What is a "hate crime"?

[Guest profgunner]

Many in the media keep insisting that George Zimmerman be charged with committing a "hate crime". I'm a bit confused about what exactly constitutes a "hate crime". According to the FBI, a "hate crime" is defined as "assault, injury and murder on the basis of certain personal characteristics: different appearance, different color, different nationality, different language, different religion." Does this law protect individuals who choose to engage in certain "different" means of "employment", such as burglary or armed robbery? Or those who have a "different" approach to intimacy, say by rape? Can I be charged with a "hate crime" for assaulting or injuring an individual engaged in one of these activities? Was the inmate who killed Jeffrey Dahmer charged with a hate crime for targeting a "serial killer"? Just asking.

Edited April 7, 2012 by profgunner

[TMF]

I don't think a person's motive should be a crime itself. People commit violent crimes to include murder for drugs/money/power/sex... Hate is somehow in a different category than those? It just doesn't make any sense and it is too subjective; it allows for those with a political agenda to bring their filth into the courtroom. I don't care if Zimmerman had a swastika tattooed on his forehead and a white hoodie on when he did what he did. The only relevance would be to establish a motive.

[tnhawk]

If a white criminal commits a crime against a black victim, he's committed a hate crime. Result- Increased penality

If a black criminal commits a crime against a black victim, he's a victim of his environment. Result- Minimum penality.

[Volzfan]

If a white criminal commits a crime against a black victim, he's committed a hate crime. Result- Increased penality

If a black criminal commits a crime against a black victim, he's a victim of his environment. Result- Minimum penality.

That sucks but it's the truth!

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Yep a punishment ought to be the same regardless of motivation. A cold-blooded mob hit man shouldn't get off easier just because it was "nothing personal just business".

On the other hand many verdicts and sentences take into consideration the perp's "likely state of mind". A feller who discovers wifey in bed with another, flies into a fit of rage and shoots em, occasionally gets off scott-free or with reduced sentence because it was a crime of passion or whatever. A "love crime" if you will.

So should the mild-mannered hubbie who snaps in unusual circumstance receive the same sentence as the cold-blooded mob hit man? I'm inclined to say no, but perhaps they both ought to be equally punished. Dunno. Maybe if a fella accidentally runs over a person who unexpectly runs onto the expressway, should be punished the same as intentionally running down a hated neighbor? It doesn't sound right, but maybe so.

I'm inclined to think a murder is a murder regardless of motivation, but sometimes it does seem to make sense to consider motivation, so maybe it also makes sense to consider the perp's hatred of a class of people? I don't think it makes sense, but maybe it does.

[gregintenn]

Hate Crime is code for "Thought Crime". For an explanation, read the book "1984."

As far as I can gather, a hate crime is any crime commited against a black person, or a gay person, by a white male, that can somehow be construed into racism or homophobia. If you have documented examples contrary to this, I'd like to see them.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Back when I was in LE there was an arrest of two individuals, one white and one black. Both were involved in a bar fight and both were charged with assault. Nothing out of the ordinary until about a week later when the white criminal found himself on the wrong side of hate crime charges. I had spoke to him as well as the black inmate and it was indeed a mutual assault. Problem was the black man was screaming that the white man committed a hate crime because he was white and someone listened. I am not sure of the outcome because I quit before either of them went to court. I do know the black man bonded out rather quickly but the white man had a HUGE bond because of the hate crime charge.

Hate crimes are foolish IMHO. Why would a person hurt another other than the fact they hate them. Viewing it that way all crimes against individuals are hate crimes which makes everything equal. But I do agree there may be aggravating circumstances like using racial slurs during the crime. And it should be up to the victim whether they felt the slurs were racial or not, not LE.

I have heard from minorities that it isn't a hate crime if they harm a white person yet if a white person harms them it is. I heard it very often as well.

Dolomite

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Yeah the hate crime statute sounds dicey to me, but if the law exists it should be applied even-handedly. If a gay kills a straight because of prejudice against straights, then the gay should be prosecuted for a hate crime just as likely as the other way around.

Though I don't think the hate crime statute makes any sense, am allowing that it is not the only situation in the law system where state of mind is taken into consideration. Am wondering if hate crime statutes are "unfair" then for logical consistency then all the other "state of mind" considerations might be equally "unfair"? Dunno. In some cases (as described above) it does seem sensible to consider state of mind. If the nurse accidentally gives the wrong medicine and the patient ends up dead, perhaps in a truly fair system she should be executed for first degree murder?

[Garufa]

I have heard from minorities that it isn't a hate crime if they harm a white person yet if a white person harms them it is.

This pretty well sums it up.

[Jonnin]

hate crime: noun. A crime committed by a straight white man against anyone who is not a straight white man.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It's another racket by the federal government aimed at targeting one to make the other feel better

about themselves. Take "one" and "other and fill in your best choice. Otherwise I would be called a

racist by another set of arguments.

