Hate crimes: Include sexual orientation?

[Tiassa]

Re: Apprendi v. New Jersey (#99-478) 530 US 466 (2000)

Dissenting from the majority, Justice O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Breyer, acknowledged:

Thus, apparently New Jersey could cure its sentencing scheme, and achieve virtually the same results, by drafting its weapons possession statute in the following manner: First, New Jersey could prescribe, in the weapons possession statute itself, a range of 5 to 20 years’ imprisonment for one who commits that criminal offense. Second, New Jersey could provide that only those defendants convicted under the statute who are found by a judge, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have acted with a purpose to intimidate an individual on the basis of race may receive a sentence greater than 10 years’ imprisonment . . . .

. . . . Thus, consistent with our decision in Patterson, New Jersey could cure its sentencing scheme, and achieve virtually the same results, by drafting its weapons possession statute in the following manner: First, New Jersey could prescribe, in the weapons possession statute itself, a range of 5 to 20 years’ imprisonment for one who commits that criminal offense. Second, New Jersey could provide that a defendant convicted under the statute whom a judge finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, not to have acted with a purpose to intimidate an individual on the basis of race may receive a sentence no greater than 10 years’ imprisonment . . . .

. . . . Because I do not believe that the Court’s “increase in the maximum penalty” rule is required by the Constitution, I would evaluate New Jersey’s sentence-enhancement statute, N.J. Stat. Ann. §2C:44—3 (West Supp. 2000), by analyzing the factors we have examined in past cases. See, e.g., Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S., at 242—243; McMillan, 477 U.S., at 86—90. First, the New Jersey statute does not shift the burden of proof on an essential ingredient of the offense by presuming that ingredient upon proof of other elements of the offense. See, e.g., id., at 86—87; Patterson, 432 U.S., at 215. Second, the magnitude of the New Jersey sentence enhancement, as applied in petitioner’s case, is constitutionally permissible. Under New Jersey law, the weapons possession offense to which petitioner pleaded guilty carries a sentence range of 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment. N.*J. Stat. Ann. §§2C:39—4(a), 2C:43—6(a)(2) (West 1995). The fact that petitioner, in committing that offense, acted with a purpose to intimidate because of race exposed him to a higher sentence range of 10 to 20 years’ imprisonment. §2C:43—7(a)(3). The 10-year increase in the maximum penalty to which petitioner was exposed falls well within the range we have found permissible. See Almendarez-Torres, supra, at 226, 242—243 (approving 18-year enhancement). Third, the New Jersey statute gives no impression of having been enacted to evade the constitutional requirements that attach when a State makes a fact an element of the charged offense. For example, New Jersey did not take what had previously been an element of the weapons possession offense and transform it into a sentencing factor. See McMillan, 477 U.S., at 89.

O'Connor (99-478)

Even the dissent seems to have no serious qualm with the idea of "hate crime" legislation itself. O'Connor's dissent repeatedly refers to an offense committed with the intent to intimidate because of race, and never takes issue with that core idea.

Hate crimes pertain to crimes based on human aspects demarcated by civil or human rights. To deny one's civil rights according to a "protected" status: a dyke can no more shoot a man for being a man than a neo-Nazi can shoot a black man for being black.

Justice Breyer's dissent, joined by Rehnquist, makes no mention of race or hate crimes in general, and focuses on procedural issues.

One of the reasons the Court takes so little issue with hate crime legislation per se is that in the context of civil rights, there is a compelling reason to pointedly stand against specific forms of violation.

"An offense intended to intimidate because of race". The phrase gives us some insight into the nature of what defines a hate crime. A "hate crime" sets out essentially to use a specific crime against a person or property as a method of violating civil rights based on certain acknowledged categories.

• • •​

See Also -

The Supreme Court of Georgia, in deciding Pisciotti (S04A0798) and Botts (S04A0799) v. State (October 25, 2004), in overturning a hate-crime statute, noted:

