Thread: go to prison for insulting someone?

There are always arguments that pop up in any discussion about the hate crime category. People usually say they don't understand why a hate crime is any worse than any other classification of crime. The reason is quite simple. Hate crime is an act of violence committed against someone because of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or the like. It has been proven that the criminal committing a crime against someone for no reason other than the victims race, religion, sexual orientation, etc is a sociopath with no goal other than to cause mayhem. The victims themselves are the reason for the crime. Whether it is four little girls in a church basement getting blown up because they happened to be black or a homosexual teenager getting beaten severely and tied to a fence post where he died two days later simply because he was gay or two Hasidic Jewish teens being beaten to death by a mob on a New York City street because they were Jewish, these are acts committed out of hatred. Certainly the crime is no different to the victim than it would be if say the gay kid was killed in the commission of a robbery. However, a criminal that commits hate crimes is much worse as he is more likely to do what he sets out to do. As he is not driven by any logical motive, he has also less fear of reprisal. In most cases if he gets caught he feels as though he is a martyr for his cause.

that, sir, is a fine post. You elaborated on the point I was making far better than I would have.

This is legislating thought and belief, which is very dangerous. These laws state that if you believe X, and commit a crime based upon such belief, then you are guilty of yet another crime. not an increase in the punishment, but a wholy seperate crime. Take it back to Nazi Germany where the converse was true. You commit a crime, a murder, but it was against a Jew, and you belived Jews were inferior and should be wiped off the face of the planet, well that was just fine. however you murder a non-jew aryan german, and you were in likely to hang. They legislated beliefs such that it was okay to commit "hate crimes." The legislation of beliefs is a very slippery slope that will lead to bad results. Legislate the action, not the motive behind it.

Edit: to be clear I do believe that the motive can be a factor in determining the punishment of the crime, but it should not be a crime in and of itself.

Originally Posted by mhailey

This is legislating thought and belief, which is very dangerous. These laws state that if you believe X, and commit a crime based upon such belief, then you are guilty of yet another crime. not an increase in the punishment, but a wholy seperate crime. Take it back to Nazi Germany where the converse was true. You commit a crime, a murder, but it was against a Jew, and you belived Jews were inferior and should be wiped off the face of the planet, well that was just fine. however you murder a non-jew aryan german, and you were in likely to hang. They legislated beliefs such that it was okay to commit "hate crimes." The legislation of beliefs is a very slippery slope that will lead to bad results. Legislate the action, not the motive behind it.

Edit: to be clear I do believe that the motive can be a factor in determining the punishment of the crime, but it should not be a crime in and of itself.

Aren't there often "Hate Crime Enhancements" to sentencing, as opposed to a whiolly separate crime?

I also beg to differ with your calling this Thought Legislation. You are allowed to think whatever you want. Once that thought becomes ACTION, it is the ACTION that is punished. If that ACTION falls into a DIFFERENT CATEGORY because of that thought....that isn't the thought itself ebing punished, it is the CRIME, that was CHANGED or ENHANCED because of it.
Many might see that as semantics. I do not.

Colorado Revised Statute 18-9-121. It is a seperate crime in my state. I won't comment on other states.

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

I also beg to differ with your calling this Thought Legislation. You are allowed to think whatever you want. Once that thought becomes ACTION, it is the ACTION that is punished. If that ACTION falls into a DIFFERENT CATEGORY because of that thought....that isn't the thought itself ebing punished, it is the CRIME, that was CHANGED or ENHANCED because of it.
Many might see that as semantics. I do not.

No, when it is a sperate crime, it is the thought that is punished. You kill someone with premeditation, and are charged with 1st degree murder. If your thoughts were that this person is infeior because of their race/religion/gender/sexual orientation and you were thinking/beliveing this when you committed the first degree murder, then you get charged with yet another crime. That is the ciminalization of thought. There is no enhancement of the 1st degree murder charge, it is a wholly seperate crime.

Take this case for example: Man Found Guilty Of Murder, Hate Crime In Transgender Killing - Denver News Story - KMGH Denver

Originally Posted by xman

Actually, all groups are protected, not just a selection.

Quoted from the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms:

"Equality Rights
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. "

X

All groups are protected? Sounds like blatant discrimination against advantaged groups to me.

Originally Posted by icedog

There are always arguments that pop up in any discussion about the hate crime category. People usually say they don't understand why a hate crime is any worse than any other classification of crime...

Originally Posted by gregs656

that, sir, is a fine post. You elaborated on the point I was making far better than I would have.

I disagree strongly. Icedog's post is in fact a perfect example of why it is a bad idea to use buzzwords - especially in law - as a substitute for reasoned argument.

Hate crime is an act of violence committed against someone because of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or the like...
It has been proven that the criminal committing a crime against someone for no reason other than the victims race, religion, sexual orientation, etc is a sociopath...
a criminal that commits hate crimes is much worse as he is more likely to do what he sets out to do. As he is not driven by any logical motive, he has also less fear of reprisal.

You are implying that once a crime has been classified as a "hate crime", anyone found guilty of that crime MUST have been motivated by racism, sexism or the like, they MUST be sociopaths, they MUST be more likely to reoffend, and they MUST be irrational and reckless.

That is complete, utter BS. Every case should be assessed on the facts, not on how some government bureaucrats have classified the offence.

The phrase "hate crime" serves no purpose other than to demonise people who are disliked by those drafting the legislation.

"You are implying that once a crime has been classified as a "hate crime", anyone found guilty of that crime MUST have been motivated by racism, sexism or the like, they MUST be sociopaths, they MUST be more likely to reoffend, and they MUST be irrational and reckless." -Ray

No Ray, actually it's the other way around. Once a crime has been committed and the investigation discloses the motive for comission of that crime is hatred only then does it become classified as a hate crime.

Originally Posted by mhailey

Edit: to be clear I do believe that the motive can be a factor in determining the punishment of the crime, but it should not be a crime in and of itself.

this is where I am. I didn't realize that, effectively, your intent became criminal as well.

That's quite odd.

Clearly, 'hating' is not a crime no matter who you hate. I hate George Bush (just sayin') but nobody's gonna lock me up for it. That would be thought police, Matt. I can even tell people that I hate him. I just did. Nobody's gonna lock me up for that either, but if I start spreading the opinion that anybody named Bush is responsible for the impending destruction of the world economy unless we all do something drastic about it, like kill them all, well then I'm inciting violence aren't I? Motive will be considered in all crimes and if inciting hate, violence and unrest is determined to be a motive then they can lock me up.

There is nothing irrational or "thought police" about it. You may draw the same inference in many other crimes. I'd like some money so I think about robbing a bank. No crime. I start to plan the robbing of a bank and they have a reason to come and get me. They may not have a lot of evidence at this stage, but if they have enough they may be able to prosecute. I don't know. But if I get my gang together and bust the doors of the Royal Bank down, well then I get my phone call, don't I?

It is not dangerous to enact hate legislation. It is far more dangerous not to as evidenced by the NAZI's (I didn't mention them first )

X

PS Ray, I assume you're kidding, but that subsection just means that the already advantaged cannot take unfair advantage of programs designed to help the disadvantaged just because everybody deserves equal treatment.