Are hate crime enhancements fair?

[Adam]

Doing it out of pure hatred for what someone IS though - racist because they're black, homophobic becuase they're gay etc... that's a bigger problem for society.

A lot of people who argue against it say things like "is it worse to kill a gay man or a black man than it is to kill a straight man or a white man?"

That's not what it's about though. If someone killed a straight/white man in a racist /heterophobic(!) attack, then that would be a hate crime too

The justice system is primarily meant to serve society, and hate crimes are a seperate crime in themselves

As for whether it works or not... I dunno. I can't see many people who are racist/homophobic enough to attack someone because of it being changed by these laws. But teh message it sends out is important

Didnt the inclusion of homophobic crimes in the US had something to do with the Mathew Shephard murder. An attack like that needs dealing with differently to an attack that was motivated purely by money, passion etc.

That's not to say that someone murdered/attacked becuase of another reason isn't just as much a victim or just as important a victim as someone attacked due to their ethnicity or sexuality etc. But it is different

Crimes of passion are often treated differently. All different types of crimes are. That's not to say that the motive can ever excuse the crime, but that it needs to be taken into account when sentencing. I think a lot of people who are against hate crimes legislation often over-simplify it when they're looking at it. It's not as simple as a judge saying "this crime was worse because it was directed at a transsexual or an asian man." As with ALL crimes, there are lots of different things taken into account

I don't know whether it works or not.  But right now, I wouldn't support getting rid of these laws

[Parts]

Part of the problem deals with knowing the motivation for an attack, say a white supremacist goes out and kills a black guy but does nothing that implies he did it for that reason even though it was is that still a hate crime ? What if he killed him but it was over money owed does the fact that he was a racist make it a hate crime?   Till they can look inside someones head and know with certainty how are we going to tell the difference?   I think the over simplification is more on the people supporting the laws sure there are clear examples where the reasons were clear that is why judges have discretion in  sentencing.

[RageBeoulve]

I don't see the difference. I just see this as a sideshow to distract weenies from the truly pressing issues because they're too stressed out to deal at the moment.

Most world powers are choking on greed and corruption right now. Damn that makes me sad. I know! I'll go crusade against shit nobody cares about, and make new laws about shit that doesn't matter. It'll distract me for a while.

[ZEGH8578]

There are classic cases that undoubtedly qualify as a bigotry-based crime. These should be a category.
Crime has many categories.
I don't want pot smokers to be given the same penalty as a rapist. I don't want someone sexually harassing someone to get the same penalty as a child-rapist.
In Spain a black teen kid was chased, captured, and set ablaze some years ago. In Norway a black kid was chased and stabbed to death - for being black. His alternative would have been to stop being so black. I don't want these perpetrators to be dealt with in the same way as a muggery-gone-wrong case.

Sometimes a crime has a very specific intent, often with great sadism included. This should be taken into account, be it racism or any other kind of bigotry, such as when gays are attacked and killed simply for being gay. This IS different from a jealousy-murder, or another kind of crime-of-passion or personal gain.

[TheoK]

On the other hand Swedish and Norwegian girls have been harassed and raped for being Swedish and Norwegian. In Scandinavia hate crime laws don't apply to the majority, though. They do in the US, however.

[RageBeoulve]

Yes indeed. Curb stomping someone for being a nigger is not the same as beating up a black man for trying to mug you. But this is fucking common sense guys. Does there really need to be a written LAW telling you the differences in these things? Honestly now. I see all this as a gigantic waste of time.

[ZEGH8578]

On the other hand Swedish and Norwegian girls have been harassed and raped for being Swedish and Norwegian. In Scandinavia hate crime laws don't apply to the majority, though. They do in the US, however.

Fair should be fair.
If they are raped as some sort of sadistic punishment for being white, then yes, it is a hate crime. If they are raped because they were hot - then it's a rape, and should also be harshly punished - much more than it currently is (but that is another discussion).

