Expanding Hate Crime protection

[Upchurch]

White House opposes hate crime bill (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070503/ap_on_go_co/hate_crimes_2)

I'll plead some ignorance on this. Why is this a bad thing?

[steverino]

dupe

[steverino]

My take on your link is that, say a man says "F you" to another man and shoots him, it is a crime prosecuted by local law enforcement. If this hate crime bill is passed, and, say a man says "F you fag" to another man and shoots him, it could become a federal offense, with more layers of bureaucracy, legal ambiguities, and increased costs to taxpayers. And the locals would lose traction trying to prosecute the murderer.

My girlfriend works with a guy, a physically small chef, who was beaten real badly for being femanine. (His wallet was left alone.) I think that would be a hate crime and I see justification for specific hate-crime punishment as a deterrent, and a way of recognizing groups that are singled out and picked on.

[Upchurch]

And why is that a bad thing?

[rikzilla]

If a person is physically attacked is that not already a crime which may be punished? Why do we need laws crafted to peer inside the head of the attacker? If a homophobe shot you because you're gay, aren't you then just as dead as you would be if a complete psychotic like Mr. Cho killed you simply because you were there?? What profit does society get from a law that seeks to judge the innermost motives of a criminal?

-z

[hgc]

I'm of 2 minds. I don't like "hate crimes" laws in general, since they consititute thought policing. But if we have a "hate crime" law that excludes a major target group for bias-motivated assaults, then that ought to be corrected. On the other hand, this bill also includes increased penalties. That's going in the wrong direction for sure.

[steverino]

The other side of the coin on hate crime is "A murder is a murder is a murder." Law enforcement should treat it all the same, regardless of whether a black kills another black, a white, a women, or whether a white kills another white, a black, a woman, a gay, etc. Parsing out victim groups for different catagories of punishment is not what some conservatives believe in. Maybe an officer here would know best.

I guess the libertarians have a problem with hate crimes because, say that if, for instance, a skinhead sprays a swastika on a Jewish temple, and a Jew witnesses this, and drives over the skinhead, the Jew would be charged with a "crime/crime" plus a "hate crime" also. And if a black beats up a white while screaming, "Die cracker!" there is still to this day ambiguity on whether this constitutes a hate crime.

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

According to the link, the Feds can only get involved if the victim is engaged in a federally protected activity (such as enrolling in a school or registering to vote) or if he is attacked across state lines. In addition, the authorities need the express permission of the Attorney General. So even if the law passes, the current administration can circumvent it.

A law is needed just to counter the possibility of local courts giving the attackers a free pass, just as civil rights legislation was needed in the sixties, and is still needed today if only as a deterrent. But I'm not sure if this law is strong enough.

[ponderingturtle]

The other side of the coin on hate crime is "A murder is a murder is a murder." Law enforcement should treat it all the same, regardless of whether a black kills another black, a white, a women, or whether a white kills another white, a black, a woman, a gay, etc. Parsing out victim groups for different catagories of punishment is not what some conservatives believe in. Maybe an officer here would know best.


This would be concidered by many an agruement that manslaughter should not be a specific crime. That murder is murder is murder, so no 1st degree murder or manslaughter

[hgc]

This would be concidered by many an agruement that manslaughter should not be a specific crime. That murder is murder is murder, so no 1st degree murder or manslaughter


No. Manslaughter is not a classification of murder. Murder and manslaughter (in all their degrees) are both classifications of homicide, as can be self-defense and accident.

So when someone says "murder is murder is murder," it doesn't mean also manslaughter.

[rikzilla]

According to the link, the Feds can only get involved if the victim is engaged in a federally protected activity (such as enrolling in a school or registering to vote) or if he is attacked across state lines. In addition, the authorities need the express permission of the Attorney General. So even if the law passes, the current administration can circumvent it.

A law is needed just to counter the possibility of local courts giving the attackers a free pass, just as civil rights legislation was needed in the sixties, and is still needed today if only as a deterrent. But I'm not sure if this law is strong enough.

This makes very good sense. I hadn't thought of that. So, yes, in some instances I can see such a law might be needed. However, I can't really think of a locality in the USA of today that would fail to prosecute the murderer of a gay, or black, or jew, or what-have-you....

-z

[corplinx]

When the GOP is in charge, we get their woo bills. Flag burning amendments, etc.

When the dems are in charge we get mindless nonsense likes hate crimes legislation and federal (when states have finally started taking more control of the local) minimum wage.

Woo knows no party lines.

[ponderingturtle]

No. Manslaughter is not a classification of murder. Murder and manslaughter (in all their degrees) are both classifications of homicide, as can be self-defense and accident.

So when someone says "murder is murder is murder," it doesn't mean also manslaughter.

But it is all about motivation and intent. It is getting into peoples heads and crimalizing certian thoughts, or rather criminalizing certain classes of thought that lead to criminal action, by punishing them more heavily than others.

You can't avoid getting into peoples heads and criminalizing thought if you support differences between murder and manslaughter. Hell self defense is all about what that person thought and so gets into their head as well.

[Upchurch]

If a homophobe shot you because you're gay, aren't you then just as dead as you would be if a complete psychotic like Mr. Cho killed you simply because you were there??
I think I agree that it makes very little difference in the extreme cases, but what about in a less severe situation like "just" assault?

[pipelineaudio]

hate crimes legislation is scary, thought police, 1984, religious nonsense

[corplinx]

To expand on what I said early, this is a division bill. The GOP puts out bills like Flag Burning Amendments so they can accuse the dems of supporting flag burning and thereby reinforcing the image of them being unpatriotic.

The Dems propose hate crimes legislation because to vote it against it lets them cast their opponents as protecting racists.

1 cup smoke, 1 cup mirrors = 1 gullible electorate

[Upchurch]

Woo knows no party lines.
It's a tricky thing to distinguish between woo and non-woo when it comes to subjective things like politics. How are you using the term here?

[ponderingturtle]

This makes very good sense. I hadn't thought of that. So, yes, in some instances I can see such a law might be needed. However, I can't really think of a locality in the USA of today that would fail to prosecute the murderer of a gay, or black, or jew, or what-have-you....

-z

Well I saw an episode of a show on A&E(I don't remember if it was American justice or city confidential, I think the latter).

The crime was that this cowboy was getting stoned with a gay man. After the gay man left he drove his car called him over and shot him in the face. The victim died.

The prosecution did not feel that with a drug using homosexual as the victim they could risk a murder trial, so a plea bargain for manslaughter took place. Then Judge Young(decedent of Brigham Young) decided to reduce the crime from first to third degree manslaughter effectively reducing the penalty from 25 years in prison to 6.

But I guess as that was not this year we can safely look at that as something from a long time ago (the 1990's I think). Such a thing can not happen today right?

[frank462]

To expand on what I said early, this is a division bill. The GOP puts out bills like Flag Burning Amendments so they can accuse the dems of supporting flag burning and thereby reinforcing the image of them being unpatriotic.

The Dems propose hate crimes legislation because to vote it against it lets them cast their opponents as protecting racists.

1 cup smoke, 1 cup mirrors = 1 gullible electorate

I totally agree. Both parties always try playing these games.
But there is something else involved. It's call "Equal Protection Under the Law." If a crime is committed upon your person, should it matter if you are male or female, straight or gay, theist or atheist, black or white or yellow or purple? No it should not. The police response should be the same for all.

[rikzilla]

I think I agree that it makes very little difference in the extreme cases, but what about in a less severe situation like "just" assault?

Easy, prosecute the assault. Assault is illegal everywhere. (absent the historical racism of the deep south) I agree that if this was 1964 Alabama there would be a very real problem of jury nullification...but honestly I can't see any area of the nation that would fail to prosecute an assault just because they don't identify with the victim, or were somehow in favor of the assault.

I suppose it could happen...but we don't tend to craft federal law because some scenario may arise. Usually these kinds of laws are spurred by actual events showing the need for them. (or to make political hay)

To me this seems like political hay-making....

-z

[rikzilla]

But I guess as that was not this year we can safely look at that as something from a long time ago (the 1990's I think). Such a thing can not happen today right?

Hmmm...interesting. Do you have any more specific info like a link or something? It sure looks problematic based on what you posted, but it is usually just such a miscarriage of justice that would spur the creation of a fed hate crime bill. Was this recent bill spurred by such an event or is it political in nature??

Also, what became of this case? Seems to me there should have been some backlash of opinion (at least) against this judge.

-z

[ponderingturtle]

Hmmm...interesting. Do you have any more specific info like a link or something? It sure looks problematic based on what you posted, but it is usually just such a miscarriage of justice that would spur the creation of a fed hate crime bill. Was this recent bill spurred by such an event or is it political in nature??

Also, what became of this case? Seems to me there should have been some backlash of opinion (at least) against this judge.

-z

I am having a failure of my google foo.

[Cleon]

The other side of the coin on hate crime is "A murder is a murder is a murder." Law enforcement should treat it all the same, regardless of whether a black kills another black, a white, a women, or whether a white kills another white, a black, a woman, a gay, etc. Parsing out victim groups for different catagories of punishment is not what some conservatives believe in. Maybe an officer here would know best.

