After A White Man Was Beaten By a Mob in Cincinnati, the Police Chief’s Request

[Al Swearegen]

What makes one innocent victim's assault worthy of harsher punishment than another innocent victim's equal assault? What the assailant was thinking?

I disagree with you...though not entirely.
I think if I dislike and fight someone AND they are black or Indian or female or Asian or whatever,  all good. IF I dislike and fight someone BECAUSE they are black , Indian, female Asian or whatever THAT is an issue. The subtlety is minimal and it is a value thing, butvi there.
Same as it is with hate crimes.
The problem is what you've touched on. You can't police thoughts.
I strongly suspect the gentleman calling it a hate crime is 100% right. I suspect the hatred of white people was the core of it and it seems perfectly reasonable and rational to presume this.
But look at all the qualifiers in the above sentence.

This conversation is reminding me of another thread here. Wasn't a member here at the time so couldn't comment. Hubert said it well.

Hate crime enhancements create thought crimes.  I understand what purpose they are trying to serve, but my personal philosophy on the law is that it should always remain as subjective as possible.  If you strike someone in the face you have committed the crime of striking someone in the face.  If you strike someone in the face and the prosecutor can convince a group of 6-12 partially engaged citizens that you were thinking hateful thoughts about that person's race when you hit him, then the crime is worse?  That doesn't make sense to me, and runs the risk of destabilizing the entire system.  The most important asset the law has going for it is that it is accepted by all as inherently fair.  When that is lost, the whole thing comes crashing down.

I haven't done Crim yet, but the only crime I am aware of so far that takes premeditation into account is homicide.  There is something of a legal fiction involved in that premeditation can be formed in the split second before you bean someone in the head with a shovel, but that's another conversation.  Personally, I can see how homicide would be the poster child against hate enhancements.  The victim is equally dead, there isn't anything worse that can be done to him.  Is it really "fair" to give a lesser sentence to someone who killed your kid because he owed him money than you would give to someone who killed your kid because he is gay, or black, or Norwegian?  Isn't that devaluing certain homicides in light of others?  Why is my kid's life worth less than yours just because your kid's killer was thinking something different from my kid's killer?  They are both equally dead.

Yes I do agree with all of the above.But I also agree with what I said too.

What I mean is when I said look at all the qualifiers above, I meant it. I KNOW that the qualifiers make it next to completely useless. I DO agree with the spirit of it though, if that makes sense. I also agree that it is REALLY open to misuse.

It is like I believe absolutely in the death penalty for the very worst of crimes and where there is absolute prove of such a crime.
Unfortunately here, it starts falling down and for similar reasons.

Fred West and Rosemary West, Josef Friezl(sp), Martin Bryant, The Burnies,......and so the list goes on. We KNOW what they did was animalistic. We know that they were absolutely guilty of the crimes. There is no ifs or buts. Why ought we feed and clothe these animals?

BUT then we take that position and sooner or later we have executed someone because we were sure, except we weren't because we were too eager to prosecute, someone lied, someone played with evidence, or whatever. More than likely though we ourselves started applying the same punishment in cases that just were not as clear cut as the ones mentioned here. So I KNOW it is flawed as well and would fail.
But I DO believe in it, in spirit.

Dunno if that ramble makes any sense.

[ZEGH8578]

An unmentioned aspect of "hate crime" is that it incites political activity.

Muggery, random "blind violence" does not incite further action, but an organized, racially inspired pogrom - one night - to beat the crap out of a jew, more jews, or as many jews as possible, have a danger of inspiring further politically motivated attacks.

In my understanding, this is the main reason for separating "hate crime" from all other violence - it has a danger of directly inspiring further organized attacks, something ordinary "blind" violence does not (well, serial-murder is similarily "inspiring" because of its unique nature)

[Jack]

In my understanding, this is the main reason for separating "hate crime" from all other violence

There's nothing wrong with determining the motivation for any crime, but if that's the reasoning for penalty enhancements then it's a poor reasoning unworthy of creating an imbalanced system of punishment and inequality in who deserves what justice. The prospect of incarceration doesn't decrease criminal activity, and stricter penalties don't either. In the US, adulthood brings along much higher odds of prison sentences and stricter penalties, though studies have shown there's no decrease in arrest rates connected to turning eighteen.

Dunno if that ramble makes any sense.

No it didn't completely make sense, because am not making the point that stiffer penalties for a criminal's biased thoughts are bad process because the court might be mistaken about their motive and give higher penalties to someone who wasn't deserving of sentence enhancements.

Though, to both of you, I realize it might be hard to understand how criminal penalty enhancements are a different problem in the US than other countries. It's the constitutional right of every citizen to be provided equal protection under the law. I feel like echoing that a thousand times like an idiot yelling at someone who doesn't speak my language. Don't really know how to explain what it means to be an American and how outrageously patriotic this topic inspires me. I wish Semicolon was here. Thinking he might chant it with me. This is bullshit. Every citizen has the constitutional right to equal protection under the law! This is bullshit. Every citizen has the...