[gjohnsoniv]

Politicians have to keep there voters happy.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It's a misnomer.

[gjohnsoniv]

It amazes me how short sighted and selfish politicians are. They really only seem to think about themselves, not what's good for the population and country.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

It is at least two issues.

1-- Is it wrong to selectively enforce a law? Well duh! If it is illegal for green people to jaywalk then it ought to be equally illegal for orange people to jaywalk.

2-- If enforced even-handedly, does a hate crime law make a lick of sense? I don't think so, but it is the more interesting question.

I'm dumb on law, but AFAIK the law traditionally takes into consideration intent and state of mind. If some of the traditional considerations of intent are "good", then it would be satisfying to have a logical explanation why hate crime law's consideration of intent is "bad". I think hate crime law is useless, but a logical explanation would be satisfying.

Hate crime could be viewed different ways. It doesn't appear that people willfully choose to be bigots. AFAIK people don't get up in the morning and decide, "I'm gonna be a hateful bigot today." If a green bigot is walking down the street, sees a hated orange person who "needs killin on general principle", and the bigot snaps and does the deed-- A clever lawyer might argue that hate is a mitigating factor deserving of a lighter sentence? Analogous to a jealous spouse's "crime of passion" mitigating factor? Come to think of it, hasn't "black rage" been used this way in criminal defense? I recall the term bandied about during the OJ trial.

One might argue that passionless crimes are the most evil, rather than the other way around? I don't believe that any murder is justified, but a "nothing personal just business" crime seems purty dang inexcusable?

[strickj]

Well, these laws were created for a reason. Back in pre-70s, it was not uncommon for a black person to be assaulted or murdered for nothing more then for being black.

Gays have seen the same.

The punishment for these crimes were no where near enough to prevent them. Thus, stiffer federal and state sentences were created. And they worked. They worked well.

Though today, I feel these laws do nothing more then create a "cop out" to a select few whilst punishing others more severely.

Case in point:

About a year ago in Chattanooga, a group of black gang members threw some fireworks off of the Walnut St Bridge into a crowd of pedestrians in Coolidge Park which resulted in injuries to some of the pedestrians. The assault was captured on video and 2 or 3 of the thugs were arrested.

The outcome was no big deal. It was nothing more then a few "misguided youth" having some fun.

Also about a year ago, three white men (one was a Hamilton County EMT worker) threw some fireworks out of a moving car into a yard at one of the projects. Though some property damage was reported (including a broken bedroom window), no injuries occurred.

The three men were arrested and charged with racial intimation.

http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/16462264/trio-enter-guilty-pleas-in-civil-rights-intimidation-case?clienttype=printable

Same crimes. Same 'weapons' used. Same words yelled during both assaults. Yet,one was punished naught, one punished severely..

[daddyo]

For all their talk about "discrimination" and how baaaaad it is, don't so-called "hate crime" laws do exactly that?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's all they do. Discriminate and further divide.

I like strickj's response and it's an explanation, and, well it does address the unintended consequences. The problem

is with the need for the law, even back then. It was well intended and may have helped in a few cases, but it made a

certain few feel even more entitled, when all it should have done is stop a certain crime element.

I agree, people shouldn't hate someone because they are different, but you can't legislate morality very well and you

can't legislate inside someone's brain. It just is Utopian or Brave New World ideology that made it to the mainstream.

Legislating morality can work, but not by the way we sometimes approach it.

They should have thought the whole idea out with a lot more care, instead of passing a law that is so subject to

abuse by political whims.

[TMF]

Hate is a thought/opinion/feeling. Those aren't illegal. Why is it illegal when in conjunction with another crime? As much as I may be disgusted by a person's beliefs, when we start making those beliefs a crime we've started down a slippery European slope.

[mcurrier]

For all their talk about "discrimination" and how baaaaad it is, don't so-called "hate crime" laws do exactly that?

Reverse discrimination = discrimination.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Hate is a thought/opinion/feeling. Those aren't illegal. Why is it illegal when in conjunction with another crime? As much as I may be disgusted by a person's beliefs, when we start making those beliefs a crime we've started down a slippery European slope.

I agree, and also agree with most opinions on the thread so far.

Am just nerdy attempting to discover if there is a "basic principle" behind how laws work. The law seems to have always been in the business of mind-reading? For example if a nurse kills a patient with the wrong medicine-- If the jury reads the nurse's mind and decides that the nurse did it intentionally, then the punishment will be more severe than if the jury reads the nurse's mind and decides it was an accident?

That seems kinda like a "thought crime" as well? But on the other hand it wouldn't seem just that accidents should always be punished exactly the same as intentional harm? It seems that the lady with the scales attempts mind-reading, and puts her thumb on the balance accordingly? It is satisfying to claim that "all murder should be punished the same" but that doesn't ever seem to have been the case? And if it had always been the case, then maybe it wouldn't have been "just"? Apologies if that doesn't make any sense. Just trying to figure it out.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Hate is a thought/opinion/feeling. Those aren't illegal. Why is it illegal when in conjunction with another crime? As much as I may be disgusted by a person's beliefs, when we start making those beliefs a crime we've started down a slippery European slope.