I guess the libertarians have a problem with hate crimes because, say that if, for instance, a skinhead sprays a swastika on a Jewish temple, and a Jew witnesses this, and drives over the skinhead, the Jew would be charged with a "crime/crime" plus a "hate crime" also. And if a black beats up a white while screaming, "Die cracker!" there is still to this day ambiguity on whether this constitutes a hate crime.

It's for reasons like this that I think "hate crime" legislation is generally a bad idea. It opens too many cans of worms about what a "hate crime" is and what it isn't.

Not to mention that it opens up the possibility of major problems regarding free speech, free association, and the "innocent until proven guilty" basis of our justice system.

For example: Billy Bob McCracker has been unemployed for a while, and needs money. In desperation, he corners someone in a back alley; Billy beats him up and steals his wallet. Well, it turns out that the victim had just come out of the Blue Oyster Bar next door, and Billy is a devout worshiper at a very conservative church, where the preacher often rails against homosexuals and blames them for much of society's ills. When he's caught, the prosecutors charge him with a hate crime as well as the mugging.

During trial, the prosecutors make a big deal out of his church membership, and the proximity of the Blue Oyster. Hey, that's convincing--it's just as damning as if Billy were white and a member (or even former member) of the KKK. The evidence that he committed the mugging is inescapable (he did), but now Billy is in the position where he has to prove himself innocent of the hate crime charge. There's no way to prove that he didn't know the guy was gay, and even if he did, there's no way to prove that his motivation was for the money, not to beat up a homosexual.

All of a sudden, what was a misdemeanor assault & battery is now a felony "hate crime," and the main evidence against Billy is his church membership. A sentence which would have probably been probation and community service is now several years in prison, and the main reason for it is the church that Billy goes to.


You can argue the merits of that hypothetical back and forth, but I don't think anyone would claim that it's massively unrealistic.

My point is that at best, "hate crime" legislation opens the door to a lot of very fuzzy legal areas that are ripe for abuse by overzealous prosecutors. At worst, it sets a precedent where religious beliefs, political ideas, and/or association become evidence of guilt--and I am very uncomfortable with that.

[Upchurch]

But there is something else involved. It's call "Equal Protection Under the Law." If a crime is committed upon your person, should it matter if you are male or female, straight or gay, theist or atheist, black or white or yellow or purple? No it should not. The police response should be the same for all.
I disagree that Equal Protection is involved in these situations. I'm straight, but I march annually in the local gay pride parade. If I were attacked/killed/whatever because I was perceived as being gay, it is my understanding that that would be considered a hate crime should those laws be in place and applicable to that situation. My being straight or gay is not at issue. My attacker's perception of me being gay and attacking me because of it is what is at issue.

[ponderingturtle]

You can argue the merits of that hypothetical back and forth, but I don't think anyone would claim that it's massively unrealistic.

My point is that at best, "hate crime" legislation opens the door to a lot of very fuzzy legal areas that are ripe for abuse by overzealous prosecutors. At worst, it sets a precedent where religious beliefs, political ideas, and/or association become evidence of guilt--and I am very uncomfortable with that.

This is based on an assumed failure of the jury system though. That is always possible, if for example the victim is more likeable or less likeable it will effect the jury result, now how do you ballance victim likeability?

Basicly a prostitute and a sunday school teacher are going to get different results as victims as well.

[frank462]

It's for reasons like this that I think "hate crime" legislation is generally a bad idea. It opens too many cans of worms about what a "hate crime" is and what it isn't.

Not to mention that it opens up the possibility of major problems regarding free speech, free association, and the "innocent until proven guilty" basis of our justice system.

For example: Billy Bob McCracker has been unemployed for a while, and needs money. In desperation, he corners someone in a back alley; Billy beats him up and steals his wallet. Well, it turns out that the victim had just come out of the Blue Oyster Bar next door, and Billy is a devout worshiper at a very conservative church, where the preacher often rails against homosexuals and blames them for much of society's ills. When he's caught, the prosecutors charge him with a hate crime as well as the mugging.

During trial, the prosecutors make a big deal out of his church membership, and the proximity of the Blue Oyster. Hey, that's convincing--it's just as damning as if Billy were white and a member (or even former member) of the KKK. The evidence that he committed the mugging is inescapable (he did), but now Billy is in the position where he has to prove himself innocent of the hate crime charge. There's no way to prove that he didn't know the guy was gay, and even if he did, there's no way to prove that his motivation was for the money, not to beat up a homosexual.

All of a sudden, what was a misdemeanor assault & battery is now a felony "hate crime," and the main evidence against Billy is his church membership. A sentence which would have probably been probation and community service is now several years in prison, and the main reason for it is the church that Billy goes to.


You can argue the merits of that hypothetical back and forth, but I don't think anyone would claim that it's massively unrealistic.

My point is that at best, "hate crime" legislation opens the door to a lot of very fuzzy legal areas that are ripe for abuse by overzealous prosecutors. At worst, it sets a precedent where religious beliefs, political ideas, and/or association become evidence of guilt--and I am very uncomfortable with that.


As difficult as this is for me to say, I agree with Cleon on this. :jaw-dropp :D
Think Mike Nifong and the Duke rape case.

[ponderingturtle]

As difficult as this is for me to say, I agree with Cleon on this. :jaw-dropp :D
Think Mike Nifong and the Duke rape case.

That was not a hate crime issue though. These sorts of problems are endemic to the legal system to start with.

For example in Cleon's case, what about the jury having a large number of people from the same mega church as the mugger? Then he gets a not guilty because they do not feel like convicting someone for attacking a homosexual, he deserved it anyway.

[Cleon]

This is based on an assumed failure of the jury system though.

Not at all. It's based on the difficulty--more the like the impossibility--of adequately proving motivation. "Reasonable doubt" becomes a very, very fuzzy area in a situation like that.

If I were on the jury, given the evidence I would certainly be convinced of his motivation. The guy is a member of a gay-hating church, and he beat up a homosexual outside a gay nightclub. Billy would have to show that it's a coincidence--again, which indicates that the onus would be on him to prove his innocence of the "hate crime."

[corplinx]

My attacker's perception of me being gay and attacking me because of it is what is at issue.

Assault is already a crime, regardless of the attacker's motivation. Why is motivation an issue other than to criminalize the motivation?

What do we call criminalizing the motivation?

[Cleon]

For example in Cleon's case, what about the jury having a large number of people from the same mega church as the mugger? Then he gets a not guilty because they do not feel like convicting someone for attacking a homosexual, he deserved it anyway.

Certainly nothing like that has ever happened in the South. ;)

But I fail to see what it has to do with "hate crime" legislation--if the above is going to happen, it's going to happen whether such legislation is on the books or not.

[ponderingturtle]

Not at all. It's based on the difficulty--more the like the impossibility--of adequately proving motivation. "Reasonable doubt" becomes a very, very fuzzy area in a situation like that.

If I were on the jury, given the evidence I would certainly be convinced of his motivation. The guy is a member of a gay-hating church, and he beat up a homosexual outside a gay nightclub. Billy would have to show that it's a coincidence--again, which indicates that the onus would be on him to prove his innocence of the "hate crime."

And how does this issue of motivation, one that differentiates an accident from a murder, become so limited to hate crime laws?

[ponderingturtle]

Certainly nothing like that has ever happened in the South. ;)

But I fail to see what it has to do with "hate crime" legislation--if the above is going to happen, it's going to happen whether such legislation is on the books or not.

Well it can provide a way to change courts it is tried in. If it is now a federal crime that means it is not in the local court, at least that is what I thought.

[frank462]

That was not a hate crime issue though. These sorts of problems are endemic to the legal system to start with.

For example in Cleon's case, what about the jury having a large number of people from the same mega church as the mugger? Then he gets a not guilty because they do not feel like convicting someone for attacking a homosexual, he deserved it anyway.

For that to happen he would have had a terrible defense attorney.
A competent attorney would ask for a change of venue.

Yes, the legal system is not perfect but adding "hate crime" status is not an improvement.

[Upchurch]

Assault is already a crime, regardless of the attacker's motivation. Why is motivation an issue other than to criminalize the motivation?

What do we call criminalizing the motivation?
No, I'm just saying that equal protection under the law doesn't come into it.

[ponderingturtle]

For that to happen he would have had a terrible defense attorney.
A competent attorney would ask for a change of venue.

Yes, the legal system is not perfect but adding "hate crime" status is not an improvement.

Um why the defense attorney would want him tried in his comunity. And with judges such as ones in NY who make statements like "Women need a good beating now and then" why would you expect it to happen?

[Cleon]

And how does this issue of motivation, one that differentiates an accident from a murder, become so limited to hate crime laws?

The differentiation between "accident" and "murder" can usually be proved beyond a reasonable doubt using physical evidence, witnesses, and so on. For example, the Georgia woman who was convicted a couple months ago of poisoning her husband--you don't "accidentally" slip arsenic into someone's coffee. Or to take a more high-profile case, the DC snipers didn't accidentally cut a hole in their car and drive around shooting people. "Intent" and "motivation" are often two different things.

The difference here, for example in Billy's case, is that the motivation behind the attack is solely in Billy's head.

