Hate Crime Laws

[BriannaElisabeth]

Hi all!

I have been having conversations with my peers and family recently, and am interested in seeing how others feel about the topic of Hate crime laws.

 

I will pre-emptively define a hate crime as bias-motivated violence. Assault, injury, or murder on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, and/or religion. I will also define hate crime laws as laws that enhance the penalties of violent crimes if it can be shown that the violence was bias-motivated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

My question to the forum is: Do you think hate crime laws are appropriate?

I personally do not like hate crime laws on principle. I feel that murder is murder, and the person's skin color or sexual orientation is not relevant. Classifying some violent crimes as "worse" than others because of the victim's religion or nationality only serves to further discrimintation by continuing to treat people as different from each other for superficial reasons. I realize the laws had value at certain points in history, but since human kind is quickly moving on from discrimination, our laws should reflect that.

I say let's stop treating people as different from each other for stupid reasons like sex and race. Hate crime laws perpetuate discrimination, and should be done-away with.
What do you say?

[josh900]

Now while I can understand where you're coming from I have to strongly disagree. Crimes are still commented on people simply because of race, sexuality, religion, and all those other wonderful things people like to argue about. Violent crimes still happen to people because of those reason everyday. As much as we'd like to think we've moved past discrimination and violent hatred, all we've really done is swept it under the rug and pretend that it isn't there anymore. You look around and you'll see it happen everywhere. I've had been assaulted several times simply because I didn't adhere to the same way of thinking as they did or because I looked differently. Had an incident last year where A Co-worker followed me out into the parking lot and attacked me with a knife, when he regained consciousness and the police were able to question him, he said he attacked me because he believed I was a mentally challenged homosexual, although I'm putting it in a much more polite way than he did.

But yeah, he had every intention of killing me (the moron admitted to that), because he thought the wrong thing about me. With people like that running around I'm amazed that it's not a more wide spread problem than it is.

 

Another example is online gaming, You get a bunch of people playing a highly competitive game and the discriminatory remarks start flying left and right. I'd like to think that society is moving away from all of that and is moving closer and closer to true equality, but you look around long enough and you realize that the discrimination and hatred of anyone different than what someone's used to, hasn't gone away and probably never will, The frighteningly high number of stupid people in the world will make sure of that.

[JimboUK]

Hate crimes are just a sop to politically influential interest groups, it's the politicians saying "Hey, you're special, look what we're doing for you". It doesn't lessen hate, in fact it makes it worse as some groups are seen to be getting preferential treatment, something that causes resentment. There's no need for them anyway, motive can always be taken into consideration when sentencing.

[HeyYou]

Hate crimes are just a sop to politically influential interest groups, it's the politicians saying "Hey, you're special, look what we're doing for you". It doesn't lessen hate, in fact it makes it worse as some groups are seen to be getting preferential treatment, something that causes resentment. There's no need for them anyway, motive can always be taken into consideration when sentencing.

This. I wholeheartedly concur.

 

A crime is a crime, WHY someone committed it isn't really relevant.

[Marxist ßastard]

murder is murder

So it doesn't matter to you if the murder is premeditated or not? Or how about assault, do you think stabbing someone with a box cutter is the same as stabbing them with a bayonet, so long as the medical bill is the same? What if it's in self-defense? Or what if it's against a complete stranger, and done just to see what their blood looks like?

 

Modifiers, fundamentally, make sense. If details of a crime (or of the perpetrator's mindset) indicate that the perpetrator cannot be rehabilitated, then they should be treated differently from someone who can be rehabilitated. And someone who commits hate crimes cannot be rehabilitated, so long as they are eventually released into the same atmosphere of oppression which led them to commit the crime in the first place.

 

Don't get me wrong, it would be better if we didn't have that atmosphere of oppression, and therefore didn't need hate crime legislation. But to oppose hate crime legislation simply because it wouldn't be necessary in an ideal world is at best denying reality, and at worst completely disingenuous.

 

Classifying some violent crimes as "worse" than others because of the victim's religion or nationality only serves to further discrimintation

Yeah, no. Oppression doesn't cease to exist just because you ignore it.

[pheo3309]

 

murder is murder

So it doesn't matter to you if the murder is premeditated or not? Or how about assault, do you think stabbing someone with a box cutter is the same as stabbing them with a bayonet, so long as the medical bill is the same? What if it's in self-defense? Or what if it's against a complete stranger, and done just to see what their blood looks like?

