Hate Crime

[Caledvwlch]

As my friend Granite said a few posts back, hate crime is thought crime, plain and simple.

 

[PureX]

If you don't know the definition, you could try looking up the word in a dictionary. You will not find any dictionary with a definition of murder that would include the accidental killing of someone through no fault of the killer.

"Murder" is a legal term, and it's meaning depends upon the legal system under which the term is being applied. By our legal system, for example, abortion is not "murder". Yet I'm sure you would disagree, which only illuminates the point that there is no single, one-size-fits-all definition of "murder".

 

[beanieboy]

He said murder is murder. He did not say an accident is murder..

The child is dead in both cases.

But sometimes killing is not murder?

In other words, if you did not intend to kill someone (thought and intent), then it is killing, and not murder, right?
But if you did it on purpose (thought and intent), then it is murder.

Isn't that "Thought Crime"?

 

[PureX]

Anyway... back to hate crime. In my opinion it's unenforceable, because there's no way to really prove hate.

There's no way you can "really prove" any other person's intent. Yet we manage to make such determinations, anyway, and to prosecute all our other intent-based laws.

And even if there was, it seems to me to be a violation of an individuals rights to prosecute hate.

This is a good point. Should it somehow be more illegal for me to hate someone while committing a crime against them?

If a man hates a particular group and commits a crime based on that hate, he's committed a crime, and the punishment should be appropriate to the crime. Conversly, there's no crime in hating someone, or a group of people, as long as you don't infringe on said person's or group's life, liberty and property. Hating someone isn't very nice, but it isn't hurtful in and of itself.

But it could be argued that his crime was not in irrationally hating a group of people, but in exercising that hatred against them. For example, it's not a crime for me to dream about raping my neighbor's wife, but it certainly is a crime for me to do so. And the law does take into account whether I wanted to inflict great phychological harm on her while I commit this rape (regardless of whether I hate her or not). So it's not really the "hate" that designates a "hate crime", but the intention to inflict a specific kind of harm on the victim.

 

[Poly]

Some people would think of Euthanasia as a "love" crime.

Maybe I should have made it clear in my post that I was talking about people who were actually reasonable when it came to what crime actually is. I lost my head there for a minute and forgot that there's people around here who refuse to use common sense.

 

[Granite]

There's no way you can "really prove" any other person's intent. Yet we manage to make such determinations, anyway, and to prosecute all our other intent-based laws.
This is a good point. Should it somehow be more illegal for me to hate someone while committing a crime against them?
But it could be argued that his crime was not in irrationally hating a group of people, but in exercising that hatred against them. For example, it's not a crime for me to dream about raping my neighbor's wife, but it certainly is a crime for me to do so. And the law does take into account whether I wanted to inflict great phychological harm on her while I commit this rape (regardless of whether I hate her or not). So it's not really the "hate" that designates a "hate crime", but the intention to inflict a specific kind of harm on the victim.

My beef with "hate" crimes, so called, is that they place a premium on a given group, for no reason other than some wacko minority bigots happen to really loathe them. Why, exactly, do we think it's a good idea to put some victims on a pedestal and dismiss others as just "typical" victims of "average" crime?

Bombing a synagogue or school is a heinous act regardless of who gets maimed or killed. Elevating one group of victims over another is irrational, inappropriate, and muddies the waters.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

The child is dead in both cases.

But sometimes killing is not murder?

In other words, if you did not intend to kill someone (thought and intent), then it is killing, and not murder, right?
But if you did it on purpose (thought and intent), then it is murder.

Isn't that "Thought Crime"?

Since when does kill always equate to murder?
Can you tell the difference between the two?

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

There's no way you can "really prove" any other person's intent. Yet we manage to make such determinations, anyway, and to prosecute all our other intent-based laws.

Forensic science. You can claim to remain in ignornace but don't put that off onto the rest of the world.

 

[Holly]

My beef with "hate" crimes, so called, is that they place a premium on a given group, for no reason other than some wacko minority bigots happen to really loathe them. Why, exactly, do we think it's a good idea to put some victims on a pedestal and dismiss others as just "typical" victims of "average" crime?

Bombing a synagogue or school is a heinous act regardless of who gets maimed or killed. Elevating one group of victims over another is irrational, inappropriate, and muddies the waters.