I think people - both modernly and in the past - take the concept of killing too easily, and this attitude is supported world wide by ideas of heavens and afterlives. To ruin someones life, either by ending it, or by crippling someone, or destroying them mentally, should grant the perpetrator _very_ harsh penalties - much MUCH more than any other kind of crime, be it economic or other. It's as if global society as a whole still is not quite convinced people only have 1 life each. As if subconciously we are confident everyone will get further oportunities in "next lives".
Unless violence has been dealt in true desperation, I am inclined to propose life-in-prison for most kinds of cases.
Any violence that is "above and beyond" what's expected (serial killers, spree killers, massacres, child-rape) represent the only exceptions to my anti-death-stance. These individuals should simply be removed from the fabric of reality.
*harsh *

Rage: yes. In the name of pragmatism, all these common-sense-nesses actually do need to be written down. People are morons, remember?

[RageBeoulve]

Dude I don't think they're THAT stupid. Like I said earlier this reeks to me of zealotry. Some assholes with nothing better to do, or want to be distracted from what they really SHOULD be doing.

[ZEGH8578]

Dude I don't think they're THAT stupid. Like I said earlier this reeks to me of zealotry. Some assholes with nothing better to do, or want to be distracted from what they really SHOULD be doing.

You don't think people are how stupid?

Reminders: Modern odinism, 2012-scare, Flat Earth Society, "woman body has a way to shut that whole thang down",
I could go on.
You know this!
We need clear cut rules for people to adhere to - if they are ever in doubt - and boy, are they often in doubt

[RageBeoulve]

Yeah Zegh that stuff is pretty retarded, but does it normally result in mass murder? Hate crimes? Rape? Those type of things?

I ask you, is it not religion that is responsible for most everything that degenerates society? Creating a bunch of bogus laws solves nothing.

['andersom']

Rage: yes. In the name of pragmatism, all these common-sense-nesses actually do need to be written down. People are morons, remember?

People are smart morons, it will be abused, to write it all down.

So, the question could be about what could lead to worse, writing it all down in law, or, let justice work without it all written down.

[bodie]

There is a risk of minority groups becoming almost untouchable - could be a double edged sword.  A group of people with the 'special snowflake' syndrome.  Possibly fuel more hatred.  Certainly create more division.   A tougher sentence would likely make the perpetrator more bitter.

Perhaps courts should impose education on top of the usual sentence.  A lot of hate crimes come down to ignorance.

 


A big thing here in the UK at the moment is racism in football.  I think ref's are being encouraged to abandon a game if they hear any racial chanting.  That seems a bit extreme.

['andersom']

There is a risk of minority groups becoming almost untouchable - could be a double edged sword.  A group of people with the 'special snowflake' syndrome.  Possibly fuel more hatred.  Certainly create more division.   A tougher sentence would likely make the perpetrator more bitter.

Perhaps courts should impose education on top of the usual sentence.  A lot of hate crimes come down to ignorance.

 


A big thing here in the UK at the moment is racism in football.  I think ref's are being encouraged to abandon a game if they hear any racial chanting.  That seems a bit extreme.

That's what I meant with abuse of the writing down indeed.



And, it will be used the other way too of course: "Your honour, I mugged him, because he was setting people up to beat me up as a hate crime."

Fair judgement is depending on the wisdom of court at least as much as on the lines written in the law.

[Adam]

The racism in football thing - I think that's different to people getting beaten up for being black or something

It's getting a bit ridiculous now tbh, especially with the police getting involved in tweets etc.

['andersom']

The racism in football thing - I think that's different to people getting beaten up for being black or something

If someone gets beaten up for being black, the perpetrators should be punished, both for the beating up, as for the expressing the why, the insult, the ignoring of the right to be fully human for the victim, but, that can only happen if it is clear. And, if it is clear, I don't think there is a need to make a new category for it. The stricter the categories, the more it can be dealt with creative. It will not ban hate crimes, it will just make them more sneaky.

It's getting a bit ridiculous now tbh, especially with the police getting involved in tweets etc.

Isn't that more justified than cameras everywhere? It is written down to be read, isn't it?