[frank462]

Um why the defense attorney would want him tried in his comunity. And with judges such as ones in NY who make statements like "Women need a good beating now and then" why would you expect it to happen?


If you have bad judges, then remove the bad judges.

[ponderingturtle]

The differentiation between "accident" and "murder" can usually be proved beyond a reasonable doubt using physical evidence, witnesses, and so on. For example, the Georgia woman who was convicted a couple months ago of poisoning her husband--you don't "accidentally" slip arsenic into someone's coffee. Or to take a more high-profile case, the DC snipers didn't accidentally cut a hole in their car and drive around shooting people. "Intent" and "motivation" are often two different things.

The difference here, for example in Billy's case, is that the motivation behind the attack is solely in Billy's head.

So say you shoot a friend in the face, you are having an arugment with him at the time. Did you just misshandle the weapon at the time, or did you momentarily loose your temper and shoot him?

And why do you think that motivation does not effect actions at all, and leave real evidence about why you are comitting the crime?

[ponderingturtle]

If you have bad judges, then remove the bad judges.

Incumbent judges like the Judge Young I mentioned earlier are incredibly hard to get voted out of office.

[mijopaalmc]

I think that problem here is that the most compelling argument for hate crimes legislation is also the most hypothetical: that perpetrator of "hate crimes" so designated is perpetrating a crime not only against the victim but also against the entire class of people that the victims represents to the perpetrator. The most obvious example (but unfortunately also the most hyperbolic) is that of the Nazis; when they killed a Jew, they were not just expressing their desire to kill that specific Jew, but all Jews everywhere. The same is arguably true of lynchings and other racially motivated crimes in the American South from the 1870's to the 1970's; it wasn't just motivated at keeping the one black in line but at keeping all blacks in their place. Now, I realize that it is easy, given the separation that history has provided us, to say that such things will never happen again, but there are still cases (e.g., Matthew Sheppard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard) and James Byrd, Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard)) where the victim was killed solely and explicitly because of his membership in a class.

[Cleon]

So say you shoot a friend in the face, you are having an arugment with him at the time. Did you just misshandle the weapon at the time, or did you momentarily loose your temper and shoot him?

Stuff like that happens. The result is usually a lesser charge.

But I fail to see what this has to do with hate crime legislation.


And why do you think that motivation does not effect actions at all, and leave real evidence about why you are comitting the crime?

I never said any such thing. Kindly don't put words in my mouth.

[toddjh]

You can't avoid getting into peoples heads and criminalizing thought if you support differences between murder and manslaughter. Hell self defense is all about what that person thought and so gets into their head as well.

It's the difference between intent and motive. I think we can all agree that accidentally killing someone with your car, even if it's your fault, is less heinous than stalking someone for weeks and then stabbing him seven times.

Given that, we have no choice but to peek inside the defendant's head. However, what's relevant in making that determination is what they wanted to do, not why they wanted to do it.

[Cleon]

Now, I realize that it is easy, given the separation that history has provided us, to say that such things will never happen again, but there are still cases (e.g., Matthew Sheppard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard) and James Byrd, Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard)) where the victim was killed solely and explicitly because of his membership in a class.

Certainly. I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise.

The question is twofold:

1. Is the cure worse than the disease? As I said above, at the very least it opens up some very troubling legal issues.

2. Is the "cure" a cure at all, or a placebo? "Hate crime" legislation looks good from an opportunistic point of view (legislation = votes), and it sounds like you're Doing Something to Stop the Problem, but I'm not convinced it actually has any substantial effect on deterring future hate crimes.

[BPSCG]

It's for reasons like this that I think "hate crime" legislation is generally a bad idea. It opens too many cans of worms about what a "hate crime" is and what it isn't.

Not to mention that it opens up the possibility of major problems regarding free speech, free association, and the "innocent until proven guilty" basis of our justice system.

For example: Billy Bob McCracker has been unemployed for a while, and needs money. In desperation, he corners someone in a back alley; Billy beats him up and steals his wallet. Well, it turns out that the victim had just come out of the Blue Oyster Bar next door, and Billy is a devout worshiper at a very conservative church, where the preacher often rails against homosexuals and blames them for much of society's ills. When he's caught, the prosecutors charge him with a hate crime as well as the mugging.

During trial, the prosecutors make a big deal out of his church membership, and the proximity of the Blue Oyster. Hey, that's convincing--it's just as damning as if Billy were white and a member (or even former member) of the KKK. The evidence that he committed the mugging is inescapable (he did), but now Billy is in the position where he has to prove himself innocent of the hate crime charge. There's no way to prove that he didn't know the guy was gay, and even if he did, there's no way to prove that his motivation was for the money, not to beat up a homosexual.

All of a sudden, what was a misdemeanor assault & battery is now a felony "hate crime," and the main evidence against Billy is his church membership. A sentence which would have probably been probation and community service is now several years in prison, and the main reason for it is the church that Billy goes to.


You can argue the merits of that hypothetical back and forth, but I don't think anyone would claim that it's massively unrealistic.

My point is that at best, "hate crime" legislation opens the door to a lot of very fuzzy legal areas that are ripe for abuse by overzealous prosecutors. At worst, it sets a precedent where religious beliefs, political ideas, and/or association become evidence of guilt--and I am very uncomfortable with that.:clap:

(Too bad Cleon has me on ignore...)

[ponderingturtle]

It's the difference between intent and motive. I think we can all agree that accidentally killing someone with your car, even if it's your fault, is less heinous than stalking someone for weeks and then stabbing him seven times.

Given that, we have no choice but to peek inside the defendant's head. However, what's relevant in making that determination is what they wanted to do, not why they wanted to do it.

But the point is that you are criminalizing thought. I don't see a fundamental difference

[frank462]

Incumbent judges like the Judge Young I mentioned earlier are incredibly hard to get voted out of office.

Oh, I see. Because it's hard, we won't even try. Good thinking. :boggled:

[ponderingturtle]

Oh, I see. Because it's hard, we won't even try. Good thinking. :boggled:

That is a rational you agreed with earlier. Because it is hard to hate crime laws to be enforced well we should not try.

Why is difficulty a failing in one case but not the other?

[frank462]

That is a rational you agreed with earlier. Because it is hard to hate crime laws to be enforced well we should not try.

Why is difficulty a failing in one case but not the other?

I said a number of things in opposition to "hate crimes" laws. I never said I opposed them because they were hard to enforce.

[rikzilla]

:clap:

(Too bad Cleon has me on ignore...)


Well he should see it now! ;)

-z

[Cleon]

Well he should see it now! ;)

-z

...And now I need a shower. :boggled:

[mijopaalmc]

This topic has already been addressed at length in the Is assaulting an atheist a Hate Crime? Not in Canada (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80057) thread. I'm not saying that I cannot be discussed here (not in the least because I'm not a moderator). I nonetheless think that it would do us some good to read what has already been written because a lot of the points have been covered there, especially the definitions of intent and motive (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2550658), at least one of which is crucial to differentiating between crimes.

[jimlintott]

At the miserable S.O.B. meeting last night it was mentioned that in today's PC climate if you are going to beat up any (insert hated minority here) you should remember to take their wallet. Any half decent lawyer will be able to argue that robbery was your motive and cast enough doubt on it being a hate crime to get you off.

Those S.O.B.s are miserable.

[BPSCG]

...And now I need a shower. :boggled:Heehee... my work here is done. :yahoo

[toddjh]

But the point is that you are criminalizing thought. I don't see a fundamental difference

I wouldn't say that you're criminalizing thought, but rather that you're using evidence of a person's mental state to determine what class of crime was committed.

Like I said, though, I don't think this logic should apply to hate crimes, because that's about the "why," not the "what." I don't think the law should ever be concerned with the "why" outside of establishing motive and confirming competency.

[drkitten]

For example: Billy Bob McCracker has been unemployed for a while, and needs money. In desperation, he corners someone in a back alley; Billy beats him up and steals his wallet. Well, it turns out that the victim had just come out of the Blue Oyster Bar next door, and Billy is a devout worshiper at a very conservative church, where the preacher often rails against homosexuals and blames them for much of society's ills. When he's caught, the prosecutors charge him with a hate crime as well as the mugging.

During trial, the prosecutors make a big deal out of his church membership, and the proximity of the Blue Oyster. Hey, that's convincing--it's just as damning as if Billy were white and a member (or even former member) of the KKK. The evidence that he committed the mugging is inescapable (he did), but now Billy is in the position where he has to prove himself innocent of the hate crime charge. There's no way to prove that he didn't know the guy was gay, and even if he did, there's no way to prove that his motivation was for the money, not to beat up a homosexual.

Sure there is. By your own admission, Billy Bob has been unemployed by a while and needs money. His employment history and the impending foreclosure of his house are both matters of public record and admissible as evidence. So are all the character witnesses that come out of the woodwork about how desperate he's been for money, and about how he's not an expecially anti-homosexual person.

Billy Bob doesn't need to "prove himself innocent," as you so charmingly put it. The state still needs to prove the element of intent -- which they can try to do by pointing at his church membership.. But it ultimately comes down to whether or not the jury finds the prosecution's case proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." If Billy Bob isn't credible enough to establish "reasonable doubt" about his motivations for the crime, then, yes, he should be convicted of the hate crime. That's the way the system works.

