I'm for it in very limited circumstances. For example, beating up two Jews and then saying "and the rest of you are next" or any other behavior that shows a true intent to intimidate a specific group of people by committing a crime against a member or members of that group. I'm against hate crime laws that assume a hate crime just becaus…
I'm for it in very limited circumstances. For example, beating up two Jews and then saying "and the rest of you are next" or any other behavior that shows a true intent to intimidate a specific group of people by committing a crime against a member or members of that group. I'm against hate crime laws that assume a hate crime just because someone is a particular race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
I hate crime is one that puts into action an attack against a person simply because they are of a specific race, color or creed, not because they did something against you.
And how do you prove that unless someone explicitly states it? And why should someone get punished harder for hating someone's race over other factors?
That would make proving it easier...but still doesn't explain why that matters. Why does them hating some ones race (as opposed to personality or hair color or whatever) mean they should get different sentencing?
To me, if you spent a month planning to kill someone, the main issue is that you spend a month planning to kill someone. The fact that you did it because they were Asian as opposed to doing it because they cheated with your spouse is a much smaller part of the crime. And I am not convinced it needs to be a different category.
I think it's because "they did it because they're a bigot" has a bigger emotional impact than many other reasons people have for committing crimes. People instinctively want enhanced punishments for that.
I agree that it should not be a separate law. But it would make sense to have a sentencing enhancement. After all, a person who commits a crime because they're a bigot is more likely to be a threat in the future. I see this as being similar to sentencing enhancements for committing a crime with a gun. Not that those enhancements are actually applied in practice....
My concerns is that people will link the bigot part with the crime even if it didn't really come into play. Based on how people seem to operate these days, I don't find it far fetched to imagine someone committing a crime and the prosecution digging up a 10 year old FB post with a racist joke and then saying "See, he hates Samoans and he stole a car from someone who happens to be Samoan, so it is a hate crime, lock them up."
As with so many laws, adding more little bits and bobs to our laws just opens up more ways for people to manipulate the system. And I would prefer our laws remain as fair and agnostic as possible (which, they are already pretty far from that benchmark).
Most judges already have leeway with sentencing (except where we have forced specific sentencing). Why not just let the judge/jury decide the guilt of the base crime and then decide longer sentencing based on the circumstances (like we already do) rather than codifying it into a law?
Hate crime legislation comes about because political leaders think that they have to do something about certain situations. It's a "we can't get him on this, but we can get him on that" type of bad law.
Having said that, clearly, a group of Palestinian supporters chasing Jewish students who were forced to retreat to a library and lock the doors should qualify for hate-crime application in addition to the common assault charge that they should face.
Yeah, I don't think that the politicians that have pushed this legislation are actually doing it to make things better. They are attempting to criminalize how someone feels or thinks. As you said, they can't get you for speech because of 1stA, so they want to punish people for it on the back end when they commit some other crime.
My guess is that in the modern climate, any jurisdiction that does have hate crime laws would do their level best to NOT punish those Pal supporters. In the same way that I doubt they would use those laws to punish a POC who committed a crime against a white person. These laws are not meant to deal with actual hate, but to punish the 'oppressors'.
Of course you can. If you know you will hang if you come armed you don't come armed when commiting crime. Perhaps more to the point you won't come armed knowing your criminal confreres know this too, and you won't even get the benefit of a trial; you'll just be shivved where you stand.
I'm for it in very limited circumstances. For example, beating up two Jews and then saying "and the rest of you are next" or any other behavior that shows a true intent to intimidate a specific group of people by committing a crime against a member or members of that group. I'm against hate crime laws that assume a hate crime just because someone is a particular race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
Already covered by extant law; some of which was itself already covered by extant law.
I hate crime is one that puts into action an attack against a person simply because they are of a specific race, color or creed, not because they did something against you.
And how do you prove that unless someone explicitly states it? And why should someone get punished harder for hating someone's race over other factors?
Except that many of them DO openly and explicitly state that they targeted the person because of their race.
That would make proving it easier...but still doesn't explain why that matters. Why does them hating some ones race (as opposed to personality or hair color or whatever) mean they should get different sentencing?
To me, if you spent a month planning to kill someone, the main issue is that you spend a month planning to kill someone. The fact that you did it because they were Asian as opposed to doing it because they cheated with your spouse is a much smaller part of the crime. And I am not convinced it needs to be a different category.
I think it's because "they did it because they're a bigot" has a bigger emotional impact than many other reasons people have for committing crimes. People instinctively want enhanced punishments for that.
I agree that it should not be a separate law. But it would make sense to have a sentencing enhancement. After all, a person who commits a crime because they're a bigot is more likely to be a threat in the future. I see this as being similar to sentencing enhancements for committing a crime with a gun. Not that those enhancements are actually applied in practice....
My concerns is that people will link the bigot part with the crime even if it didn't really come into play. Based on how people seem to operate these days, I don't find it far fetched to imagine someone committing a crime and the prosecution digging up a 10 year old FB post with a racist joke and then saying "See, he hates Samoans and he stole a car from someone who happens to be Samoan, so it is a hate crime, lock them up."
As with so many laws, adding more little bits and bobs to our laws just opens up more ways for people to manipulate the system. And I would prefer our laws remain as fair and agnostic as possible (which, they are already pretty far from that benchmark).
Most judges already have leeway with sentencing (except where we have forced specific sentencing). Why not just let the judge/jury decide the guilt of the base crime and then decide longer sentencing based on the circumstances (like we already do) rather than codifying it into a law?
Hate crime legislation comes about because political leaders think that they have to do something about certain situations. It's a "we can't get him on this, but we can get him on that" type of bad law.
Having said that, clearly, a group of Palestinian supporters chasing Jewish students who were forced to retreat to a library and lock the doors should qualify for hate-crime application in addition to the common assault charge that they should face.
Yeah, I don't think that the politicians that have pushed this legislation are actually doing it to make things better. They are attempting to criminalize how someone feels or thinks. As you said, they can't get you for speech because of 1stA, so they want to punish people for it on the back end when they commit some other crime.
My guess is that in the modern climate, any jurisdiction that does have hate crime laws would do their level best to NOT punish those Pal supporters. In the same way that I doubt they would use those laws to punish a POC who committed a crime against a white person. These laws are not meant to deal with actual hate, but to punish the 'oppressors'.
The only valid criteria is the same criteria that has been used since laws were first put in place.
Malice.
That isn’t a sufficient reason to have hate crime laws.
Indeed you cannot. Nor can you regulate the actions of criminals via laws but only punish them
Of course you can. If you know you will hang if you come armed you don't come armed when commiting crime. Perhaps more to the point you won't come armed knowing your criminal confreres know this too, and you won't even get the benefit of a trial; you'll just be shivved where you stand.