Read the following article today about some white a-holes whp beat up some black dude and then ran him over with a truck, killing him.  People are screaming "HATE CRIME" from the rafters.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-17/justice/mississippi.hate.crime_1_white-teens-hinds-county-district-attorney-murder?_s=PM:CRIME

The perp is charged with first degree murder and is already eligible for two life-without-parole sentences.  That's BEFORE applying the thought crime laws.

Mind you, I hope that this guy and all of his buddies get the long arm of the law... heck, I'd even look the other way if the victim's relatives delivered some Bronsonian Justice in this case.

The problem I have is that somehow killing somebody because you "hate" them is somehow more serious or somehow worse than killing them just for yucks, or because you just happened to kill them because they were interfering with your robbery, rape, or whatever else you were up to.  It is the same sort of twisted thinking that sets insignificant penalties for people who murder their infants.  If the laws provide for preferential treatment for the killing of ANYBODY, then NOBODY gets equal justice or equal protection.

These guys committed a crime that will get them life in prison - twice.  What sort of deterrent is a hate crime law going to be?

Tell you what... if the hate crime statute converted the penalty to a death sentence, I might be more interested.

Read the following article today about some white a-holes whp beat up some black dude and then ran him over with a truck, killing him.  People are screaming "HATE CRIME" from the rafters.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-17/justice/mississippi.hate.crime_1_white-teens-hinds-county-district-attorney-murder?_s=PM:CRIME

The perp is charged with first degree murder and is already eligible for two life-without-parole sentences.  That's BEFORE applying the thought crime laws.

Mind you, I hope that this guy and all of his buddies get the long arm of the law... heck, I'd even look the other way if the victim's relatives delivered some Bronsonian Justice in this case.

The problem I have is that somehow killing somebody because you "hate" them is somehow more serious or somehow worse than killing them just for yucks, or because you just happened to kill them because they were interfering with your robbery, rape, or whatever else you were up to.  It is the same sort of twisted thinking that sets insignificant penalties for people who murder their infants.  If the laws provide for preferential treatment for the killing of ANYBODY, then NOBODY gets equal justice or equal protection.

These guys committed a crime that will get them life in prison - twice.  What sort of deterrent is a hate crime law going to be?

Tell you what... if the hate crime statute converted the penalty to a death sentence, I might be more interested.


Oh, those evil little sonsofbitches!  Makes me feel sick in the pit of my stomach.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/cwm10.gif

I agree in this case the wickedness of the crime and the punishment deserved make surfeit the "hate crime" application.

However, I'm not entirely opposed to "hate crime" in jurisprudence.

Would you punish equally a vandal who painetd a swastika on a warehouse and a vandal who painted a swastika on a synagogue?
???

Hate crimes equal intimidation. People who commit a hate crime basically sends a message to others that the same thing could happen to them. Unfortunately, this country has had its share of hate crimes-and much of it was sanctioned. Lynchings, bombings of synagogues, masques, etc. Even the killing of doctors. How many times did Bill O'Reilly used the term "Tiller, the baby killer" and then he acts surprised when someone murdered him. By having the designation of a hate crime, you may call it the "thought police" but hopefully, it will teach people that this country won't stand for intolerance.



Cat 

Hate crimes equal intimidation. People who commit a hate crime basically sends a message to others that the same thing could happen to them. Unfortunately, this country has had its share of hate crimes-and much of it was sanctioned. Lynchings, bombings of synagogues, masques, etc. Even the killing of doctors. How many times did Bill O'Reilly used the term "Tiller, the baby killer" and then he acts surprised when someone murdered him. By having the designation of a hate crime, you may call it the "thought police" but hopefully, it will teach people that this country won't stand for intolerance.



Cat 


Won't stand for intolerance!  Nope we won't!
;)

Would you punish equally a vandal who painetd a swastika on a warehouse and a vandal who painted a swastika on a synagogue?
???


Yes.  It is destruction of property or vandalism in either case.  You couldn't prosecute somebody for standing outside a synagogue for yelling "I hate Jews".  Which is why I call these "thought crime" laws.  It is a way to circumvent freedom of thought.  Well-intended laws, mind you, but ultimately a fail.

It is much the same for other situations.  It is not illegal to burn the American flag because that is protected as an expression of free speech.  But burn that flag near some flammables where you risk catastrophe and stand to be charged with arson or violation of fire codes, not "flag burning" per se.

It is OK to burn an American flag but not Ok to burn a torah outside a synagougue, or to burn a box of rosaries outside a Catholic Church? Who gets to pick which issue is "burnable" or not? Is it any less objectionable to kill somebody because I just don't like him as opposed to if I don't like him because he's a certain race or religion? To do so puts a higher value on the selected lives or thoughts.  I reject the notion.

Hate crimes equal intimidation. People who commit a hate crime basically sends a message to others that the same thing could happen to them. Unfortunately, this country has had its share of hate crimes-and much of it was sanctioned. Lynchings, bombings of synagogues, masques, etc. Even the killing of doctors. How many times did Bill O'Reilly used the term "Tiller, the baby killer" and then he acts surprised when someone murdered him. By having the designation of a hate crime, you may call it the "thought police" but hopefully, it will teach people that this country won't stand for intolerance.

Cat 

Try being a young black man who lives in the ghetto.  You live with intimidation all day long, at almost every turn in the road.  Are we calling THAT a hate crime?

Ditto, by the way, for the young hispanic boy who grows up in a gang infested barrio, or the poor white guy who grows up in his slum or who is the weakling kid in his school.  What "intimidations" are the chosen ones?