[ZEGH8578]

In my understanding, this is the main reason for separating "hate crime" from all other violence

There's nothing wrong with determining the motivation for any crime, but if that's the reasoning for penalty enhancements then it's a poor reasoning unworthy of creating an imbalanced system of punishment and inequality in who deserves what justice. The prospect of incarceration doesn't decrease criminal activity, and stricter penalties don't either. In the US, adulthood brings along much higher odds of prison sentences and stricter penalties, though studies have shown there's no decrease in arrest rates connected to turning eighteen.

It's not so much about determining the reason - it kindov is more about additional punishment:
You are punished for violence-against-anybody
and
You are also punished for incitement for further violence - by having visually, clearly and deliberately chosen your victim from a political/ideological point of view, and knowingly made so publicly.

Two-in-one. I agree with how you think, don't misunderstand, I've thought the same many times, crime is crime, violence is violence, a victim is a victim.
Think of free speech as a similar thing - you are not only expressing your free opinion, but you are inspiring others to do crime. What if my hate speech is very direct? "Go buy a rifle today! Start hunting brownies! Cut the tall trees! Cut the tall trees NOW!"
That was the code-word to commence the massacre in Rwanda, for example - was that merely free speech? Of course not, it was a pre planned terrorist event of unimaginable proportion. Can you imagine free speech unleashed in Germany, where they explicitly ban all and any Nazi propaganda? I can assure you, it would look different than a KKK rally, these guys actually had the practice, history and memory of a Europe engulfed in flames, and they want it back.

Then it is needless to add - I obviously agree with a general free speech, but surely you can see how at least some places may prefer to limit it, for the sake of national security - people aren't always in control, speech may incite them.
And, if a "hate crime" is meant as an example to go by, as they sometimes are, many of the perpetrators admit to wanting to ignite a race war or something, they should be treated as more than solely the act of violence.

Maybe it's just a bit poorly defined, as a law. Maybe it could be just violence + incitement to terrorism, for example, instead of "hate crime"

[Jack]

Freedom of speech also has its limitations in the US, but those are separate charges which criminalize certain types of speech. It's not uncommon for criminals to face multiple criminal charges for a single act. Hate crime isn't a separate criminal charge, rather the application enhanced penalties to acts which are already crimes with set penalties. Not sure about other countries, but the rationale for penalty enhancements in the US is partially based in the assertion that victims of biased motivated crime suffer more psychologically than other victims of the same criminal act. It's clearly a prioritization of victimhood.

[Jack]

There are also states which consider homeless status among hate crime. Who will be the next preferred group? When will all groups be included and crime be considered equally hateful again regardless of the motive of the criminal, the perceived weakness of the victim, or the impact on society as a whole?

[Al Swearegen]

In my understanding, this is the main reason for separating "hate crime" from all other violence

There's nothing wrong with determining the motivation for any crime, but if that's the reasoning for penalty enhancements then it's a poor reasoning unworthy of creating an imbalanced system of punishment and inequality in who deserves what justice. The prospect of incarceration doesn't decrease criminal activity, and stricter penalties don't either. In the US, adulthood brings along much higher odds of prison sentences and stricter penalties, though studies have shown there's no decrease in arrest rates connected to turning eighteen.

Dunno if that ramble makes any sense.

No it didn't completely make sense, because am not making the point that stiffer penalties for a criminal's biased thoughts are bad process because the court might be mistaken about their motive and give higher penalties to someone who wasn't deserving of sentence enhancements.

Though, to both of you, I realize it might be hard to understand how criminal penalty enhancements are a different problem in the US than other countries. It's the constitutional right of every citizen to be provided equal protection under the law. I feel like echoing that a thousand times like an idiot yelling at someone who doesn't speak my language. Don't really know how to explain what it means to be an American and how outrageously patriotic this topic inspires me. I wish Semicolon was here. Thinking he might chant it with me. This is bullshit. Every citizen has the constitutional right to equal protection under the law! This is bullshit. Every citizen has the...

It is the legal right here too.
The problem as I put it, how do you know what the person was thinking when they did the crime? Unless they were screaming "Die (X) scum" but even then was that indicative that they killed because they were X or that they were killing them for whatever reason and the fact that the person I believe in the principle but it'd be hard to regulate

[Jack]

It is the legal right here too.
The problem as I put it, how do you know what the person was thinking when they did the crime? Unless they were screaming "Die (X) scum" but even then was that indicative that they killed because they were X or that they were killing them for whatever reason and the fact that the person I believe in the principle but it'd be hard to regulate

Still don't see the point in believing in the principle, regardless of the problems with penalty for thoughts. It's not only a thought police issue, it's a victim bias issue, and a principle based in gauging the level of badness of the bad guy. Some people might agree with a principle of stricter sentences for thieves who aren't poor, but an inequality in the punishment standards of criminals creates an inequality of justice for victims. If bigotry is a crime, then it should be a separate criminal charge with its own separate penalty.

[MLA]

After a further two years of criminal law I can say that my previous statement was simplistic, but I still agree with it.