OCGA § 17-10-17 enhances a criminal sentence where the fact finder determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected a victim or the victim's property as the object of the offense "because of bias or prejudice." Id. at (a). We recognize that persons of ordinary intelligence may understand the dictionary definition of the words "bias" and "prejudice." However, because of the broad signification of these words and the absence of any specific context in which a person's bias or prejudice may apply in order to narrow the construction of these concepts, we find that OCGA § 17-10-17 fails to provide fair warning of the conduct it prohibits. Unlike the statute addressed in Mitchell, supra, which singled out for enhancement specific bias-inspired conduct "thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm" based on the perceived harm that results from crimes motivated by these prejudices, e.g., the greater likelihood that bias-motivated crimes will "provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest," id., 508 U.S. at 487-488, the broad language in OCGA § 17-10-17, by enhancing all offenses where the victim or his property was selected because of any bias or prejudice, encompasses every possible partiality or preference. A rabid sports fan convicted of uttering terroristic threats to a victim selected for wearing a competing team's baseball cap; a campaign worker convicted of trespassing for defacing a political opponent's yard signs; a performance car fanatic convicted of stealing a Ferrari--any"bias or prejudice" for or against the selected victim or property, no matter how obscure, whimsical or unrelated to the victim it may be, but for which proof beyond a reasonable doubt might exist, can serve to enhance a sentence. Absent some qualification on "bias or prejudice," OCGA § 17-10-17 is left" so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.'" Payne v. State, 275 Ga. 181, 183 (563 SE2d 844) (2002). Accordingly, we hold that OCGA § 17-10-17 is too vague to justify the imposition of enhanced criminal punishment for its violation.

We conclude further that OCGA § 17-10-17 may not be upheld because it "impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory applications. (Cit.)' [Cit.]" Thelen v. State, 272 Ga. 81, 82-83 (526 SE2d 60) (2000). OCGA § 17-10-17 "leaves open . . . the widest conceivable inquiry, the scope of which no one can foresee and the result of which no one can foreshadow or adequately guard against." United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81, 89 (41 SC 298, 65 LE2d 516) (1921).

We are by no means condoning appellants' savage attack on the victims in this case or any conduct motivated by a bigoted or hate-filled point of view. We further recognize that the Legislature may appropriately decide, as a general matter, that "bias-motivated offenses warrant greater maximum penalties." Mitchell, supra, 508 U.S. at 486. However, as drafted, the broad language of OCGA § 17-10-17 fails to comport with the ascertainable standards required by the due process rights guaranteed by our State and Federal Constitutions.

Hunstein

Again, we see that the courts acknowledge the compelling interests of states to demarcate hate crimes according to their nature.
____________________

Notes:

Apprendi v. New Jersey - See Legal Information Institute: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-478.ZS.html

Botts and Pisciotta v. State - See Georgia Supreme Court: http://www2.state.ga.us/Courts/Supreme/pdf/s04a0798.pdf (Note: file is .PDF download), approx. 40 kb)
​

 

[thefountainhed]

Let's therefore define the act of killing another human being as murder and demand like punishment for the act. Thus, let's not separate the criminally insane who may commit murder without fully understanding the act or the responsibilities for commiting the act. Let's allow for equal punishment in the act when it occurs in the moment of passion when one's ability to rationalize is diminished. Let's not demarcate the "different kinds" of murder, rather let's label the act of killing another human being as murder and assign therefore one punishment for it. Because afterall, as Fraggle said, it seems "unfair" to award different penalties for what boils down to the same act.

This is utterly simplistic.

The reasons why murder is differentiated by the 'degrees' is based on the presupposition that awareness of the punishment can function as a deterrent. The victims of hate crimes are from socially and historically victimized groups. Connect the fucking dots...
Certainly how hate crime laws are implemented in the nation leaves a lot to be desired, but I think the notion itself is worth exploring.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Let's therefore define the act of killing another human being as murder and demand like punishment for the act. Thus, let's not separate the criminally insane who may commit murder without fully understanding the act or the responsibilities for commiting the act. Let's allow for equal punishment in the act when it occurs in the moment of passion when one's ability to rationalize is diminished. Let's not demarcate the "different kinds" of murder, rather let's label the act of killing another human being as murder and assign therefore one punishment for it. Because afterall, as Fraggle said, it seems "unfair" to award different penalties for what boils down to the same act.

Uh, hold it. You're putting words into my mouth that I did not say. I said that if one man hates a woman because she's a different color and kills her because of that hatred, and another man hates a woman because she's wealthier than he is and kills her because of that hatred, I don't believe that one type of hatred should be singled out for greater punishment.

I don't have a lot of trouble with your supposition about my opinion on crimes of passion, because hate is a passion. "Diminished ability to rationalize" sounds like the kind of defense that makes us all hate lawyers. Counting murder as a less heinous act because the murderer was overcome with passion sounds absurd to me. We don't want people who can so easily lose their civilized instincts walking around free.