You're a bit late. We started down that slope decades ago.

[TMF]

I agree, and also agree with most opinions on the thread so far.

Am just nerdy attempting to discover if there is a "basic principle" behind how laws work. The law seems to have always been in the business of mind-reading? For example if a nurse kills a patient with the wrong medicine-- If the jury reads the nurse's mind and decides that the nurse did it intentionally, then the punishment will be more severe than if the jury reads the nurse's mind and decides it was an accident?

That seems kinda like a "thought crime" as well? But on the other hand it wouldn't seem just that accidents should always be punished exactly the same as intentional harm? It seems that the lady with the scales attempts mind-reading, and puts her thumb on the balance accordingly? It is satisfying to claim that "all murder should be punished the same" but that doesn't ever seem to have been the case? And if it had always been the case, then maybe it wouldn't have been "just"? Apologies if that doesn't make any sense. Just trying to figure it out.

Lester, I wish I had the creative eloquence in which you make a point. I hope for the day I see someone like you on a ballot I'm fillin out.

[East_TN_Patriot]

I tend to agree with many comments here. Although I am sensitive to issues related to race and "hate crime," I generally don't support hate crime statutes because I don't think they are applied fairly or equally. I also generally don't like the idea of a crime being more severe just because of the perceived racism of the offender. Is hate or anger based on race somehow deserving of a special designation over hatred or anger for some other equally arbitrary characteristic that is not embodied into the law? I understand the underlying logic, but I think that proposed solution is not the answer.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Am just nerdy attempting to discover if there is a "basic principle" behind how laws work. The law seems to have always been in the business of mind-reading? For example if a nurse kills a patient with the wrong medicine-- If the jury reads the nurse's mind and decides that the nurse did it intentionally, then the punishment will be more severe than if the jury reads the nurse's mind and decides it was an accident?

That seems kinda like a "thought crime" as well? But on the other hand it wouldn't seem just that accidents should always be punished exactly the same as intentional harm? It seems that the lady with the scales attempts mind-reading, and puts her thumb on the balance accordingly? It is satisfying to claim that "all murder should be punished the same" but that doesn't ever seem to have been the case? And if it had always been the case, then maybe it wouldn't have been "just"? Apologies if that doesn't make any sense. Just trying to figure it out.

I think that the basic principle you are looking for is one of harm versus intent. The law traditionally only punished people for doing intentional harm to one another. Over time, it has evolved to account for particular situations and changes over time. Now, the law tends to be used as a mechanism through which we try to eliminate all forms of harm in society, which is not possible. There are two competing perspectives on how "crime" is defined. The consensus perspective sees the law as a representation of the dominant values in society, what some call the "collective conscience." This perspective is a very democratic view of the law-making process. The other perspective is the conflict view that sees society as a collection of various groups with their own interests competing over limited access to resources and power. In this model, the law represents the interests of those groups who are most successful at having their goals and values advanced through the law-making process. As such, concepts of "right and wrong" are completely arbitrary and socially defined by people in power. I think in reality it is a combination of both. Hate crime legislation was a democratic effort to deal with a problem that has been pervasive throughout the history of this country. It became an issue because minority groups were successful in making their ideas heard, legitimized, and passed into the law. Now, as far as "mind-reading" goes, that speaks to intent. Take the Zimmerman/Martin case. The legal debate is not over whether Zimmerman shot Martin, but one of why he did it. Intent (or the mens rea) is one key component of the criminal law. Society tends to forgive mistakes. We punish intentional acts. So, yes, in a way mind-reading is exactly what our justice system tries to do. Justification is part of this. Our society says that intentionally taking another human life is wrong, unless... Then we have a list of reasons why we say it is okay to kill someone. These justifications reflect the values, morality, and history of the group constructing these justifications. For example, if you hit someone with your vehicle and kill them, intent - or lack thereof - is the main issue. Was it an accident? Did the person step off the curb in front of you? Were you driving recklessly and irresponsibly? These factors are important to understanding why you killed someone with your car. Taking this further, did you see the person and steer your vehicle to strike them? Was it intended to be a terrible joke gone wrong or did you plan to use your car to kill them? Even if you did intend to kill them, other facts are important. Did you kill the person with your car because the person was molesting your kid or banging your wife? Or did you kill them over a business dispute with hopes of collecting insurance? Was the victim a defenseless child? Or did you do it because the person was a random black/gay/Jewish/etc. person who did nothing to you at all, but you hated the fact that they were part of that group so you killed them. There are different levels of moral indignation within the same type of crime and it all goes to what was going on in the mind of the offender.

Edited April 10, 2012 by East_TN_Patriot