America does not stand for intolerance?  That's an expression of thought control.  I don't have to "tolerate" any race, religion, belief, etc.  All I have to do is to comply with the established laws of the land, regardless of what I THINK or SAY.

Yes.  It is destruction of property or vandalism in either case.  You couldn't prosecute somebody for standing outside a synagogue for yelling "I hate Jews".  Which is why I call these "thought crime" laws.  It is a way to circumvent freedom of thought.  Well-intended laws, mind you, but ultimately a fail.

It is much the same for other situations.  It is not illegal to burn the American flag because that is protected as an expression of free speech.  But burn that flag near some flammables where you risk catastrophe and stand to be charged with arson or violation of fire codes, not "flag burning" per se.

It is OK to burn an American flag but not Ok to burn a torah outside a synagougue, or to burn a box of rosaries outside a Catholic Church? Who gets to pick which issue is "burnable" or not? Is it any less objectionable to kill somebody because I just don't like him as opposed to if I don't like him because he's a certain race or religion? To do so puts a higher value on the selected lives or thoughts.  I reject the notion.


I too am wary of "thought crime."  However, intent does count for something in the law.  If you shoot your wife dead while cleaning your gun, it's manslaughter.  If you shoot your wife dead after you secure a life insurance policy on her, it's first-degree murder.  The punishment for the latter is far greater even though the result of the action is the same; your wife is shot dead either way, but we account for the difference between accident and malice.

In my hypothetical, if the defense can show the vandal did not know the wall was a synagogue when he painted the swastika, the court must absolve him of "hate crime."  If the prosecution can show the vandal intended to harass or intimidate Jewish people, "hate crime" statutes may apply.  It goes to intent.

It is not necessarily more or less objectionable to kill somebody because you do not like him as an individual versus because you do not like his kind, creed, or color.  However, if you do kill your victim solely or partly because of his kind, creed, or color, I think it is fair for the law to draft additional sanctions against you in order to discourage others from doing the same.

Murder exacerbates the question.  We can always judge murder as a "hate crime" because the law defines murder (legally distinguished from homicide) as essentially hateful.  

Take a more nuanced hypothetical:

a. A group of white youths beat up a black youth and call him azzwhole.
b. A group of white youths beat up a black youth and call him n*gg*r.

The offense in a. and b., to wit: assault and battery, is the same, but only the word spoken in b., to wit: "n*gg*r" makes it a "hate crime" per se.  If the people want to prosecute a. as a "hate crime," they must show the white youths had designs aforethought against the black youth based on his race.  In the case of white youths beating a black youth, it is reasonable to assume race is a factor, but if I am to approve of a "hate crime" statute, the prosecution must prove the white youth's prior racism beyond a shadow of a doubt.  

You couldn't prosecute somebody for standing outside a synagogue for yelling "I hate Jews".
It's called "disturbing the peace," let's go, son.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/nono.gif

In this case it was clearly a hate crime directed not against the individual but against a black person, ANY black person.  These kids went out with the intention of "messing" with a black person for no other reason but the "fun" of it.  Death resulting

I'm probably going to end up on the side of LyricBoy on this one.  

Even in the more egregious case of the synagogue, the crime is still vandalism.  In an ideal universe, restitution is having to clean up their own mess.  (A punishment far more embarassing for a wannabe-Nazi than for a non-racially-motivated vandal.)

I'm willing to admit there's a greater moral wrong being committed by a guy spraypainting a swastika (instead of a random expletive) on a synagogue, and that it's about the same as a guy spraypainting a swastika on a synagogue (instead of a swastika random back alley), but in either case, the crime is still vandalism.  To the extent that there's an aggravating factor, it's aggravated asshattery (which ought to be sufficiently punishable by letting the whole Internet know what a bunch of asshats the vandals are).  I don't really buy the "intimidation" argument -- at least for the moment, they can burn (oh, I'm sorry, as far as racists are concerned, it's "lighting") all the crosses they want, spraypaint all the swastikas they want, but neither the Reich nor the Confederacy shall rise again.


Take a more nuanced hypothetical:

a. A group of white youths beat up a black youth and call him azzwhole.
b. A group of white youths beat up a black youth and call him n*gg*r.


Your hypothetical is more interesting.  I'd almost be willing to consider race as a factor if (and only if), the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a factor in the assault.  Which is kinda funny, because you'd probably have to throw half the cops on the planet in jail, if there's one thing cops hate more than dogs, it's... well, NWA turned gangsta rap into a career over it.

On balance, I'd like to live in a world in which the penalty for assault was strong enough that I didn't have to add aggravated asshattery to it in order to keep the assailant off the street.


It's called "disturbing the peace," let's go, son. http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/nono.gif


Actually, it's called resisting arrest.

(Sadly, not an) Old Joke:
Q: What's the difference between a (N-Word) and a guy who resists arrest?
A: Cops can't get sued for yelling "stop resisting" and they train accordingly.
AA: (Consider that not even the most pedantic of us could tell from an audio transcript of the beating whether the cop intended there to be a comma after the word "stop")

When I first heard it, I thought it was a tasteless (but like most legends, at its core there was probably some tiny element of truth) joke, but a few weeks after hearing the joke, I was channelsurfing and saw an episode of The Academy, a reality TV series centered upon a bunch of new police academy recruits.  There's more than "an a tiny kernel" of truth to it -- on broadcast TV, I watched a bunch of recruits in a gym learning basic hand-to-hand combat.  In the same way in which a beginning karate student is trained to yell Kiai with every blow, I saw an entire class of officers being trained to yell "Stop Resisting" with every blow, even when just sparring with partners.