['andersom']

After a further two years of criminal law I can say that my previous statement was simplistic, but I still agree with it.

Your previous statement is non existent in this thread.
That must be the ultimate form of simplicity.
 

[MLA]

What makes one innocent victim's assault worthy of harsher punishment than another innocent victim's equal assault? What the assailant was thinking?

I disagree with you...though not entirely.
I think if I dislike and fight someone AND they are black or Indian or female or Asian or whatever,  all good. IF I dislike and fight someone BECAUSE they are black , Indian, female Asian or whatever THAT is an issue. The subtlety is minimal and it is a value thing, butvi there.
Same as it is with hate crimes.
The problem is what you've touched on. You can't police thoughts.
I strongly suspect the gentleman calling it a hate crime is 100% right. I suspect the hatred of white people was the core of it and it seems perfectly reasonable and rational to presume this.
But look at all the qualifiers in the above sentence.

This conversation is reminding me of another thread here. Wasn't a member here at the time so couldn't comment. Hubert said it well.

Hate crime enhancements create thought crimes.  I understand what purpose they are trying to serve, but my personal philosophy on the law is that it should always remain as subjective as possible.  If you strike someone in the face you have committed the crime of striking someone in the face.  If you strike someone in the face and the prosecutor can convince a group of 6-12 partially engaged citizens that you were thinking hateful thoughts about that person's race when you hit him, then the crime is worse?  That doesn't make sense to me, and runs the risk of destabilizing the entire system.  The most important asset the law has going for it is that it is accepted by all as inherently fair.  When that is lost, the whole thing comes crashing down.

I haven't done Crim yet, but the only crime I am aware of so far that takes premeditation into account is homicide.  There is something of a legal fiction involved in that premeditation can be formed in the split second before you bean someone in the head with a shovel, but that's another conversation.  Personally, I can see how homicide would be the poster child against hate enhancements.  The victim is equally dead, there isn't anything worse that can be done to him.  Is it really "fair" to give a lesser sentence to someone who killed your kid because he owed him money than you would give to someone who killed your kid because he is gay, or black, or Norwegian?  Isn't that devaluing certain homicides in light of others?  Why is my kid's life worth less than yours just because your kid's killer was thinking something different from my kid's killer?  They are both equally dead.

I guess I should have quoted it as it was up there a ways. 

[Jack]

I still agree with it.

Good. Do you feel like arguing you point of view; would be willing to take the stance of apposing my own view.

[odeon]

What makes one innocent victim's assault worthy of harsher punishment than another innocent victim's equal assault? What the assailant was thinking?

So if I only have nice thoughts and say nice things about someone while beating someone I should get a lesser penalty 

Obviously. Just tell them that it's for their own good.

['andersom']

What makes one innocent victim's assault worthy of harsher punishment than another innocent victim's equal assault? What the assailant was thinking?

I disagree with you...though not entirely.
I think if I dislike and fight someone AND they are black or Indian or female or Asian or whatever,  all good. IF I dislike and fight someone BECAUSE they are black , Indian, female Asian or whatever THAT is an issue. The subtlety is minimal and it is a value thing, butvi there.
Same as it is with hate crimes.
The problem is what you've touched on. You can't police thoughts.
I strongly suspect the gentleman calling it a hate crime is 100% right. I suspect the hatred of white people was the core of it and it seems perfectly reasonable and rational to presume this.
But look at all the qualifiers in the above sentence.

This conversation is reminding me of another thread here. Wasn't a member here at the time so couldn't comment. Hubert said it well.

Hate crime enhancements create thought crimes.  I understand what purpose they are trying to serve, but my personal philosophy on the law is that it should always remain as subjective as possible.  If you strike someone in the face you have committed the crime of striking someone in the face.  If you strike someone in the face and the prosecutor can convince a group of 6-12 partially engaged citizens that you were thinking hateful thoughts about that person's race when you hit him, then the crime is worse?  That doesn't make sense to me, and runs the risk of destabilizing the entire system.  The most important asset the law has going for it is that it is accepted by all as inherently fair.  When that is lost, the whole thing comes crashing down.

I haven't done Crim yet, but the only crime I am aware of so far that takes premeditation into account is homicide.  There is something of a legal fiction involved in that premeditation can be formed in the split second before you bean someone in the head with a shovel, but that's another conversation.  Personally, I can see how homicide would be the poster child against hate enhancements.  The victim is equally dead, there isn't anything worse that can be done to him.  Is it really "fair" to give a lesser sentence to someone who killed your kid because he owed him money than you would give to someone who killed your kid because he is gay, or black, or Norwegian?  Isn't that devaluing certain homicides in light of others?  Why is my kid's life worth less than yours just because your kid's killer was thinking something different from my kid's killer?  They are both equally dead.

I guess I should have quoted it as it was up there a ways. 

Thank you. I only looked for posts you made. Did not look at posts quoted from elsewhere by others.

[MLA]

I still agree with it.

Good. Do you feel like arguing you point of view; would be willing to take the stance of apposing my own view.

Sure