Hate Crimes: Your Take?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:03 am

What do you think about labeling certain offenses as "hate" crimes?

When you think about it, aren't most crimes hate crimes? Rape seems like one. Murder. Blackmail. Those are obvious ones.

An example:

Dragging a gay person behind your truck (and it's been done) has been considered a hate crime. To me that says having hatred for a person's sexual style is a crime, when in actually the act of dragging him or her behind a truck would fall under assault and battery and maybe murder and is obviously a crime. So what's the point of the hate crime label? Is it just to tickle the PC glands of the jury? Does it make the crime even more horrible?

Some feedback please??

ETA:

*disclaimer:

My post wasn't very well thought out. I want to make it clear that I don't approve of the crimes mentioned and feel they deserve proper punishment. I am only questioning the reasoning behind the hate label, ok? Thanks!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:18 am

I think it's dumb as dirt and smacks of thought police.

It's a pretty safe bet that anytime someone is tortured, whether by being dragged behind a truck, beaten, or hung from a tree, there's hate involved.

Why do we get so wrapped up in why a crime is committed? It's a crime. The criminal needs to be taken off the street.

The flip side of that coin is giving a criminal a pass because he was abused as a child. That may be reason to convict the criminal's parents, not forgive a crime.

....... but I just got up.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:36 am

Diuretic;442191 wrote: It might work for something short of murder though. I mean if the circumstances of the offence - whatever it might be, assault, theft, arson, etc - are aggravated by the "hate" circumstances then it might provide for a heavier sentence if the circumstances didn't contain the "hate" elements and may be put in place as a deterrence. Minorities might benefit from any deterrent effect.
The last thing we need is yet another tool to separate us from ourselves.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:39 am

No doubt.

Spinner · Post by **Spinner** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:12 am

If a crime occurs where there has been no instigation, such as attacking a gay person simply because they are gay, simply because they are muslim, simply because they a black, illegal alien, female, etc..that to me is a hate crime and must be dealt with swiftly and severely. There has to be physical action. Standing and yelling at someone is not a hate crime, unless you are somehow preventing them from being able to leave your presence, forcing them to listen to you.

(We have to be careful not to run over the 1st Amend. while pursuing Hate Crime. There have been some instances where people are trying to put those who try to tell the truth about the Confederacy and set the record straight...as engaging in Hate Crimes. Totally ludicrous! We must be able to have the right to speak the truth as we see it or we'll end up with the Thought Police.)

Take the incident several years ago when James Byrd Jr. of Jasper Texas was dragged to death behind the truck. That was a Hate Crime. Matthew Shepard of Laramie WY was a Hate Crime. There are many instances of legitimate Hate crime.

Great topic choice too!

Spinner

Spinner · Post by **Spinner** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:48 am

Accountable;442182 wrote: I think it's dumb as dirt and smacks of thought police.

It's a pretty safe bet that anytime someone is tortured, whether by being dragged behind a truck, beaten, or hung from a tree, there's hate involved.

Why do we get so wrapped up in why a crime is committed? It's a crime. The criminal needs to be taken off the street.

The flip side of that coin is giving a criminal a pass because he was abused as a child. That may be reason to convict the criminal's parents, not forgive a crime.

....... but I just got up.

:yh_rotfl "Dumb as dirt...."

Yes, you are correct in the part about a crime is a crime but...

We have gotten away from the point (in this country) that there has to be a victim in order to have a crime.

That is why certain actions are called "victimless crime":

Victimless crime is behavior of an individual which is forbidden by law, but which does not violate nor significantly threaten the rights of other individuals. Controversy about the applicability of the term usually surrounds the issue of whether a victim exists (some argue that "victimless" crimes affect society as a whole, thus making society a "victim")

The reason you must have a victim is because you must have a witness that you can confront (see the 6th Amend). How can you confront "the State" or confront "Society".

It is the "confrontation clause" of the Sixth Amendment that guarantees an accused the right to "be confronted with the witnesses against him. [Exactly what does this mean?] Black's Law Dictionary has traditionally defined confrontation as the "act of sitting a witness face to face with defendant [accused], in order that the defendant may make any objections he has to the witness', or that the witness may identify the accused," Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition.

The flip side of that coin is giving a criminal a pass because he was abused as a child. That may be reason to convict the criminal's parents, not forgive a crime.

Thank you!!! The vast majority of sexually abuse victims are women, the vast majority of abusers are men...the logic doesn't fit. Besides, there comes a point in one's life when they have to take responsibility for their own actions.

Just like the Burning Bed..where the woman was abused (I mean ABUSED) by her husband and eventually set him on fire and left with the kids.

She was responsible for her actions, however, she tried repeatedly to get the law to intercede. Since self-preservation is natural Right, she did what she had to do because the system failed her.

Ok...I'm digressing here.......

Spinner

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:12 am

Someone will undoubtedly correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the "hate crime" designation began when groups such as the KKK or NAZIS began targeting other groups based on color/religion. What could be termed mere "harrassment" then became more serious if charged as a "hate crime."

