated more severely.

[jpgray]

8. A hate crime is targeted not solely at an individual, but also at an entire culture

For that reason, additional penalties make sense.

[Taverner]

9. Exactly

Can I cut and paste your post and put in mine? (oh, and take credit for it too :) )

[Pushed To The Left]

12. K & R! Seems like pure common sense to me.

I see it as a special circumstance, like lying in wait. I think the opposition to hate crimes legislation by the right wing is due to an anti-LGBT sentiment. This is why so-called "Christian" or "family" groups oppose hate crime legislation so aggressively. Some will say that perpetrators of hate crimes are being punished for a "thought crime". Nonsense. They are being punished for acting on those thoughts and harming innocent people.

[catnhatnh]

15. I came here late,and cheated....

posting a thread about why I oppose hate crime laws...for me it should never matter who or why-a crime is a crime and state of mind should never matter since it cannot be objectively determined.

[mondo joe]

17. I support hate crime legislation because hate crimes are not just a crime against the

individual but also a threat to a class of people - typically minorities. I consider the additional penalty a response to the additional message.