But Billy Bob doesn't get a free pass simply by saying that "I didn't know he was a homosexual," any more than he gets a free pass by saying "I didn't know the gun was loaded."

[Cleon]

If Billy Bob isn't credible enough to establish "reasonable doubt" about his motivations for the crime, then, yes, he should be convicted of the hate crime. That's the way the system works.

Which is a nicer way of saying "sure, he has to prove himself innocent, but he deserves it."


But Billy Bob doesn't get a free pass simply by saying that "I didn't know he was a homosexual,"

...And something is very, very wrong with this.

[Gurdur]

Establishing a hate crime charge commonly means establishing more evidence as to that than just the original charge (say of assault).

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and it requires proof additional to that of the basic charge.

[Gurdur]

Which is a nicer way of saying "sure, he has to prove himself innocent, but he deserves it."
With all respect, drkitten is wrong about that, and therefore your own charge is wrong. See my above post.

[drkitten]

Which is a nicer way of saying "sure, he has to prove himself innocent, but he deserves it."

...And something is very, very wrong with this.

No, it's not ("a nicer way of saying ....").

Why should the court be expected to take Billy Bob's unsupported word on why he committed a crime? Why should the court be expected to take Billy Bob's unsupported word on any matter whatsoever?

In case you weren't aware of it, defendants sometimes lie.

So do prosecutors, of course. That's why it's important that any statement made be backed up with evidence.

Basically, what the prosecution says, in your situation, is something like "Billy Bob mugged that person out of homophobia. You can see the clear evidence of hishomophobia in this transcript of a sermon delivered by the pastor of Billy Bob's church."

That's evidence.

Are you convinced? Yes? No? If you don't find that convincing, then -- assuming that you're a good representative of the jury -- the jury will acquit. But if you do find that convincing, then the jury will probably convict unless Billy Bob has a story that's equally credible.

Now, if Billy Bob stands up and says "No, I wasn't motivated by homophobia" and sits down, that won't be at all convincing -- nor should it.

[Cleon]

No, it's not ("a nicer way of saying ....").

Why should the court be expected to take Billy Bob's unsupported word on why he committed a crime? Why should the court be expected to take Billy Bob's unsupported word on any matter whatsoever?

In case you weren't aware of it, defendants sometimes lie.

Again, you put the onus on Billy. Which is my point.


So do prosecutors, of course. That's why it's important that any statement made be backed up with evidence.

Basically, what the prosecution says, in your situation, is something like "Billy Bob mugged that person out of homophobia. You can see the clear evidence of hishomophobia in this transcript of a sermon delivered by the pastor of Billy Bob's church."

That's evidence.

Are you convinced? Yes? No? If you don't find that convincing, then -- assuming that you're a good representative of the jury -- the jury will acquit. But if you do find that convincing, then the jury will probably convict unless Billy Bob has a story that's equally credible.

Now, if Billy Bob stands up and says "No, I wasn't motivated by homophobia" and sits down, that won't be at all convincing -- nor should it.

Which again goes back to my point about how religious beliefs, association, political ideas, and so forth become evidence of guilt. Which is a very chilling concept for those particular freedoms.

drkitten, you're not actually rebutting anything I said--you're just saying "yeah, but it's acceptable." And I do not agree.

[Gurdur]

Which again goes back to my point about how religious beliefs, association, political ideas, and so forth become evidence of guilt. Which is a very chilling concept for those particular freedoms.
False extension, and mere rhetoric.

You are perfectly at liberty to think that all blacks or whites should be murdered.

But if you commit an act of murder, and it can be shown that you acted out of your belief that all such class should be murdered, that adds an extra layer to the legal and justice side.

A perfect parallel is that you are perfectly free to think Mr. Green should be brutally murdered, merely because you dislike the way he does his house up.

But if you actually murder Mr.Green, the court is very responsible in taking your motivation into account, for example in establishing premeditation, or in establishing severity of sentencing.

[Cleon]

False extension, and mere rhetoric.

This is the only part of your post that addresses my assertion, and it's rather empty.

Do you not think that someone's religious beliefs or associations would be used as evidence against them?

In the hypothetical case I outlined, which so far nobody has challenged as unreasonable or unrealistic, Billy stands a very real chance of being convicted of a felony--based on nothing more than his religious affiliation and beliefs. I find that to be just as objectionable as I find those particular religious beliefs.


You are perfectly at liberty to think that all blacks or whites should be murdered.

But if you commit an act of murder, and it can be shown that you acted out of your belief that all such class should be murdered, that adds an extra layer to the legal and justice side.

A perfect parallel is that you are perfectly free to think Mr. Green should be brutally murdered, merely because you dislike the way he does his house up.

But if you actually murder Mr.Green, the court is very responsible in taking your motivation into account, for example in establishing premeditation, or in establishing severity of sentencing.

Yes, I understand the reasoning behind "hate crimes" legislation. Oddly, though, I still disagree with it.

[BPSCG]

I love this. Hard right-winger BPSCG agrees so completely with what hard left-winger Cleon is posting on this issue that hard right-winger BPSCG is reduced to simply applauding and and mumbling, "Tell it!"

Makes you wonder how hate speech laws can get passed in this country if people at the extremes like the two of us agree they're dangerous because they criminalize thought. Is anti-hate crime legislation the "moderate" position? Only extremists at both ends see a problem with it? And even stranger, extremists at both ends see the same problem? Curiouser and curiouser.

Cleon has me on ignore. Someone please quote this post so I can infuriate him a little more. Thank you very much. :)

[frank462]

I love this. Hard right-winger BPSCG agrees so completely with what hard left-winger Cleon is posting on this issue that hard right-winger BPSCG is reduced to simply applauding and and mumbling, "Tell it!"

Makes you wonder how hate speech laws can get passed in this country if people at the extremes like the two of us agree they're dangerous because they criminalize thought. Is anti-hate crime legislation the "moderate" position? Only extremists at both ends see a problem with it? And even stranger, extremists at both ends see the same problem? Curiouser and curiouser.

Cleon has me on ignore. Someone please quote this post so I can infuriate him a little more. Thank you very much. :)

Me three!

[mijopaalmc]

I love this. Hard right-winger BPSCG agrees so completely with what hard left-winger Cleon is posting on this issue that hard right-winger BPSCG is reduced to simply applauding and and mumbling, "Tell it!"

Makes you wonder how hate speech laws can get passed in this country if people at the extremes like the two of us agree they're dangerous because they criminalize thought. Is anti-hate crime legislation the "moderate" position? Only extremists at both ends see a problem with it? And even stranger, extremists at both ends see the same problem? Curiouser and curiouser.

Cleon has me on ignore. Someone please quote this post so I can infuriate him a little more. Thank you very much. :)

Per your request

[Cleon]

I took BPSCG off ignore yesterday. So y'all conservos can stop quoting him, k? I get it. He agrees with me.


Which is a wee bit depressing, but even a stopped clock and all that. :D

[brodski]

I love this. Hard right-winger BPSCG agrees so completely with what hard left-winger Cleon is posting on this issue that hard right-winger BPSCG is reduced to simply applauding and and mumbling, "Tell it!"

Makes you wonder how hate speech laws can get passed in this country if people at the extremes like the two of us agree they're dangerous because they criminalize thought. Is anti-hate crime legislation the "moderate" position? Only extremists at both ends see a problem with it? And even stranger, extremists at both ends see the same problem? Curiouser and curiouser.

Cleon has me on ignore. Someone please quote this post so I can infuriate him a little more. Thank you very much. :)

Perhaps it is the moderates who don't see the same problems, and who got laws like this passed- in almost all democratic systems the "moderates" are going to outnumber the "extremists". As extremists perhaps you and Cleon have more politics in common than either of you would care to admit. In much the same way that Orwell observed that "all revolutionaries are potential conservatives"...

[Gurdur]

This is the only part of your post that addresses my assertion, and it's rather empty.
No, it's not empty at all.

I directly challenged your hyperbole, and thus said your description of what is actually happening is nonsense. You in essence made the claim thoughts are being criminalized for themselves, I pointed out that is not so.

Can't see why a flat-out refutation gets called "empty". I suspect you didn't read my post carefully.
Do you not think that someone's religious beliefs or associations would be used as evidence against them?
You missed the point, didn't you?

Look, I could say, go back and re-read my post.

Or I could say:
yes, of bloody course any belief at all can be used in evidence if it is legally relevant.
D'oh.
Please re-read my post about establishing responsibility and motivation in a crime.

But that still does not add up to your implicit accusation that thoughts are being criminalized for themselves.

To repeat the obvious: the question of beliefs comes up all the time in trials:

as for when, for example, in establishing if someone accepted stoled goods knowingly, or establishing if a given death was culpable homicide, or justifiable homicide, or premeditated murder, or non-premeditated murder, or 4whether the person was responsible or not.

Gack. This is all such well-known stuff.

Billy fonds a very real chance of being convicted of a felony--based on nothing more than his religious affiliation and beliefs.
Bullocks.
In the real crimes, first a felony is established, then the motivation for it. Very often in sentencing, motivation is taken into account, in all sorts of crimes. Get over it.

