Are Hate Crimes an absolute must for everyone?

[unriggable]

The problem with a preventative hate law is it's ability to be abused. I'm from the south and any time a white-on-black crime took place race was automatically assumed to be a motive and it was investigated as a hate crime. Sometimes this was the case but often times it wasn't and there was a completely seperate motive having nothing to do with race, but nevertheless it was pursued as a hate crime, which carries heavier punishment. That's why I would say they should not be in place everywhere and at times they are overused.

How it that abuse of the law? It's the burden of the prosecutor to prove that a hate crime has taken place. If he feels there is necessary evidence for a conviction, why should he not pursue it? That's how the courts work.

Like I said, I'm in the South. It's really easy to prove. Basically if at any point you have said the n word or called someone black, even as a description, you are racist.. I suppose it's not the systems fault it is this way, but the general perception is that some amount of racism/hate is involved in inter-racial crimes. And like others have said, is there some reason the punishment should be greater if it is a hate crime? The heavier punishment makes no sense to me except that it is there to appease activists.

If the guy attacking the black guy is dumb enough to yell 'you dumb nigger' then it probably was a hate crime, and if it wasn't then the guy is stupid enough to deserve it.

[duck]

The problem with a preventative hate law is it's ability to be abused. I'm from the south and any time a white-on-black crime took place race was automatically assumed to be a motive and it was investigated as a hate crime. Sometimes this was the case but often times it wasn't and there was a completely seperate motive having nothing to do with race, but nevertheless it was pursued as a hate crime, which carries heavier punishment. That's why I would say they should not be in place everywhere and at times they are overused.

How it that abuse of the law? It's the burden of the prosecutor to prove that a hate crime has taken place. If he feels there is necessary evidence for a conviction, why should he not pursue it? That's how the courts work.

Like I said, I'm in the South. It's really easy to prove. Basically if at any point you have said the n word or called someone black, even as a description, you are racist.. I suppose it's not the systems fault it is this way, but the general perception is that some amount of racism/hate is involved in inter-racial crimes. And like others have said, is there some reason the punishment should be greater if it is a hate crime? The heavier punishment makes no sense to me except that it is there to appease activists.

If the guy attacking the black guy is dumb enough to yell 'you dumb nigger' then it probably was a hate crime, and if it wasn't then the guy is stupid enough to deserve it.

Not during the offense, but at any time in your life. Agreed on the point about if it was said during the offense, but I mean in general ever.

[Snorri1234]

And like others have said, is there some reason the punishment should be greater if it is a hate crime? The heavier punishment makes no sense to me except that it is there to appease activists.

If the crime is motivated by racism, then the chances of them doing it again increase I would think.

[comic boy]

The problem with a preventative hate law is it's ability to be abused. I'm from the south and any time a white-on-black crime took place race was automatically assumed to be a motive and it was investigated as a hate crime. Sometimes this was the case but often times it wasn't and there was a completely seperate motive having nothing to do with race, but nevertheless it was pursued as a hate crime, which carries heavier punishment. That's why I would say they should not be in place everywhere and at times they are overused.

How it that abuse of the law? It's the burden of the prosecutor to prove that a hate crime has taken place. If he feels there is necessary evidence for a conviction, why should he not pursue it? That's how the courts work.

Like I said, I'm in the South. It's really easy to prove. Basically if at any point you have said the n word or called someone black, even as a description, you are racist.. I suppose it's not the systems fault it is this way, but the general perception is that some amount of racism/hate is involved in inter-racial crimes. And like others have said, is there some reason the punishment should be greater if it is a hate crime? The heavier punishment makes no sense to me except that it is there to appease activists.

If you are saying that a person gets a longer sentence for a 'hate crime' then a comparable 'non hate crime' then I agree that something is amiss. Not sure if it actually happens though especially with more serious cases, apart from motive the race of the victim will be irrelevent in the case of rape,murder etc. As for the charges of Racism,I would suggest that when the South stops thinking in terms of colour the problem will ease considerably. Undoubtebly some innocent people will be falsely accused but at least they wont have their genitalia removed and then be left to die in a ditch !

[got tonkaed]

i guess this is probably rather simplistic but i suppose i feel that until we live in a world where hate crimes dont exist, it is foolish to not have some kind of laws on the books. Laws are rarely enforced to the same degree in different locals, and i do not really see a problem for giving someone a harsher sentence for committing a crime out of hate. In a lot of ways, it takes an extra degree of malice to do something out of hate, than to do it out of not hate.

[duck]

...In a lot of ways, it takes an extra degree of malice to do something out of hate, than to do it out of not hate.

I totally do not understand that statement. I don't see a good number of crimes being committed without hate, whether or not race is involved.

If you think about it, a lot of crimes that are deemed crimes of passion are done out of hate. But as long as those are within the same race then they are simply prosecuted with "passion" as the motive. Change the color of the victim's skin and all of a sudden harsher penalties are right? That's the way I'm thinking through the harsher punishment idea. I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I fail to hear about many premeditated hate crimes. If that were to happen where it was clearly a racist person committing a premeditated crime against a person based soley on skin color and/or religious affiliation then I can see where the threat of repeat offense is increased.

[Snorri1234]

...In a lot of ways, it takes an extra degree of malice to do something out of hate, than to do it out of not hate.

I totally do not understand that statement. I don't see a good number of crimes being committed without hate, whether or not race is involved.

If you think about it, a lot of crimes that are deemed crimes of passion are done out of hate. But as long as those are within the same race then they are simply prosecuted with "passion" as the motive. Change the color of the victim's skin and all of a sudden harsher penalties are right?

No, only when it isn't passion can you persecute someone for hate. That hate isn't hate against a group, but against a person.