So targeting someone because of race/sexual orientation/PROFESSION (as in health care worker at a womens' clinic), etc, has more legal "punch" than just being a general nutcase and shooting another innocent person.

Doesn't make a whole lotta' sense, does it? I think it's an idea which SEEMED good--at the time.

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:59 am

I agree with those who have said assault is assault..no matter what the reasons.

But, if that assault is done because of ones "minority" status..or because of who or what they represent, that should be a punishable crime in and of itself...coupled with the assault or murder.

But, there is the first amendment thing. OK, if someone were to say, "I hate.....,......" and does nothing else, that is an exercise of the first amendment. If they couple that with I hate you, therefore I am going to beat you to within an inch of your life..then the laws should kick in.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:29 am

Why should disliking (hating) someone be a crime in itself?

Ideally, we would have no bigots or haters of homosexuals, or women or religious groups or anyone else but we are human and that is one of our faults. Last I checked, it was also a personal right to dislike anyone or thing you wanted to as long as you didn't hurt anyone.

To me it seems by punishing a person for their crime *as well as* their hatred, we are saying "You are not politically correct, we think it's wrong that you don't like _____ and we're going to punish you additionally for it."

I think that's frightfully wrong. Not because I want to protect disgusting criminals but because I think that encroaches upon personal freedoms in a dangerous way.

I don't think it is necessary to charge anyone with hate if we punish the actual crime sufficiently.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:31 am

Glitter, I'm sure the "crime" isn't in the hating...it's in targeting someone soley based on that hatred and THEN committing a crime motivated by the hate.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:02 pm

But Lulu, what's the point? You're still punishing the person for their dislike of (whatever) and that is like punishing one for their opinion. We can't be doing that in a free society. What's wrong with punishing them specifically for their crime of rape/murder/assault/etc...? Those are crimes against humanity. To me that's serious enough.

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:05 pm

I dont think rape is a hate crime. it is mostly about power , control, and degredation of the victim. imho.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm

I guess what I'm trying (and failing) to say is that I think you can and should punish for the crime committed and not for the feelings of the one committing the crime. I'm not trying to be softhearted on the criminal. I just want to protect the right to hold an opinion without authority's interference.

twizzel · Post by **twizzel** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:43 pm

RedGlitter;442147 wrote: What do you think about labeling certain offenses as "hate" crimes?

When you think about it, aren't most crimes hate crimes? Rape seems like one. Murder. Blackmail. Those are obvious ones.

An example:

Dragging a gay person behind your truck (and it's been done) has been considered a hate crime. To me that says having hatred for a person's sexual style is a crime, when in actually the act of dragging him or her behind a truck would fall under assault and battery and maybe murder and is obviously a crime. So what's the point of the hate crime label? Is it just to tickle the PC glands of the jury? Does it make the crime even more horrible?

Some feedback please??

ETA:

*disclaimer:

My post wasn't very well thought out. I want to make it clear that I don't approve of the crimes mentioned and feel they deserve proper punishment. I am only questioning the reasoning behind the hate label, ok? Thanks!
All these so called hate crimes are already illegal under normal laws, if I throw a brick through a black mans window because I don't like black people that is criminal damage if while doing it I scream abuse at him that is a public order offence and so on adinfinitem. However as it appears impossible to get a police officer to attend to take crime reports or try and make arrests unless you are driving a car these hate offences are a complete waist of time and are extra legislation we dont need.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:29 am

Lulu2;442579 wrote: Glitter, I'm sure the "crime" isn't in the hating...it's in targeting someone soley based on that hatred and THEN committing a crime motivated by the hate.
But why is it important to punish the motivation?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:38 pm

The benefit of labeling dragging a black man down a dirt road behind your truck a hate crime is that increases the chances of a stiffer sentence. I think we all want that dont we ?

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:42 pm

Nomad;443537 wrote: The benefit of labeling dragging a black man down a dirt road behind your truck a hate crime is that increases the chances of a stiffer sentence. I think we all want that dont we ?

I'm all for it being stiffer, over here the judges are far too soft :-5

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:49 pm

SuzyB;443541 wrote: I'm all for it being stiffer, over here the judges are far too soft :-5

sounds like a date crime

maybe my learned friend needs viagra

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:52 pm

how about if some one raped your child would you want to kill them

who would not

how about if some one murdered a member of your family would you want to kill them

believe me some hate crimes are understandable

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:39 pm

SuzyB;443541 wrote: I'm all for it being stiffer, over here the judges are far too soft :-5

That was dirty right ? Right ? :sneaky:

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:40 pm

jimbo;443544 wrote: how about if some one raped your child would you want to kill them

who would not

how about if some one murdered a member of your family would you want to kill them

believe me some hate crimes are understandable

They were doing this for kicks after getting drunk.