Whether or not an additional charge is also brought against the perp because of of the perp's motivation for the original crime is a different matter.
I find that to be just as objectionable as I find those particular religious beliefs.
*shrug*
My point to you is you need to establish a better case; that the usual hyperbole about thoughts being criminalized is simply irrelevant guff.

BTW, BPSCG wants to be quoted to you, but he's basically just agreeing with you. Cheers.
Yes, I understand the reasoning behind "hate crimes" legislation.
With all respect, I don't think you do fully understand, not if you use the same hyperbole as you did.
Oddly, though, I still disagree with it.
*shrug*
And? So what? We all have to live with things we disagree with, and I can't see hate-crime legislation as being some glaring injustice.

It may not be necessary, or it may be. It may not be called for, or iit may be. But you have not established any glaring injustice in its use.

[Upchurch]

I love this. Hard right-winger BPSCG agrees so completely with what hard left-winger Cleon is posting on this issue that hard right-winger BPSCG is reduced to simply applauding and and mumbling, "Tell it!"
All right, that's it! Time to form a new party.

[drkitten]

Again, you put the onus on Billy. Which is my point.

Yes, and it's a misstatement. I do not put the onus on Billy.

The prosecution puts the onus on Billy, by making a credible case. Your carefully constructed scenario assumes that the prosecution has already met its burden of proof, so it's not surprising that the defense should, in fact, have a case to answer.



In the hypothetical case I outlined, which so far nobody has challenged as unreasonable or unrealistic, Billy stands a very real chance of being convicted of a felony--based on nothing more than his religious affiliation and beliefs.

Only if you assume that his religious affiliations and beliefs are in fact "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt."

You can't have it both ways. if you suggest that religious affiliations and beliefs alone aren't convincing evidence of guilt -- then, no, Billy Bob does not "stands a very real chance of being convicted of a felony," since there's not enough evidence to sustain a conviction.

On the other hand, if you think that religious affiliation and belief alone are compelling evidence of guilt, then you admit that the scenario you outline is unlikely enough to the point of being unreasonable.

I guess the short answer, is, yes, I do challenge your scenario as being unreasonable and unrealistic.

The key question -- which you haven't addressed -- is :

How compelling an argument is ""Billy Bob mugged that person out of homophobia. You can see the clear evidence of hishomophobia in this transcript of a sermon delivered by the pastor of Billy Bob's church."

It's evidence -- but is it convincing evidence? Are you convinced of Billy Bob's guilt? No? Then you -- and the rest of the jury -- will vote to acquit.

[BPSCG]

All right, that's it! Time to form a new party.A party that includes Cleon, Upchurch, and BPSCG? Cripes, the party platform probably wouldn't be able to come to a consensus on which way is up or whether we approve of our moms and apple pie (we'd probably agree that God is out, though I'm not sure - someone here called me an "evangelical" the other day... :boggled: )

[Cleon]

Yes, and it's a misstatement. I do not put the onus on Billy.

The prosecution puts the onus on Billy, by making a credible case. Your carefully constructed scenario assumes that the prosecution has already met its burden of proof, so it's not surprising that the defense should, in fact, have a case to answer.

So again, yes, you think Billy should have to prove himself innocent. You're trying to dress it up, but at the end, you think Billy has to prove himself innocent of the "hate crime" charge.

The facts of the matter are that Billy did commit the mugging. That is where it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Where it gets fuzzy is whether he did so because the victim was gay.

How do you prove that? Well, unless he was screaming "death to fags" while he did it, you can't. Telepathy doesn't exist.

So what the prosecution does is introduce Billy's religion as evidence.

Billy has no way of defending himself against the accusation. He can show that he was broke, but what does that prove? So are lots of people. The prosecution can quite easily paint Billy as a gay-hater, probably even accurately. Again, Billy has no way of defending himself against the accusation.

So Billy gets convicted of a "hate crime" because of his religion.

The question is what constitutes "reasonable doubt?" It becomes purely a matter of judgment for the jury. There is no physical evidence, no witnesses (save for Billy himself--of course, he's gay-hating scum, right?), nothing.

The heart of the matter is that you cannot prove such a thing beyond a reasonable doubt. You simply can't. What you can do is introduce his religion. Then the jury has to weigh Billy's word versus the fact that he's a member of a gay-hating sect who beat up a homosexual.

End result: Billy goes to prison for his religion.

[BPSCG]

It's evidence -- but is it convincing evidence? Are you convinced of Billy Bob's guilt? No? Then you -- and the rest of the jury -- will vote to acquit.Even if it is convincing evidence, along with BB's bumper sticker that says "Kill All Fudge Packers" and his sawed-off shotgun with the name "Homo Hunter" lovingly inscribed on the stock, so what?

He killed a gay man. Sentence = 25 years.
He killed a gay man because he hates gays. Sentence = 30 years.

You have just stated that the thought of hating gays is a crime punishable by five years in prison. Many states consider the use of a firearm during a felony to be a crime in itself; if you break into a house with only a crowbar, you might get a year in prison, but if you break into a house with a crowbar and a handgun, you can get another five years. Hate crime legislation treats thoughts like handguns.

I find it interesting that for all the complaints that Bush is turning into Orwell's Big Brother, he is opposed to this legislation.

[Gurdur]

....the facts of the matter are that Billy did commit the mugging. That is where it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Where it gets fuzzy is whether he did so because the victim was gay.
How do you prove that? Well, unless he was screaming "death to fags" while he did it, you can't. Telepathy doesn't exist.
Again, *sigh*, in real life actually the prosecution has to make a good case as to his motivation. They have to establish its validity and relevance beyond all reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
Sorry to interrupt your rhetoric with boring facts that contradict your assertions, but there it is. And I would appreciate an answer to my previous post.

[Cleon]

And I would appreciate an answer to my previous post.

And I would appreciate you toning down the condescension a few notches. When you do, I will happily discuss the issue with you.

[drkitten]

So again, yes, you think Billy should have to prove himself innocent.

Yes. If the prosecution has made a credible case, then the defense has to prove itself. That's the way the system works.

I don't think you understand how criminal prosecutions work, Cleon. Consider the following:

Richard Roe is on trial for murder.

The prosecution points out that Richard Roe had a long-standing feud with the victim. The victim was found dead of a gunshot wound. Searching Richard's house reveals a gun matching the bullets retrieved from the victim's body and a shirt with bloodstains matching the DNA of the victim. Tire tracks matching Richard's car were found in the street outside the victim's house, and Richard's fingerprints were found on the inside doorknob.

Your Honor, the state rests.

At this point, Richard has two choices. In law, he can simply say that "the defense rests," and rely on the presumption of innocence. In practice, he will be convicted if he does that.

Richard will really, at this point, have to prove himself innocent. At this point, he can no longer rely on the "presumption of innocence," because the prosection has made a more or less ironclad case. There's no way that Richard is getting out of this one without a very good story and some very clear evidence to back it up. Simply saying "I didn't do it" will buy him a one-way trip to the pen.

If the prosecution can make its case -- or, in other words, if the prosecution has already apparently proven its case -- then, yes, the defense is required to prove innocence.

(I should also point out that, even as black as the situation looks, Richard can still get out of it. For example, if he can prove via an alibi that he was nowhere near the murder scene, then he can still walk. But he'll need to prove that alibi; simply saying "I wasn't there" won't work.)


You're trying to dress it up, but at the end, you think Billy has to prove himself innocent of the "hate crime" charge.

Only if you assume that the prosection has already met its burden of proof.



The facts of the matter are that Billy did commit the mugging. That is where it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Where it gets fuzzy is whether he did so because the victim was gay.

What's fuzzy about it? If you don't think that he did it because the victim is gay, then he gets acquitted on the hate crime charge.


How do you prove that? Well, unless he was screaming "death to fags" while he did it, you can't. [/QUTOE]

Sure I can. Eyewitnesses, diary entries, a previous history of homophobic violence -- there's lots of reasons.

[QUOTE]
So what the prosecution does is introduce Billy's religion as evidence.

Yes. And apparently, in your mind, not very good evidence. Probably not enough to sustain a conviction.



Billy has no way of defending himself against the accusation.

He doesn't need to. He can, if he likes, simply point out that lots of people belong to that church and they aren't being charged with hate crimes.

Or, alternatively, he can present counter-evidence and a counter-theory of the case that's at least plausible enough to constitute a "reasonable doubt."

He can show that he was broke, but what does that prove?

Doesn't need to "prove" anything. It simply needs to raise "reasonable doubt."


So Billy gets convicted of a "hate crime" because of his religion.

WRONG He gets convicted of a hate crime because the jury believed that he committed a hate crime. Because the prosecution managed to establish -- beyond a "reasonable doubt" -- that Billy committed the crime from homophobic motives.

Because the jury did not believe enough of what Billy said even to let doubt enter their minds.


The question is what constitutes "reasonable doubt?" It becomes purely a matter of judgment for the jury.

As is everything in law. iIf the jury doesn't believe your alibi, you're still convicted.