As for the criminally insane, I don't want them walking around free for the same reason: They might kill my wife. Whether you lock somebody up with no possibility of release in a prison or in a mental institution, either way it satisfies my need to make the street safer for my wife to walk on.

I recognize that some murderers are highly unlikely to repeat their crime. Shooting somebody because you catch him in bed with your spouse doesn't mean you're going to go out and start knocking over Seven-Elevens. So sure, some murderers don't need life sentences.

I'm more concerned with rapists and child abusers. Their rehabilitation rate is virtually zero. There is no practical hope that if you let one out, he won't do it again. Those people should be locked up forever. But yes, some murderers present almost no risk of repeating their crime so we can let them back out.

As for the deterrent effect of punishment, that's an argument that will never be settled.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Let's therefore define the act of killing another human being as murder and demand like punishment for the act. Thus, let's not separate the criminally insane who may commit murder without fully understanding the act or the responsibilities for commiting the act. Let's allow for equal punishment in the act when it occurs in the moment of passion when one's ability to rationalize is diminished. Let's not demarcate the "different kinds" of murder, rather let's label the act of killing another human being as murder and assign therefore one punishment for it.

That would be the only way to rationally approach "punishment".
If punishment isn't pure and simply to get criminals off the street what is it?
The satisfying of primitive emotions, "revenge", which is extremely irrational.

If people can plead insanity I don't see why people can't plead being a sane murderer.
What's the difference? In both cases we have a guy who is not the same as the judge, one is insane, one likes killing people. The judge is equally unable to relate to either.
Why is insanity a defense while just being a murderer isn't?
What about when the courts inevitably acknowledge that free will doesn't exist?
We know the sane murderer was just as unable to refrain from murdering as the insane murderer. By definition he would have refrained if he could have.
For some reason or another he became the kind of person that would kill someone. He was in no way in control of his genetic makeup nor the string of events which lead to the death of the victim.
He's no more to blame for his actions than the insane person.
If he's the kind of person who would kill an innocent baby with a clear mind and full awareness of how wrong it is, he is the kind of person who would kill an innocent baby with a clear mind and full awareness of how wrong it is. Did he choose to be that kind of person? Absolutely not, in the same way insane man didn't choose to be insane.
Insane man happens to go into a blind rage before killing, sane man doesn't. That is rather insignificant.

I personally believe it should be the responsibility of whoever cares about the victim to take out the perp. Not because "he deserves it", but because they are naturally urged to do this, it's the way of the world. If they fail, or no one cares enough about the victim to get vengeance, so be it, perp wins.

But even in the mess that is the modern world, we can't sit back and try to logically conclude there are degrees of guilt, no one is any more "guilty" for doing anything than you are "guilty" for having fingernails.
Their ancestral history in collaboration with the environment and the events in their life made them into who and what they are.
If thats the kind of guy who burns children with acid while jerking off, then well, I guess his history and the animal he was born as is different than the guy who devotes his life to helping sick kids.
How is one more "guilty" than the other? If anything the guy who helps sick kids is "lucky" and we can leave it at that.
However, this doesn't mean we can't touch a hair on the villains head, he's not to blame, but neither are we for wanting to fry him on the electric chair.
But logically, "punishment" pure and simply needs to serve the purpose of removing misfitting organisms from society. Anything else you care to attach to it will be irrational.
One guy hates people who sleep with his wife, another hates "fags", another enjoys killing anybody he can get his hands on. This diversity is just the nature of dysgenics. These creatures aren't gods, they didn't build themselves from scratch and decide to make themselves have a bad temper or a distaste for gays or a fetish for murder. They didn't want to clash with society.
Thats just how they turned out.
But yes they do clash with society, so put them away, but don't act holier than thou and say "they should have just been like me" because they weren't like you, and if you were like them you would have killed someone. You're very fortunate.

 

[thefountainhed]

[

Uh, hold it. You're putting words into my mouth that I did not say. I said that if one man hates a woman because she's a different color and kills her because of that hatred, and another man hates a woman because she's wealthier than he is and kills her because of that hatred, I don't believe that one type of hatred should be singled out for greater punishment.

Firstly, your hypothetical is simply that—a hypothetical. It is highly unlikely that one consciously murders because another is more affluent. The differentiation between a hate crime—murder in this instance—is that the perpetrator is likely to be a serial murderer, and also the act is conducive to copycatting. The murderer who targets his victims because they are homosexual targets a minority group that is socially repressed; he is also logically likely to not stop at one victim.

