What is the definition of a "HATE CRIME"?
Many people are talking about the rise in "Hate Crimes" since Mr. Trump was elected. Exactly what is a "Hate Crime"
It seems to me if you commit a violent crime against anyone, a certain degree of hate was involved. I know that this term came about because certain violent crimes were committed because of a persons race, ethnicity, religion and/or sexual preference. But, IMHO, all Crime involves somne degree of hate toward the victims. White on Black, Black on White, anybody on anybody.
For example in NYC there were 64 "hate crimes" since Mr. Trump was elected. does that men there were 64 additional crimes that were reported that met the requirements bor gbeing a hate crime or there were 64 crimes reported in the normal course of events theart ere construed to meet the definition of hate crime?
Another questions in this area that has puzzled me, but I haven't been able to find a clear answer to: If a white person attacks a black, it is generally taken to be a hate crime until shown not to be. If a black person attacks a white, what is it counted as? A hate crime or just a crime? NOT trying to start a huge race debate here, just looking for an answer to this puzzling (to me) question.
It seems to me if you commit a violent crime against anyone, a certain degree of hate was involved. I know that this term came about because certain violent crimes were committed because of a persons race, ethnicity, religion and/or sexual preference. But, IMHO, all Crime involves somne degree of hate toward the victims. White on Black, Black on White, anybody on anybody.
For example in NYC there were 64 "hate crimes" since Mr. Trump was elected. does that men there were 64 additional crimes that were reported that met the requirements bor gbeing a hate crime or there were 64 crimes reported in the normal course of events theart ere construed to meet the definition of hate crime?
Another questions in this area that has puzzled me, but I haven't been able to find a clear answer to: If a white person attacks a black, it is generally taken to be a hate crime until shown not to be. If a black person attacks a white, what is it counted as? A hate crime or just a crime? NOT trying to start a huge race debate here, just looking for an answer to this puzzling (to me) question.
There aren't poor-stealing, robin-hood-stealing, selfish-stealing and hate stealing. There is just stealing.
Yes. I am also saying even if he does hate all people with certain physical traits and he commits a crime against one member of the group, that does not in itself make it a crime against many people. Focusing on the group means buying into the criminals wrong view, detracts from the actual physical crime, aggrandizes the criminal, and imputes victim traits on members of the target group (some of whom may not be at all scared). .
But I see your point of if it's clearly meant to intimidate others, it's like writing a letter with a credible threat to multiple people.
If someone commits a crime against every black family that moves into or even just looks at a house in his neighborhood his intention is obviously against all Blacks. However, if that person commits a crime because he doesn't want a particular black person in his neighborhood then it is specific to one individual and not a group. He may hate all Blacks but that would be up to the prosecution to prove. What do you think? (Innocent till proven a bigot?)
Sorry, if Jane burns down a white man's house and Judy burns down a black woman's house, the punishment should not be more severe for either crime based on unproven intent or either alleged perpetrator being prejudiced based on race or gender or religion any other reason.
Everyone is prejudiced and no one should be punished by government for their thoughts.
The laws are called for because if the government only prosecutes the bombing as a bombing, or the house burning as arson, it's not enough to deter the next crime of the same kind, and that means the terrorist has succeeded in making you and me afraid to annoy the terrorist.
I'll grant that it would be better to expressly punish the terrorist for the intimidation part of his crime. But that would require proof of intent which will usually be impossible to produce under the legal system as it is.
I suppose I can see it your way if he succeeds in his goal and many individuals feel threatened. It would be the same as if he sent all those individuals credible letters threatening to murder them. I'm cautious about this, though, because it depends on a adopting the murders' mindset of seeing people as groups rather than individuals.
However it occurred in a prison. Where the penalty is worse than in the public. Apparently, on the outside a fight can be a misdemeanor, but in the slammer it is a felony. But also apparently, because it was a "white on white" incident, it can't be a "hate crime".
that it was not premeditated.
and abuse" statute in Virginia, which, of course, I believe to be contrary to the First Amendment.
hate. A murder could be committed cold-bloodedly,
because the robber wants to get the victim's $, or the victim "knew too much"; but in any such case,the victim is still just as dead.
There was a case in the Richmond area once;
a co-worker of mine said one of the murderers
was her sister, or half-sister (I believe the co-
worker had nothing at all to do with it, and that nobody had said she had). Anyway, according
to what I remember of the newspaper account,
it involved some kind of insurance fraud; the
victim was a retarded woman, and the murder-
ers (3 women, as I recall), got her drunk, and
finished by pouring gasoline over her, and set-
ting her on fire. The victim and the perpetrators
were all of the same race. I consider it a very
hateful crime; how much of it came from the
emotion of hate, and how much of the particular
form of murder came from expediency, I do not
know.
But as far as I am concerned, a crime is a
crime is a crime. Punishment should be accord-
ing to the crime (although intent or non-intent
should be taken into account); I just don't hold
with criminalizing people according the their
state of emotion.
1) The criminal wants to scare black people away from moving into his neighborhood.
2) The criminal wants to prove his trustworthiness (that he's not a cop and he's willing and able to kill) as a hit man to a powerful criminal gang, so he murders a random passer-by.
You're saying the first case is worse because the goal is to intimidate an entire group.
This exercise validates the group-identity politics of working out which group is oppressing which other group.
Load more comments...