You don't get to have it both ways. Either his religion, by itself, is clear and convincing evidence of guilt -- in which case it's not only appropriate but more or less mandatory that Billy Bob be convicted, because the evidence supports his conviction -- or else it's not, in which case the prosecution has not managed to establish the "hate crime" and Billy Bob will be acquitted.

Take your pick. But you don't get both.

[drkitten]

He killed a gay man. Sentence = 25 years.
He killed a gay man because he hates gays. Sentence = 30 years.

You have just stated that the thought of hating gays is a crime punishable by five years in prison.

No, I have just stated that acting on the thought of hating gays is a crime punishable by five years in prison.

Think all you like. You can do what you like in the privacy of your own skull.

Hate crime legislation treats thoughts like handguns.

As do laws against first degree murder, burglary, possession with intent to sell, misbranding with intent to defraud ....

You broke into my house. Sentence = 1 year.
You broke into my house intending to steal my stereo. Sentence = 10 years.

Got a problem with that?

Similarly, 21 U.S.C. § 331 makes "the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food, drug, device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded" a crime. "Any person who violates a provision of section 331 of this title shall be imprisoned for not more than one year or fined not more than $1,000, or both."

However, " If any person [...] commits such a violation with the intent to defraud or mislead, such person shall be imprisoned for not more than three years or fined not more than $10,000, or both."

Sell me snake oil. Sentence = 1 year.
Sell me snake oil because you are trying to defraud me. Sentence = 3 years.

Got a problem with that?

[Cleon]

You don't get to have it both ways. Either his religion, by itself, is clear and convincing evidence of guilt -- in which case it's not only appropriate but more or less mandatory that Billy Bob be convicted, because the evidence supports his conviction -- or else it's not, in which case the prosecution has not managed to establish the "hate crime" and Billy Bob will be acquitted.

Take your pick. But you don't get both.

On the contrary--it very much is both. The justice system is not a computer program. (And for the most part, that's a Good Thing.)

From a strictly logical standpoint, no, his membership in a gay-hating church is not in itself evidence that the crime was motivated based on his hatred of gays.

From a human standpoint, yes, it's damning. Just as damning as if he were a KKK member who was on trial for battery/hate crime against a Black man.

In the legal system, both of these apply.

Remember, the fact that he committed the mugging is not in question. The only question is whether he did so because the victim was gay--which is why we get into very fuzzy area. This is not like a "he did it" or "he didn't do it" situation--physical evidence, witnesses, and so on don't really enter into it. This is a "why he did it" situation.

You're quite correct when you point out that it's a case of the prosecution creating a case that's convincing to the jury. However, since the fact is that he did commit the mugging, and he is a member of a gay-hating church, Billy has no way to defend himself against the charge. Entering a "counter-theory" doesn't work--again, his guilt of the mugging is not in question. All he can do is say "I did it because I needed the money, not because I hate gays." Since, as you pointed out earlier, defendants often lie, and since he is actually a mugger, his word doesn't count for squat.

The prosecution is therefore free to paint him as a ranting, raving, gay-hating bigot--again, even accurately, for all we know--and all Billy can do is sit there and pray (literally) that the jury doesn't find it "convincing" enough to convict him of the "hate crime."

[drkitten]

You're quite correct when you point out that it's a case of the prosecution creating a case that's convincing to the jury. However, since the fact is that he did commit the mugging, and he is a member of a gay-hating church, Billy has no way to defend himself against the charge. Entering a "counter-theory" doesn't work--again, his guilt of the mugging is not in question.

I don't see why not.

All he can do is say "I did it because I needed the money, not because I hate gays."

Yes. It would help, of course, if he could actually present evidence that he did need the money.

I don't see why you assume that the jury cannot possibly believe this story.


Since, as you pointed out earlier, defendants often lie, and since he is actually a mugger, his word doesn't count for squat.

No, but the letter from the bank demanding foreclosure does.

[BPSCG]

No, I have just stated that acting on the thought of hating gays is a crime punishable by five years in prison.The act is what's punishable, and there are already statutes on the books for that. A thought is not an act, at least not in the sense that smashing a window is an act.

Think all you like. You can do what you like in the privacy of your own skull.But you're saying that someone should be punished more or less harshly for the same act, depending on what thoughts were going through the actor's head. Hitting a gay because you hate gays is worse than hitting a gay because you just love hitting people. Where's the sense in that? Why does the law say it's better to enjoy hitting people than it is to hate gay people?

You broke into my house. Sentence = 1 year.
You broke into my house intending to steal my stereo. Sentence = 10 years.

Got a problem with that?Don't mix apples and oranges. Your analogy doesn't make sense. A proper analogy would be:

You broke into my house. Sentence = 1 year.
You broke into my house and stole my stereo. Sentence = 10 years.

To extend the analogy:
You broke into my house. Sentence = 1 year.
You broke into my house intending to steal my stereo, but left without stealing anything. Sentence = 1 year.

And to extend it further:
You broke into my house. Sentence = 1 year.
You broke into my house because you hate me, a gay person, intending to steal my stereo, but left without stealing anything. Sentence = {you fill it in}

Sell me snake oil. Sentence = 1 year.
Sell me snake oil because you are trying to defraud me. Sentence = 3 years.

Got a problem with that?Yeah. Selling you snake oil is fraud by definition. And it's the act of fraud that's the crime, not the motivation.

[Cleon]

As do laws against first degree murder, burglary, possession with intent to sell, misbranding with intent to defraud ....

You're equating "intent" with "motivation." Sometimes they're the same, but often they're not.

"Intent" is the criminal's desired result. It's the difference between an accident and a murder, for example. A woman who poisons her husband's coffee intends to kill him. A guy who shoots a security guard while robbing a bank often didn't necessarily intend to do so when he decided to rob the place; this is why 2nd degree murder is a different crime than 1st degree. The difference is intent.

Motivation is different. Motivation would be why the woman wanted to kill her husband, or why the guy robbed the bank. If motivation is brought up during trial at all, it's usually because either the prosecution is trying to prove intent (she killed him because she wanted his life insurance money) or because the defense is trying to get a lighter sentence due to mitigating circumstances (she killed him because he was an abusive SOB). Often, it's not brought up at trial at all--nobody usually really gives a damn why a guy robbed a bank, for example.


This is why "hate crime" legislation is different. All of a sudden motivation, rather than intent, becomes the differentiating factor between crimes. Until now, motivation has been a mitigating factor, rather than a defining factor.

[chulbert]

You're quite correct when you point out that it's a case of the prosecution creating a case that's convincing to the jury. However, since the fact is that he did commit the mugging, and he is a member of a gay-hating church, Billy has no way to defend himself against the charge. Entering a "counter-theory" doesn't work--again, his guilt of the mugging is not in question. All he can do is say "I did it because I needed the money, not because I hate gays." Since, as you pointed out earlier, defendants often lie, and since he is actually a mugger, his word doesn't count for squat.

I don't understand why you think a counter-theory to explain the defendant's motivation could not work and he could not defend himself against the charge. If he claims his motivation was poverty, he should produce bank records and collection notices as evidence. All else equal, if I were on the jury, that would easily be enough to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's claim.

What you seem hung up on is a situation in which a defendant cannot substantiate their counter theory. In such a case, in which neither bank records, collection notices nor any other evidence could be produced, I suppose it would come down to the defendant's say so. But that's not any different than any other crime. If you can't account for why your DNA was found on the dead body, you'll probably go to prison.

[drkitten]

You're equating "intent" with "motivation." Sometimes they're the same, but often they're not.

No, I'm not. Re-read the relevant laws.


This is why "hate crime" legislation is different.

No, it's not. Re-read the relevant laws.

Until now, motivation has been a mitigating factor, rather than a defining factor.

Utterly untrue.

[chulbert]

Motivation is different. Motivation would be why the woman wanted to kill her husband, or why the guy robbed the bank. If motivation is brought up during trial at all, it's usually because either the prosecution is trying to prove intent (she killed him because she wanted his life insurance money) or because the defense is trying to get a lighter sentence due to mitigating circumstances (she killed him because he was an abusive SOB). Often, it's not brought up at trial at all--nobody usually really gives a damn why a guy robbed a bank, for example.

If motive can be a mitigating factor in some cases, why can't it be an aggravating factor others?

[Cleon]

No, I'm not. Re-read the relevant laws.



No, it's not. Re-read the relevant laws.



Utterly untrue.

:rolleyes:

...And I'm done here. Toodles.

[drkitten]

If motive can be a mitigating factor in some cases, why can't it be an aggravating factor others?


'cause Cleon doesn't like it.

[Gurdur]

And I would appreciate you toning down the condescension a few notches. When you do, I will happily discuss the issue with you.
I take it you have no answer to my points?

Fine, no worries. Learn to live with society disagreeing with you. Happens all the time.

--> BPSCG:
all the same points apply just as much to your own hyperbole. You're making fantasy arguments when you try weirdo misstatements like "You have just stated that the thought of hating gays is a crime punishable by five years in prison....... Hate crime legislation treats thoughts like handguns".
Rather than repeat all that I said to Cleon, maybe you could give it an actual shot at replying to real points in a real fashion?