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:42 pm

Nomad;443615 wrote: That was dirty right ? Right ? :sneaky:

:yh_clap :yh_clap :yh_clap

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:48 pm

Nomad;443537 wrote: The benefit of labeling dragging a black man down a dirt road behind your truck a hate crime is that increases the chances of a stiffer sentence. I think we all want that dont we ?
No, I don't. I don't want anyone sending the signal that attacking/torturing/raping one person is not as serious as doing the same to another. Don't you see? If you say one is worse, you are also saying the other is not as bad.

All such crimes deserve stiff sentences!

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 5:07 pm

Nomad;443537 wrote: The benefit of labeling dragging a black man down a dirt road behind your truck a hate crime is that increases the chances of a stiffer sentence. I think we all want that dont we ?

so should the sentence be lighter if the person dragged to his death was white?

it follows, from that logic.

harming another person should be crime enough. justice should be as blind to the particulars of who was harmed as to who committed the harm. it is the harm itself that is deserving of punishment.

Justice consists in doing no injury;

Decency in giving no offense.

-Marcus Tullius Cicero

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:03 am

Accountable, that's exactly what I meant! One person should be no more important or less important than another.

I object to the hate crime thing because to me, it's punishing someone for hating another and not only is that not always the instance that provoked the crime, but it's telling someone what they should think or believe. And if we start there, then where do we stop? Ideally, there would be no hatred of anyone because of their race or culture, or gender, religion, sexual concerns, etc; but of course that's not the reality and prosecuting these crimes under the hate label will not stop the hate. It's false. Hollow. (In my opinion.)

Jimbo, I didn't mean to touch a sore nerve with you. I'm sorry. And I agree with you- if someone did that to my child or truthfully, any child or person of any age, I would want that cretin to die a slow agonizing death. I admit this.

But you made me think... if a victim of a "hate crime" sought revenge and say, killed the perp, would they then be accused of committing a hate crime too?!

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:24 am

RedGlitter;443862 wrote: Accountable, that's exactly what I meant! One person should be no more important or less important than another.

I object to the hate crime thing because to me, it's punishing someone for hating another and not only is that not always the instance that provoked the crime, but it's telling someone what they should think or believe. And if we start there, then where do we stop? Ideally, there would be no hatred of anyone because of their race or culture, or gender, religion, sexual concerns, etc; but of course that's not the reality and prosecuting these crimes under the hate label will not stop the hate. It's false. Hollow. (In my opinion.)

Jimbo, I didn't mean to touch a sore nerve with you. I'm sorry. And I agree with you- if someone did that to my child or truthfully, any child or person of any age, I would want that cretin to die a slow agonizing death. I admit this.

But you made me think... if a victim of a "hate crime" sought revenge and say, killed the perp, would they then be accused of committing a hate crime too?!

thats my point red i hate these people and that would make me worse than say someone that was say having a row in a kitchen and say it was really heated and the lady plunged a knife into an abusing husbands chest

if i had the chance without a second thought i would slot the people that i hate for my own reasons that you know about

the only reason i would hold back is for the families of these people for every raping murdering peace of scum out there , there is a mother a daughter a son that loves them and i would not like the innocents to suffer as we have

the down side is if that person rapes or murders again .. then that would be really unbearable

Spinner · Post by **Spinner** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:41 pm

jimbo;443871 wrote: thats my point red i hate these people and that would make me worse than say someone that was say having a row in a kitchen and say it was really heated and the lady plunged a knife into an abusing husbands chest

if i had the chance without a second thought i would slot the people that i hate for my own reasons that you know about

the only reason i would hold back is for the families of these people for every raping murdering peace of scum out there , there is a mother a daughter a son that loves them and i would not like the innocents to suffer as we have

the down side is if that person rapes or murders again .. then that would be really unbearable

When I was 13, my father died in a plane crash. He was a pilot for a corporation here in Houston. He was getting things in order to divorce my step-mother as she was just like the evil step-mother from Cinderella. Anyway, she was also a nurse and without going into the entire long story...I'll just say that there is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that she murdered him by putting arsenic in his coffee over a period of several weeks....but this was 1967 and they didn't have the technology like they do now, and I don't have the $$ to have him brought up for examination. I believe that God will take care of the situation in His own way.

Then when I was 19, my younger brother, who was 17, was killed in a single auto wreck, which turned out to be a contract killing by 2 guys that we knew. They were over heard discussing the incident weeks after the funeral. The girl that over heard them was afraid to tell because she feared for her life.

So...2 family members were murdered...and the killers seemingly have gotten away with it. I thought of all kinds of vengeful ways to even the score but I prayed about it..because it was eating me alive, and it wasn't bothering them. I have full confidence that things will right themselves. You cannot do harm to others and not have it come back to you.

I think you have the right to your opinion, that we don't have to like everyone and that we have the right to be who we are but...My rights end where your rights start..so to speak.

Do whatever you want as long as you do not harm another's person or property. And if you do, take responsibility.

Spinner

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:02 pm

Good grief, Spinner. I don't even know what I could possibly say to that. Except that I'm very sorry for those terrible things.