 

Modifiers, fundamentally, make sense. If details of a crime (or of the perpetrator's mindset) indicate that the perpetrator cannot be rehabilitated, then they should be treated differently from someone who can be rehabilitated. And someone who commits hate crimes cannot be rehabilitated, so long as they are eventually released into the same atmosphere of oppression which led them to commit the crime in the first place.

 

Don't get me wrong, it would be better if we didn't have that atmosphere of oppression, and therefore didn't need hate crime legislation. But to oppose hate crime legislation simply because it wouldn't be necessary in an ideal world is at best denying reality, and at worst completely disingenuous.

 

Classifying some violent crimes as "worse" than others because of the victim's religion or nationality only serves to further discrimintation

Yeah, no. Oppression doesn't cease to exist just because you ignore it.

 

 

Your first series of questions don't make your point clear. Premeditated murder is based on how planned the murder was, and is usually punished worse than manslaugher. Typically a crime of discrimination is done moreso with emotions flaring. It's why so many of them get off on the temporary insanity excuse. While it doesn't excuse them, statistically crimes of discrimination aren't premeditated. Assault yes, however they do the same time as others and can also use the insanity plea with 'blacking out'. Choice of weapon doesn't matter. People will use what they'll use. Self-defense, you have some laws that if you accidentally kill your attacker, YOU'RE the murderer and put on trial. If your attacker was doing it based on discrimination and the prosecutor is good enough, guess who can accuse the accused of a hate crime? To see what blood looks like is more of a psychological-based impulse that goes into the mind of a psychopathic murderer/serial killer rather than based on discrimination. Which that's a different subject entirely, and hard to explain. I'm not following your point on a few of those.

 

And for the record, no one is saying it'll be an ideal world or that oppression would cease to exist. What they are saying is that the definition of hate crimes are giving people the ability to walk. There's loads of people who are victims through crimes of discrimination. But they don't all see justice. Their attackers get to walk based on pleas of insanity, technicalities, blackouts, and everything under the sun. While others do too, people who commit crimes of discrimination are quicker to use it and if they have a good set of witnesses, a good defense lawyer, and a psychological evaluation that ties with the witnesses, what's the point in having hate crime laws if the law isn't going to bring them justice? As a gay male, it does me no justice. I know people who haven't seen justice when crimes based on discrimination were done on them. Why keep them when they're failing the people that they're supposed to protect by not holding the ones who commit these crimes responsible? I see where the others are coming from.

Edited July 31, 2013 by pheo3309

[Mandamus]

I realize the laws had value at certain points in history, but since human kind is quickly moving on from discrimination, our laws should reflect that.

I don't know where you live but that's not the case in my country (I don't have statistics to back that up, though).

[TRoaches]

Any law that considers the race or ethnicity of the victim or perpetrator of a crime as a determinant of the wrongness of the crime and the punishment given in response to the crime is an inherently racist law, and any racist law hinders social progress and human evolution. Such laws perpetuate the belief that humans are intrinsically separated by their racial background. A heavier sentence given for a crime motivated by racism is, in my opinion, just as bad as a lighter sentence given for the same reason. It is also ineffective as a deterrent, because a person who is sufficiently motivated by racism to commit a crime is obviously not sufficiently concerned about the possibility of prosecution to deter them from committing the crime in the first place, and is therefore unlikely to be deterred to any greater extent by the prospect of being charged with an additional hate crime.

[Tidus44]

Hi all!

 

I have been having conversations with my peers and family recently, and am interested in seeing how others feel about the topic of Hate crime laws.

 

I will pre-emptively define a hate crime as bias-motivated violence. Assault, injury, or murder on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, and/or religion. I will also define hate crime laws as laws that enhance the penalties of violent crimes if it can be shown that the violence was bias-motivated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

 

My question to the forum is: Do you think hate crime laws are appropriate?

 

I personally do not like hate crime laws on principle. I feel that murder is murder, and the person's skin color or sexual orientation is not relevant. Classifying some violent crimes as "worse" than others because of the victim's religion or nationality only serves to further discrimintation by continuing to treat people as different from each other for superficial reasons. I realize the laws had value at certain points in history, but since human kind is quickly moving on from discrimination, our laws should reflect that.

 

I say let's stop treating people as different from each other for stupid reasons like sex and race. Hate crime laws perpetuate discrimination, and should be done-away with.

What do you say?