Or at least you could give me the Righteous Huff Stuff too.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

According to the link, the Feds can only get involved if the victim is engaged in a federally protected activity (such as enrolling in a school or registering to vote) or if he is attacked across state lines. In addition, the authorities need the express permission of the Attorney General. So even if the law passes, the current administration can circumvent it.

A law is needed just to counter the possibility of local courts giving the attackers a free pass, just as civil rights legislation was needed in the sixties, and is still needed today if only as a deterrent. But I'm not sure if this law is strong enough.

Actually there's a thing called the "Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act" which increases penalties for offensives if the offender did them and they classify as "hate crimes".

[Dustin Kesselberg]

To expand on what I said early, this is a division bill. The GOP puts out bills like Flag Burning Amendments so they can accuse the dems of supporting flag burning and thereby reinforcing the image of them being unpatriotic.

The Dems propose hate crimes legislation because to vote it against it lets them cast their opponents as protecting racists.

1 cup smoke, 1 cup mirrors = 1 gullible electorate

This is absolutely true. Both political parties engage in this trivial partisan nonsense.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I disagree that Equal Protection is involved in these situations. I'm straight, but I march annually in the local gay pride parade. If I were attacked/killed/whatever because I was perceived as being gay, it is my understanding that that would be considered a hate crime should those laws be in place and applicable to that situation. My being straight or gay is not at issue. My attacker's perception of me being gay and attacking me because of it is what is at issue.

Your attackers would be punished under current laws.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That was not a hate crime issue though. These sorts of problems are endemic to the legal system to start with.

For example in Cleon's case, what about the jury having a large number of people from the same mega church as the mugger? Then he gets a not guilty because they do not feel like convicting someone for attacking a homosexual, he deserved it anyway.


What difference does Hate crime laws make in these cases? If a Jury finds someone "Not Guilty" then whether they supposedly committed their crime as a "hate crime" or not would not make a difference. A pastor kills a gay man and the jury is filled with people who sympathizes with the pastor. They find him not guilty. He gets set free regardless of if he was charged with a "hate crime" or not. Hate crime laws won't prevent jury bias.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Assault is already a crime, regardless of the attacker's motivation. Why is motivation an issue other than to criminalize the motivation?

What do we call criminalizing the motivation?

Crimethink

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Well it can provide a way to change courts it is tried in. If it is now a federal crime that means it is not in the local court, at least that is what I thought.

There are other avenues to change the courts that a crime is tried in.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That is a rational you agreed with earlier. Because it is hard to hate crime laws to be enforced well we should not try.

Why is difficulty a failing in one case but not the other?

"Because it is hard to hate crime laws"? This doesn't make sense. No one is arguing that "hate crime laws" would be hard to enact therefore we should not try. They already exist in many countries including the U.S. What we're saying is that "hate crime" laws are themselves troublesome and flawed.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Heehee... my work here is done. :yahoo


You're excited because he acknowledged your existence? :rolleyes:

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Sure there is. By your own admission, Billy Bob has been unemployed by a while and needs money. His employment history and the impending foreclosure of his house are both matters of public record and admissible as evidence. So are all the character witnesses that come out of the woodwork about how desperate he's been for money, and about how he's not an expecially anti-homosexual person.

Millions of people are desperate for money, lose their homes, etc. They don't all commit robbery. The fact that he was desperate and homeless would be pretty sketchy evidence he committed the crime because of such and not because he was homophobic.

Let's assume for a minute that he is an ardent anti-homosexual. Everyone knows it at his church and have testified such.

Billy Bob doesn't need to "prove himself innocent," as you so charmingly put it. The state still needs to prove the element of intent -- which they can try to do by pointing at his church membership.. But it ultimately comes down to whether or not the jury finds the prosecution's case proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." If Billy Bob isn't credible enough to establish "reasonable doubt" about his motivations for the crime, then, yes, he should be convicted of the hate crime. That's the way the system works.

So in effect someone who (as the situation goes) robbed a person for his money should be convicted for a "hate crime" and be sent to prison for a longer term than if he hadn't simply because he can't establish "reasonable doubt"? :rolleyes:

Assuming for a moment he even did commit the "hate crime", Why not just punish him for robbery or assault or murder as is? Why add on the whole "hate crime" nonsense?

But Billy Bob doesn't get a free pass simply by saying that "I didn't know he was a homosexual," any more than he gets a free pass by saying "I didn't know the gun was loaded."

His being a homosexual is of no relevance to the crime. If he committed the crime he needs to go to jail. Regardless of his reason for committing it. THAT is how our system works. Sending him to jail longer because he committed the crime because of the persons sexuality or race or gender or religion is absurdity.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

But if you commit an act of murder, and it can be shown that you acted out of your belief that all such class should be murdered, that adds an extra layer to the legal and justice side.

Why should it? Why not just persecute for the murder itself?

A perfect parallel is that you are perfectly free to think Mr. Green should be brutally murdered, merely because you dislike the way he does his house up.

But if you actually murder Mr.Green, the court is very responsible in taking your motivation into account, for example in establishing premeditation, or in establishing severity of sentencing.

These laws already exist. Premeditation and motivation. They exist aside from hate crimes. People who murder someone on a whim in a fit of rage aren't prosecuted the same as people who murder them after weeks of planning. This is because of the guilt. If I kill someone in an alcoholic fit of rage then I am less responsible for my crime than if I killed them after weeks of planning. Why? Because I was not myself in the first instance and clearly was in the second.

However going with the case of my motivation for killing them being their race or religion, What does this have to do with anything? It has no bearing on my "guilt". I'm guilty the same whether I did it because they were of a specific religion or race then if I didn't. My cognitive involvement in it is the same. It seems to me that all crimes are "hate crimes". If I kill someone because I just don't like them in our current system I will get a less harsh sentence then if I killed them simply because I did not like them and my reason for not liking them was their race or religion or sex. That is absurdity.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yes, and it's a misstatement. I do not put the onus on Billy.

The prosecution puts the onus on Billy, by making a credible case. Your carefully constructed scenario assumes that the prosecution has already met its burden of proof, so it's not surprising that the defense should, in fact, have a case to answer.





Only if you assume that his religious affiliations and beliefs are in fact "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt."

You can't have it both ways. if you suggest that religious affiliations and beliefs alone aren't convincing evidence of guilt -- then, no, Billy Bob does not "stands a very real chance of being convicted of a felony," since there's not enough evidence to sustain a conviction.

On the other hand, if you think that religious affiliation and belief alone are compelling evidence of guilt, then you admit that the scenario you outline is unlikely enough to the point of being unreasonable.

I guess the short answer, is, yes, I do challenge your scenario as being unreasonable and unrealistic.

The key question -- which you haven't addressed -- is :

How compelling an argument is ""Billy Bob mugged that person out of homophobia. You can see the clear evidence of hishomophobia in this transcript of a sermon delivered by the pastor of Billy Bob's church."

It's evidence -- but is it convincing evidence? Are you convinced of Billy Bob's guilt? No? Then you -- and the rest of the jury -- will vote to acquit.


"Billy Bob's" motivations and intentions and past and beliefs could all be used as evidence for the fact that he committed the crime but they should never be used as additional means of persecuting him for the same crime.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Even if it is convincing evidence, along with BB's bumper sticker that says "Kill All Fudge Packers" and his sawed-off shotgun with the name "Homo Hunter" lovingly inscribed on the stock, so what?

He killed a gay man. Sentence = 25 years.
He killed a gay man because he hates gays. Sentence = 30 years.

You have just stated that the thought of hating gays is a crime punishable by five years in prison. Many states consider the use of a firearm during a felony to be a crime in itself; if you break into a house with only a crowbar, you might get a year in prison, but if you break into a house with a crowbar and a handgun, you can get another five years. Hate crime legislation treats thoughts like handguns.

I find it interesting that for all the complaints that Bush is turning into Orwell's Big Brother, he is opposed to this legislation.

Exactly...

He killed a gay man. Sentence = 25 years.
He killed a gay man because he hates gays. Sentence = 30 years.

Why add on the 5 years? Because he "hates gays"? Why does that matter? This is a perfect example of a thought crime.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No, I have just stated that acting on the thought of hating gays is a crime punishable by five years in prison.

Nonsense. "Acting on the thought of hating gays" in this case killing one is called "murder" and is generally punishable with life in prison. It's murder whether it was because of hating the individual for what he might of did to you or hating him because of his sexuality. It's murder regardless. Punishing him MORE because he committed the murder because of this reason or that reason makes no sense.

As do laws against first degree murder, burglary, possession with intent to sell, misbranding with intent to defraud ....

You broke into my house. Sentence = 1 year.
You broke into my house intending to steal my stereo. Sentence = 10 years.

Got a problem with that?

Yes. However not as much as with "hate crimes" due to the fact that there are so many more problems associated with prosecuting so called "hate crimes" than there are with prosecuting someone for breaking and entering with intent to rob.

Similarly, 21 U.S.C. § 331 makes "the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food, drug, device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded" a crime. "Any person who violates a provision of section 331 of this title shall be imprisoned for not more than one year or fined not more than $1,000, or both."

However, " If any person [...] commits such a violation with the intent to defraud or mislead, such person shall be imprisoned for not more than three years or fined not more than $10,000, or both."