I don't have a lot of trouble with your supposition about my opinion on crimes of passion, because hate is a passion. "Diminished ability to rationalize" sounds like the kind of defense that makes us all hate lawyers. Counting murder as a less heinous act because the murderer was overcome with passion sounds absurd to me. We don't want people who can so easily lose their civilized instincts walking around free.

Every person is susceptible to a moment of intense emotional overcharge granted the proper the stimulation. Therefore, when a parent constantly physically abuses for instance a rational individual, they can reach a proverbial breaking point whereby defending themselves against their tormentor becomes their sole goal, and in that moment rationalization becomes nonexistent. The logic in differentiating such an example from a calculated murder is in essence, an acceptance that the tormentor does in fact bear some responsibility in the murder, by having provided the stimuli, which in turn was a crime.

As for the criminally insane, I don't want them walking around free for the same reason: They might kill my wife. Whether you lock somebody up with no possibility of release in a prison or in a mental institution, either way it satisfies my need to make the street safer for my wife to walk on.

Yea, let’s lock up all the intellectually diminished because they are going to kill your pretty little wife. I am not defending a sociopath who is unable to accept the responsibility for his crime yet able to understand the nature of their crime. I am speaking of the mentally retarded, for instance.

During a six-month internship as the supervisor of a facility for the mentally retarded, I had to read the case of a John Doe. John Doe suffers from level 2 or moderate mental retardation, and possesses an IQ of 45. John therefore thinks and acts like a child, and is unable to fully understand murder or the responsibility society places on a person that murders. John is also a very placid individual. A caretaker at the facility sexually abused John Doe for six months with impunity. Once after sodomizing John, the caretaker went to his office to take a nap—a relief from the strenuous exercise of course. John walked into the office with the glass flask that contains his water and bludgeoned the caretaker to death.

Now from my perspective, this type of murder is entirely different from a normal adult who could’ve reported the abuse behaviour to the police or taken other avenues to avoid the act, or an individual who decided to kill their partner because they were having an affair. The main reason is that John Doe is unable to understand the choices available to him and is also unable to realize the implication of murder

I recognize that some murderers are highly unlikely to repeat their crime. Shooting somebody because you catch him in bed with your spouse doesn't mean you're going to go out and start knocking over Seven-Elevens. So sure, some murderers don't need life sentences.

Well by nature, hate crimes are repetitive because the body of individuals fitting the characterization is larger.

I'm more concerned with rapists and child abusers. Their rehabilitation rate is virtually zero. There is no practical hope that if you let one out, he won't do it again. Those people should be locked up forever. But yes, some murderers present almost no risk of repeating their crime so we can let them back out.

No, only those suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorders, aka sociopathy and psycopathy can be said to have a rehabilition rate of “virtually zero.” The problem as I see it with the supposed rehabilitation centers is that no attempt at rehabilitation is made at these prisons. Society simply puts them there to keep them away from us—how nice.

As for the deterrent effect of punishment, that's an argument that will never be settled.

That punishment serves as a deterrent is not an argument; the only argument to be had is the affect and reach of the deterrent.

 

[thefountainhed]

Lou,

From your argument, either no one is responsible for their crime-- because environmental and hereditary factors are key, or all types of crimes must possess the same punishment. This argument is really too simplistic to demand response, but for you, why not:

Unless one is able to categorize the specific conditions favouring specific criminal acts, one cannot therefore assert that such conditions will breed individuals who shall commit said acts. Thus, individuals able to differentiate what is socially right and wrong and that understand the punishment for their actions must be acting from choice. As to like punishment for all criminal acts, I think my previous post to Fraggle illustrates my opinion. Still, take the instance whereby a driver at fault gets into a road accident with another driver who is killed. Does this murder differ or not differ from say me deciding to blow your guts out for the fun of it? What of war?

 

[Athelwulf]

I'm beginning to think we need another thread devoted to hate crimes.

What I want to know is why some people think sexual orientation shouldn't be included in the definition of a hate crime.

<Big>Nothing else.</Big>

Thank you.

 

[Tiassa]

Athelwulf

In all honesty, you can expect this diversion any time you try to have this discussion.

Some people would like to pretend everything's the same, and hold society together with pabulum.

Or you could think of it this way: they want to be able to burn a cross on someone's lawn and be thought of no worse than an unwanted Kirby salesman.

Convenient, in a way, since both approaches are suck-o-riffic.

But, yeah. You can't have a discussion about hate crimes around here without the constant babble of dimensionless, pseudo-intellecutal equivocation.