 

I am probably not completely understanding your point of view, so if you are acceptable I'd like to ask for some clarification. I do agree with you to a point, but I'm a bit hazy as to what exactly it is you are against or question in regards to hate crime and hate laws.

 

So, an example. I am a soldier and I am deployed to a place where religious group A is killing religious group B. The murders are solely about one religious group hating a different religious group and attempting to exterminate them.

So, I am in the position to defend group B which is under attack by group A. I kill members of group A in defending group B. Am I a murderer, and should I be treated no different than those members of group A who have been murdering group B?

Now I ask this because you have said, murder is murder and thus I assume that regardless of motivation, situation or extenuating circumstances, one person killing another is murder and all murderers should be treated exactly the same for committing murder.

 

Perhaps a more personal situation as a question. An individual attacks you and attempts to rape and murder you because you are a white middle class female and are not following a strict Muslim life style. Your attacker hates you because of your immodesty and failure to be chaste and for not following a specific religion. I see the attack but, your attacker is violently determined to punish and murder you and in attempting to defend you I kill your attacker.

Am I a murderer who should be treated exactly the same as any other individual who kills someone?

Again, you have said murder is murder and you have stated that classifying one crime as "worse" than another based upon stupid and/or superficial reasons only serves to further discrimination and thus should not be a consideration.

 

I wonder why one would limit hate laws to physical violence or murder. If I were to bring my friends to your neighborhood and bully you, threaten you, shout abuse and insults at you, paint graffiti against you or send you letters of hate and advocate that you should be killed because you are a white middle class female who is not adhering to strict Muslim religious laws, would this is acceptable to you because it is only an exercise of my right to freedom of speech?

 

What happens if by my advocating that you should be killed because you are not following a Muslim way of life, someone is motivated and does kill you? Should I be ignored and not held accountable because I didn't actually kill you I only advocated and encouraged others to kill you while exercising my right of freedom of speech - because you are not being a good female Muslim and I hate white middle class females who are not following a Muslim way of life?

 

I also wonder why one would think that motivation in a criminal act is not a consideration. You say murder is murder. Again, I agree to a point, but if I kill 100 people because I hate them for being white Roman Catholics and not Muslims should I be treated exactly the same as the person who kills one person in self defense?

By extension, if I kill people because I gain sexual pleasure from it, should I not be treated any different than someone who accidently kills someone by hitting them with a car?

 

What exactly, if anything, makes one crime "worse" than another? If nothing does, then let me clarify my position.

 

Murder is murder, and one human being killing another is defined as murder. Thus killing someone is murder and according to your thought, any extenuating circumstance or motivation should not be considered. One murder is no different than another no matter why the murder occurred.

 

I do admit I have not read every single law that exists dealing with hate crime. However, those that I am familiar with do not address hate crime as "this specific" identified group doing something against "that specific" identified group. The laws I am familiar with state that anyone, regardless of their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation who advocates the genocide of any other group identified by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation is involved in a hate crime.

Genocide being the destruction of an identifiable group in any segment of the population that may be distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

 

So, where does freedom of speech end? Is it acceptable to advocate, encourage and insist that you be killed for being a white female who is not being a good Muslim or should I be limited in what I may state? Or is the limit that I can say and do anything provided I do not kill or injure you?

 

Lastly, if murder is murder and no other consideration should be made in dealing with a murderer, what is it you expect from a legal system? For example, if I kill 1 female because I hate females and you kill 1 person because you were defending yourself, do we both get 4 years in prison and then are set free with no further consideration because justice has been served?

 

I find that many people do not see the legal system as anything but a system of punishment. However, it is also a system of protecting the law abiding population from those who would do it harm. As someone has already mentioned, jail is a punishment, but with the idea of rehabilitation of those who have broken the law. I am not so naive to suggest the system is perfect, but the individual who murders someone by circumstance is not (in my mind) as worthy of additional consideration to their future criminal activities once released from jail as the individual who deliberately murders because of hate. I would think that the individual who has killed someone by happenstance is a lot less of a threat and much more likely to be rehabilitated then the individual who deliberately and determinedly murders others for no reason other than hate.

 

I am not sure if you would agree or disagree, but in my mind, hate laws are appropriate to deal with those criminal and undesirable activities that people do engage in, and preferably before they murder someone.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Tidus44

[Marxist ßastard]

I cry a single tear for the systemic oppression of white, male, heterosexual skinheads.