That's the way I'm thinking through the harsher punishment idea. I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I fail to hear about many premeditated hate crimes. If that were to happen where it was clearly a racist person committing a premeditated crime against a person based soley on skin color and/or religious affiliation then I can see where the threat of repeat offense is increased.

Well, generally that is what the law is for. Obviously in the media lots of crimes are deemed hate-crimes, but I think it's up to the judge and lawyers to judge whether it is or isn't. The wide media-coverage is both a plus and a minus, as the cases that deserve attention get attention, but the cases that don't also get attention.

[got tonkaed]

i suppose my rationale for such a statement goes like this.

most of us probably would not commit murder under most circumstances. Through socialization we are taught murdering is one of the worst things that you can do. Therefore we have developed a large number of psychological and social responses to keep us from murdering indivduals.

Still there are a number of circumstances where individuals are caught in a traumatic situation that erodes those defense. The cheating spouse, unexpected job loss, copious amounts of substances...you could go on and on. Because of these things however, an action may occur, without an indivdual really thinking the act through. Crimes of passion are considered such because the belief is individuals are not being rational.

However when you look at hate crimes you are perhaps looking at something rather differnet than any crime of passion or perhaps most other crimes. Because there has to be an extra degree of reasoning in such an act (ie is this person because of some charcteristic often race or sexual preference - worth assulating, robbing, killing) there is a higher degree of reasoning involved. Likewise, when you are capable of an extra level of cold rational thinking, there is less to stop you from committing such an act again.

When you commit a crime of passion, usually that is about it, because those defensive forces will eventually take control back of the individual and unless very similar circumstances are repeated, they may not lash out again. However, because an individual who commits a hate crime feels that he is justified in what he has done, because the vicitm is not as deserving of the right to whatever he took away, he is more likely to commit a crime again.

ipso facto, we can reasonably be tougher on those who commit hate crimes, because in many ways they are less likely to be deterred from commiting crimes in the future.

[duck]

...In a lot of ways, it takes an extra degree of malice to do something out of hate, than to do it out of not hate.

I totally do not understand that statement. I don't see a good number of crimes being committed without hate, whether or not race is involved.

If you think about it, a lot of crimes that are deemed crimes of passion are done out of hate. But as long as those are within the same race then they are simply prosecuted with "passion" as the motive. Change the color of the victim's skin and all of a sudden harsher penalties are right?

No, only when it isn't passion can you persecute someone for hate. That hate isn't hate against a group, but against a person.

I'm saying it is often assumed that the hate is against a group and is simply being carried out through actions against an individual.

Ok, I think this needs to be clarified, I am discussing the laws as they exist and work in the REAL WORLD, not the way they are supposed to work in a world that uses the laws only as they are intended. I am talking about a world of not only racists, but also overreaching activists who abuse a system that has been tilted in their favor. It seems most of you think that somehow these current hate laws are working as they should, which just isn't how it is. And if you think it is then you and I will not be able to understand each other on this issue.

[Snorri1234]

I'm saying it is often assumed that the hate is against a group and is simply being carried out through actions against an individual.

Well obviously that is something that needs fixing.

Ok, I think this needs to be clarified, I am discussing the laws as they exist and work in the REAL WORLD, not the way they are supposed to work in a world that uses the laws only as they are intended. I am talking about a world of not only racists, but also overreaching activists who abuse a system that has been tilted in their favor. It seems most of you think that somehow these current hate laws are working as they should, which just isn't how it is. And if you think it is then you and I will not be able to understand each other on this issue.

Something has to be done about the abuse. But at the moment I really can't seem to give much of a shit about whether someone is sentenced for merely killing someone and someone who killed because they are racists.

[Napoleon Ier]

Commiting hate crimes is a must. I concur.

[got tonkaed]

well i think with any law system or an large scale action there is always going to be abuse. I think as societies you have a choice to come down on either side of the coin. Are you more worried about potential abuses by overeager activists or are you worried about trying to stop hate crimes?

Clearly there is room in the middle for everyone, but im not going to spend my energy if theres a choice between defending hate criminals vs defending activists on the former.

[duck]

Are you more worried about potential abuses by overeager activists or are you worried about trying to stop hate crimes?

I'm saying that hate crimes are crimes already, without any special laws about them, so why create new laws that have a greater possibility of being abused when the old ones will convict the criminal just the same? Convict the person for whatever crime they committed, no hate laws needed. This eliminates the problems with abuse of such laws and the person still gets punished.

[Napoleon Ier]

Are you more worried about potential abuses by overeager activists or are you worried about trying to stop hate crimes?

so why create new laws

To secure the arab vote

[got tonkaed]

well in some cases i think it insulates the public from having an offender back out there. I dont think anyone would argue that with the right legal team behind you, you can get a reduced sentence for a wide array of offenses. If we add another violation to the list, its going to make some of the more high profile cases a little more difficult to grant leniancy to.

I suppose i find it less likely that there will be abuses on that side of the coin, and more likely that it would prevent abuses on the other side.

[duck]

well in some cases i think it insulates the public from having an offender back out there. I dont think anyone would argue that with the right legal team behind you, you can get a reduced sentence for a wide array of offenses. If we add another violation to the list, its going to make some of the more high profile cases a little more difficult to grant leniancy to.

I suppose i find it less likely that there will be abuses on that side of the coin, and more likely that it would prevent abuses on the other side.

Point well taken. I suppose I would just like to see the "hate" part of the crime relegated to the sentencing phase and therefore make it harder to prove. By this I mean the jury would return a verdict on the crime committed then during sentencing the prosecutor would prove whether or not hate was involved and to what extent.

You got me with the good legal team being able to get reduced sentencing. Had not considered that. Good point. I still don't like the possibility of abusing the system, but I suppose it's more important to protect the public.

ps. The puzzle on Wheel of Fortune was "TONKA TRUCKS"