 

[Athelwulf]

Tiassa, I see what ye'r saying. But I just wish we could actually talk about the subject at hand. I went back and counted how many of the 27 previous posts pertain directly to the actual subject. Not including my posts, two.

I just think we can do better than two posts out of 27, is all.

I'm sorry about making this a big deal, since people are bringing up some good arguments. But I just would like it if someone told me why sexual orientation shouldn't be included.

 

[Repo Man]

The only argument I can think of is that right wingers don't equate sexuality with race. They insist that being gay is a choice, where having dark skin, or being a woman, are not. The curious thing about this tactic is that it implies that they could have chosen to be gay themselves just as easily as they chose heterosexuality (I don't think they really believe that though). Believing that gays are people who have chosen to "sin" is necessary for the right to continue to demonize them.

But if you read the testimonials of gays, they overwhelmingly knew they had same sex attractions at a young age. How many people would willingly choose a life of hatred and discrimination? So I have to disagree with the Christian right on this issue, as I do about almost everything.

But I still don't believe someone should be more severly punished for beating a gay person than for beating anyone else. It just serves to fuel the Limbaughs of the world in their claims that gays are seeking "special" rights.

 

[Tiassa]

Repo Man

The only argument I can think of is that right wingers don't equate sexuality with race.

I think beyond that everything else is a variation on that theme. Almost everything tracks back to it.

And therein the religious right depends on a complete lack of subtlety. Their choice--e.g. religion--is Constitutionally protected. So, technically, is homosexuality. Just not in big neon letters. The only moral argument against homosexuality stems directly from religiously-inspired bigotry. Of course, it's mere aesthetics, since many Christian churches sanction adulterous marriages, anyway.°

But if you read the testimonials of gays, they overwhelmingly knew they had same sex attractions at a young age. How many people would willingly choose a life of hatred and discrimination?

If homosexuality is pure choice, then gays are Job. We should take a show of hands: Who here knew what was happening to them the first time they fell in love or, more crudely, felt the itch?

So there God hands over a double-whammy of temptation: a persistent and unshakeable desire for what He hates. At what point does the theology start sounding ridiculous?° It seems rather sadistic to me inasmuch as God is simply not satisfied with the temptations of everyday life.

I mention that theological digression because--

The curious thing about this tactic is that it implies that they could have chosen to be gay themselves just as easily as they chose heterosexuality (I don't think they really believe that though).

--that's a beautiful observation. In addition to licensing bigotry, it also has an effect on the self. It makes it a lot easier to pretend that lust for the opposite sex is virtuous if one compares it to what God says He hates in a part of the Bible only referred to by Christians when it's inconvenient to stick to Christ's teachings.

What, so Joe's thinking impure thoughts about a woman? Small potatoes compared to the gay temptation. At least Joe hasn't given in.

Or something like that.

It's more of an implicit belief, though. In politics, various sides of an argument often have much difficulty perceiving the basis of the counterpoint; people become so affixed to the unreliability of history that they think any ol' history is valid. And in doing so, they confuse themselves and one another. To the Capitalist, there is "I"; to the Communist and Socialist, there is "we"; to the Anarchist there is both, though ne'er the twain shall meet, it seems; and the Libertarian sees only a nihilistic void. In proposing homosexuality as pure choice, and thus also heterosexuality, the Christian attempts to do away with that whole muddle by presuming that the homosexual is just like the Christian, and thus what except the temptations of Satan could incline the homosexual to be gay?

As with politics in general, it's easier to argue that way than put actual thought into it.

I did have a couple questions, though, Repo.

But I still don't believe someone should be more severly punished for beating a gay person than for beating anyone else. It just serves to fuel the Limbaughs of the world in their claims that gays are seeking "special" rights.

Does that reflect on the inclusion of gays in hate crime legislation, or on hate crime legislation in and of itself?

Okay, so it's one question.

And also the comment that for the Limbaughs of the world, "equality" is a special right if they don't like you. (That works both ways, too: Limbaugh's advantage is what he considers equality; the equality asked for by others is viewed as an appeal for advantage.)

• • •​

A note for Athelwulf:

I think part of the problem of having this discussion is evident in Repo's point; that is, I can't think of any other reason that remotely approaches making sense that I've ever heard coming from the homophobes. Everything about the argument tracks back to aesthetics and choice.

And even into the internet age, that argument has worked. But as more and more information pours onto the web, it's no longer reserved for grad students in anthropology to find out that penguins or macaques or bonobos can be gay. A ten year-old can find out by going to National Geographic, and if there's anything that unsettles parents, it's the unexpected undermining of family myths.