Sell me snake oil. Sentence = 1 year.
Sell me snake oil because you are trying to defraud me. Sentence = 3 years.

Got a problem with that?

Actually this is a different circumstance. I could sell someone snake oil because I might believe it is actually something else and I should not be guilty. However if I sell it knowing fully that it is snake oil then I am guilty of fraud and should be punished.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

If motive can be a mitigating factor in some cases, why can't it be an aggravating factor others?

In cases where it is a mitigating factor, Let's say for example I run someone down with my vehicle. Bad right? What if it's an accident? That's a mitigating factor. My motive comes into play because in this case I might not be guilty at all because I had no motivation to run them down and thus could be persecuted for maybe negligence or manslaughter but not murder. If I had no intention to commit the crime then the whole purpose of punishing me goes out the window.

However in cases of "aggravating" factors, If I run someone down because I don't like them. That's bad right? Sure. I meant to do it and had the motive to do it. Why does it matter why I meant to do it? I did it and meant to do it and should be punished for doing it. What difference would it make whether I did it because I just didn't like them or because I didn't like them because they were gay or black? What bearing does that have on my guilt?

[Gurdur]

.... [various absurdities snipped]....
You again, huh? Same old drill, same old SOP, huh?

Let me check my dance card to see if I have time to waste on you.

* checks through daily schedule *

Whoops, no, says here I have an opportunity to watch paint dry if I like. No offence, but overall that would be far more exciting. So cya. I'll wait to see if anyone else feels like taking up the real issues.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You again, huh? Same old drill, same old SOP, huh?

Let me check my dance card to see if I have time to waste on you.

* checks through daily schedule *

Whoops, no, says here I have an opportunity to watch paint dry if I like. No offence, but overall that would be far more exciting. So cya. I'll wait to see if anyone else feels like taking up the real issues.


I was ready to address and refute all of your nonsense bit by bit, to tear your shabby argument apart piece by piece and you present me this? This sad, squalid, pathetic, piteous trifling excuse for a post? You disappoint me.

[brodski]

Exactly...

He killed a gay man. Sentence = 25 years.
He killed a gay man because he hates gays. Sentence = 30 years.

Why add on the 5 years? Because he "hates gays"? Why does that matter? This is a perfect example of a thought crime.
It's not a "thought crime" it attracts the harsher sentence (in jurisdictions where "hate crimes" exist) because it is more than just an assault on a single person, it is an attempt to intimidate a section of society. At route it is an act of terrorism.
Hate crimes can be far more wide ranging in their consequences than non terroristic crimes, which would justify a higher sentence.

[BPSCG]

You're equating "intent" with "motivation." Sometimes they're the same, but often they're not.

(...snip...)

This is why "hate crime" legislation is different. All of a sudden motivation, rather than intent, becomes the differentiating factor between crimes. Until now, motivation has been a mitigating factor, rather than a defining factor.Cleon, this is well thought-out, and IMHO, really cuts to the heart of the matter. You've obviously spent a lot of time thinking about this.

I take back all the ugly, possibly libelous things I've said about you that will appear in my book next week (Harper and Rowe).

Seriously, good post.

[Gurdur]

Cleon, this is well thought-out, and IMHO, really cuts to the heart of the matter. You've obviously spent a lot of time thinking about this.....Seriously, good post.
Cleon may well have spent a lot of time thinking about it; but his quoted statements are still wrong, and I find it rather weird that neither you nor Cleon tackle the wrongness, which has been pointed out several times already.

When Cleon writes,
"Until now, motivation has been a mitigating factor, rather than a defining factor",
it's simply false. Motivation is quite the defining determinant between ruling between accidental death, culpable homicide, murder and premeditated murder, just for example, just as there are other examples. It means Cleon's whole argument goes west, goes for a Burton, goes into a fatal nose-dive.

Cleon also makes a false point regarding intent and motive; the other posters were indeed talking about intent.

The problem is of course the hankering for
a) absolute and simple principles, which don't exist
b) the attempted overkill argument, which fails and is completely destroyed as soon as its central plank is knocked out.

Dunno why you both can't be content with normal arguments using desirability and practicability guidelines, rather than attempting to go for the throat with massive overkill on the whole basic theory front, which then falls flat on its face. Seriously, I think you both could make far more powerful arguments, were you to be content with reaching for less.

[Cleon]

When Cleon writes,
"Until now, motivation has been a mitigating factor, rather than a defining factor",
it's simply false. Motivation is quite the defining determinant between ruling between accidental death, culpable homicide, murder and premeditated murder, just for example, just as there are other examples.

No. That is intent, not motivation, as I explained.

[frank462]

Gurdur's posts not withstanding, I agree with Cleon and BPSCG for the following reasons:

From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996.

motive
Anglo-French motif, from Middle French motif adjective, moving, from Medieval Latin motivus, from Latin motus, past participle of movere to move

: something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act
Note: In criminal law, motive is distinguished from intent or mens rea. Although motive is not an element of a crime, evidence regarding motives can be introduced to help establish intent. In contract law, motive is usu. distinguished from cause or consideration.

-------------------------------------------------------
mens rea
['menz-'re-e, -'ra-]

pl: mentes reae ['men-'tez-'re-'e, 'men-'tas-'ra-'i]


New Latin, literally, guilty mind

: a culpable mental state

esp
: one involving intent or knowledge and forming an element of a criminal offense
Example: murder contains a mens rea element
(compare actus reus)

-------------------------------------------------------
actus reus
['ak-tes-'re-es, 'äk-tûs-'ra-ûs]

New Latin, guilty deed

: the wrongful act that makes up the physical action of a crime
(see also crime)
(compare mens rea)

-------------------------------------------------------


As stated in the defintions above, "motive is not an element of the crime".

[mijopaalmc]

As stated in the defintions above, "motive is not an element of the crime".

Isn't that a bit of a misquote?

The dictionary actually says:

Although motive is not an element of a crime, evidence regarding motives can be introduced to help establish intent.

This seems to be saying that motive itself is not an element of the crime of the crime, but it can be used to establish intent, which is a part of the crime. Thus, the husband who shoots and kills his wife in the heat of the moment is most likely guilty of manslaughter whereas the husband who shoots and kills his wife to get her life insurance is most likely guilty of first degree murder, because the former wasn't premeditated whereas the latter was.

[frank462]

Isn't that a bit of a misquote?

The dictionary actually says:



This seems to be saying that motive itself is not an element of the crime of the crime, but it can be used to establish intent, which is a part of the crime. Thus, the husband who shoots and kills his wife in the heat of the moment is most likely guilty of manslaughter whereas the husband who shoots and kills his wife to get her life insurance is most likely guilty of first degree murder, because the former wasn't premeditated whereas the latter was.


I agree totally with your post. I don't see any contradiction if that is what you meant by "misquote".

[Thunder]

I'm not such a big fan of increasing the penalties for murder or assault just because hatred was involved. But I do think the penalties for spray painting a swastika should be worse then spray painting your initials. One is a crime of urban-vigilante art while the other is a statemant of violence.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It's not a "thought crime" it attracts the harsher sentence (in jurisdictions where "hate crimes" exist) because it is more than just an assault on a single person, it is an attempt to intimidate a section of society.

An "attempt to intimidate a section of society"? Says who? People being prosecuted for "hate crimes" don't have to be "attempting to intimidate a section of society". Simply committing a crime against a single person whether their intention was to intimidate a section or society or not.

Moreover, Why should "intimidation" be illegal? Who gets to define what is intimidating and what isn't? When someone who is an atheist gets attacked because they are an atheist I'm not intimidated. I believe the attacker should be put away for the time that anyone should be put away for attacking anyone.


At route it is an act of terrorism.

Horse ****.

Hate crimes can be far more wide ranging in their consequences than non terroristic crimes, which would justify a higher sentence.

What consequences?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I'm not such a big fan of increasing the penalties for murder or assault just because hatred was involved. But I do think the penalties for spray painting a swastika should be worse then spray painting your initials. One is a crime of urban-vigilante art while the other is a statemant of violence.

What if my initials are particularly offensive for one reason or another? Should I be punished even more then?

[mijopaalmc]

I agree totally with your post. I don't see any contradiction if that is what you meant by "misquote".

You claimed that "motive is not an element of the crime", but the dictionary definition you provided said that motive is an element of a crime in so far as it can be used to establish intent. This is where motive becomes crucial to the hate crime: the intent to harm the victim arises primarily from the perpetrator's hatred of a class of people to which the victim belongs rather than the circumstances surround the act in question.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You claimed that "motive is not an element of the crime", but the dictionary definition you provided said that motive is an element of a crime in so far as it can be used to establish intent. This is where motive becomes crucial to the hate crime: the intent to harm the victim arises primarily from the perpetrator's hatred of a class of people to which the victim belongs rather than the circumstances surround the act in question.


You're a bit confused on the dispute here. No one is arguing that hatred of a group can't be used as EVIDENCE for a crime to establish intent. What we are saying is that the motivations for the crime should be irrelevant as long as they are intentional when considering punishment. People who kill someone on purpose for some odd reason should be punished the same as someone who kills them on purpose because of their race or sexuality or religion.