I agree with you to some extent, but I think that the concept goes beyond the act itself and speaks to the implied intimidation of everyone else in the targeted group. As someone already noted, burning a cross on a black family's lawn isn't just an act of minor vandalism, but carries a threat that everyone understands to mean that serious violence may be ahead for them and for any other black families who move to the neighborhood. Maybe part of the problem is the label "hate crime", or the designation of specific victim groups, but this type of threat and intimidation is a very bad thing.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Forensic science. You can claim to remain in ignornace but don't put that off onto the rest of the world.

Putting that aside... does it make it ok to prosecute hate. Hate is a feeling or a thought. Is it justice to throw a few more years on a murderer's sentence because he's a racist? Also, is it ok to send someone to jail, simply because of his racism, whether or not he as acted violently?

 

[beanieboy]

Since when does kill always equate to murder?
Can you tell the difference between the two?

Yes.

My point is, both have the same result - the person is dead.
I could, for example, run over a kid on purpose, them claim it was an accident to not be charged with murder.

The result (intentional vs. not intentional) is based on motive, and therefore, the thought.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Yes.

My point is, both have the same result - the person is dead.
I could, for example, run over a kid on purpose, them claim it was an accident to not be charged with murder.

The result (intentional vs. not intentional) is based on motive, and therefore, the thought.

But premeditated murder isn't hate crime. Or am I just lost?

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Putting that aside... does it make it ok to prosecute hate. Hate is a feeling or a thought. Is it justice to throw a few more years on a murderer's sentence because he's a racist? Also, is it ok to send someone to jail, simply because of his racism, whether or not he as acted violently?

If murder took place I don't see why "hate" needs to be an issue. Argue that point with someone else.

 

[Caledvwlch]

If murder took place I don't see why "hate" needs to be an issue. Argue that point with someone else.

I thought this was a thread about hate crime... :chicken:

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Yes.

My point is, both have the same result - the person is dead.
I could, for example, run over a kid on purpose, them claim it was an accident to not be charged with murder.

The result (intentional vs. not intentional) is based on motive, and therefore, the thought.

Oh come on, don't act like you're retarded or something like that.
Maybe you should personally test out that theory out sometime.

 

[beanieboy]

Putting that aside... does it make it ok to prosecute hate. Hate is a feeling or a thought. Is it justice to throw a few more years on a murderer's sentence because he's a racist? Also, is it ok to send someone to jail, simply because of his racism, whether or not he as acted violently?

"Hate crime" is added to violence, not charged without the act, in the same way that you can wish me dead without going to jail.

If you wish me dead, set out a plan, and then kill me, you get 1st degree.
If you wish me dead, and get in an arguement and kill me out of anger without a prior plan, that's 2nd degree.

It depends on the thought behind the action.

If a group of us starting bombing random Baptist churches, one every Sunday someone different in the US, the intent would probably be to make Baptists afraid of going to church, and that is where Hate Crime would come in.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

But premeditated murder isn't hate crime. Or am I just lost?

Would you murder your significant other out of love?

Personally, I think labeling some crimes as hate crimes is just plain stupid.

 

[beanieboy]

Oh come on, don't act like you're retarded or something like that.
Maybe you should personally test out that theory out sometime.

Joe runs over his wife because he hates her.
He says, "I didn't see her."

From a court perspective, are they going to try to prove that it was an accident or murder based on the act (running her over with a car) or the intention (what he was thinking when he committed the act)?

The act (running her over) is identical for both accident and murder.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

I thought this was a thread about hate crime... :chicken:

It does have something to do with hate crimes. I just can't see why we don't consider all crimes to be "hateful". Why would you want to commit crimes against your loved ones?

 

[Caledvwlch]

"Hate crime" is added to violence, not charged without the act, in the same way that you can wish me dead without going to jail.

If you wish me dead, set out a plan, and then kill me, you get 1st degree.
If you wish me dead, and get in an arguement and kill me out of anger without a prior plan, that's 2nd degree.

It depends on the thought behind the action.

If a group of us starting bombing random Baptist churches, one every Sunday someone different in the US, the intent would probably be to make Baptists afraid of going to church, and that is where Hate Crime would come in.

I see where you're coming from. But still. Systematic genocide against Baptists is a crime even if they were picked by a coin toss instead of a desire to stop the general practice of their faith.