Nobody wants to put the argument up because the more it's refuted, the more those refutations will show in search engines, the more common the refutation will become in the social discourse.

Traditionalists find themselves in a corner, and like any animal they're lashing out. Eleven states voted to challenge the U.S. Constitution on a matter of mere aesthetics. That certainly doesn't reflect rational thought.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

OK, if you want to narrow down the universe of discourse. If there are going to be laws defining a special class of crimes called "hate crimes," then I believe that hatred of the victim's sexual orientation must be included. As far as I'm concerned it's a no-brainer. People hate gays the same way they hate members of different ethnic and religious groups.

 

[Bowser]

<i>"I'm wondering what the reason behind this is. To me, there seems to be no contest. Why shouldn't sexual orientation be included?"</i>

<b>Hate Crime</b>

I think the notion of labeling a crime in such a way is somewhat odd. We could extend that definition to so many other criminal activities. The whole notion of a hate crime seems a bit specific and benificial to a limited few. It also slaps in the face the notion of <b>equality and justice under the law</b>.

Let's say that I am a fascist bigot who holds views that differ from those of others, and there is a group of people who dislike me and my views, and they cause financial and emotional harm to me and mine, should those people be imprisoned for their crimes of hate? Even if some of their past actions are criminal, should they spend more time in a cell considering the emotions behind their motivation.

I doubt it would ever happen. Simply put, hate crimes are the product of excessive legislation and the lobbying of a politically connected few. If hate was a crime, all of us would be in a cell.

Homosexuals and hate crimes. Again, the notion of a hate crime is silly, unless you are giving special interest to a group of people.

 

[laughing weasel]

I was against hate crime laws when I first heard of them. I did not believe that some one else’s life was worth more than mine is just because of their skin color sex or sexual preference but it is not about that. Hate crimes are designed in part to attack everyone who belongs to a particular group. They are more than just one murder they are a thousand count of assault as well. It does not matter what a person commits a hate crime for as long as a part of the crime is to inspire terror and fear then it does deserve to be punished more harshly.

 

[Bowser]

<i>"a person commits a hate crime for as long as a part of the crime is to inspire terror and fear then it does deserve to be punished more harshly."</i>

I believe that all you need do here in Oregon is utter the wrong word while committing an act of violence to receive the extended time in jail: Nigger, cracker, queer... Back in the 80's we had a problem with skinheads here in Portland. In an effort to clear our streets of 'em, the hate crime was invented. The interesting thing is that the law punishes you for your choice of words during the act of violence. That bothers me for some reason. On the other hand, I recognize that it does not discriminate.

 

[Mystech]

No one complains very much about solaced king-pin statutes or harsher sentences for terrorists, so why should hate-crime be any different? After all if regular laws against assault murder and conspiracy are supposedly good enough that we don't need hate-crime legislation, then why do we need to makes special provisions for any of these other things?

 

[Tiassa]

What aspects of the nature of any given crime should a court not consider?

Motivation? Method? Severity?

As Bowser points out, hate crime legislation would not have come about without hate crimes.

I suppose if we throw out consideration of "motivation", we might be able to sentence criminals as generally and blindly as the argument against hate-crime laws would have.

And, hey, if motivation isn't relevant, then why is method? In the end, severity is all that's left, and except for the obvious mass-murders, the severity of a crime is in the eye of the beholder.

Of course, that's why Justice is supposed to be blind.

 

[Bowser]

Once again, we run into community perception and values. I don't miss the skinheads, but couldn't this law be concidered as a political tool? Certainly, the skinheads possessed ideology which was frowned upon my the larger community. Of course, their acts of violence didn't endear them to many of us. Still, it was a law truly created with them in mind...?

 

[RubiksMaster]

Hate crimes are terrible things. They can include anything, including sexual orientation.

My only thoughts on this are that I hate it when people claim hate-crimes when they don't exist. many litigious people claim that society has been against them for their whole lives. This I have a problem with. I also have a problem with people accusing me of hate crimes simply because I am against the legal recognition of gay marriage. I have a problem when people (usually liberals) try to tell me what I hate or don't hate.

Sure, I get angry when someone is beaten simply on the basis of color, sexual orientation, mental capacity, etc.

 

[android]

"Hate crime" as a concept is a terrible idea because it opens the doors for creation of a police state. You don't agree with us? It is soon a crime, because if it doesn't agree with Our Benevolent State of Love, you must be hatin'.

:m: