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.
If that was against the law we would need a lot more prisons, the halls of congress would be almost empty and it would bring a virtual end to our traffic problems. :)
Respectfully,
O.A.
and abuse" statute in Virginia, which, of course, I believe to be contrary to the First Amendment.
That must make you one of the Deplorable's. lol Yeah, me too.
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".
It is as irrational and as unconstitutional as "affirmative action". Neither of these monstrosities would exist in America if we had a majority of originalists on the Supreme Court.
It doesn't matter what group the perpetrator identifies with or which group he's trying to intimidate; they're all "terrorism" and "hate crimes".
The people talking about a rise in "hate crime" supposedly associated with President elect Trump are probably trying to aggrandize those criminals and then blame their crimes partly on Trump.
"The death of one is a crime; the deaths of millions is a statistic." (It is often attributed to Stalin, but has another story: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/... Your claim is the reverse, that we are saddened by the victimization of one, but outraged at the deaths of many. And why not? I mean, can you say that one person is "worth" more than some number of others? Maybe to each of us, this person or that must be worth infinitely more than all others combined - our spouse, our parents... In Dr. Zhivago, the hero's half-brother, the police general, says "I have killed better men than me with a small gun." So, we must easily admit that some people are better than others. I have no easy answer for this forum, but I do note the question. I am not sure how to evaluate it. But, I do see your point, that victimizing one person for being a member of a perceived group is to attack the entire group, which is somehow metaphysically "worse" - which you question. And I agree with you: it bears questioning.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
Some of your Granola chompers will go on about the supposed advantages that oppression and slavery gave the white descendants of slave owners, however relatively few owned slaves back in the day and given the multiple mass migrations of people to the US since the civil war, there are not actually that many direct descendants of slave owners, as a proportion of the white population. I myself emigrated from England in 1967...I sure as shit got nothing out of it....but I sure have been discriminated against because of it.
In short it is used as a opportunity for the Race Baiters to complain and make money.
This exercise validates the group-identity politics of working out which group is oppressing which other group.
Hate crimes are just another form of gaining government power. They are ways to use the law to control people or eliminate them from civil society. They can take misdemeanor crimes and make them felonies. They are bludgeons in areas of law that require more nuances. And they are ways to divide communities along lines of identity politics. And a divided constituency is a government officials dream because it allows them to play a distraction game on one hand while possibly doing underhanded things with the other.
For example, if I beat the hell out of someone because he looks like he has enough money to make the crime worth my while, I get X jail time if I get caught.
But if I go out to beat up the first (insert group member here) that I see who also looks like he has enough money to make the crime worth my while, then I get X + Y jail time.
Since my jail time is different based purely on my motive, that's saying that this guy's life is more important--and so I should be punished more harshly--if I singled him out just because of his ethnic or other group.
I don't get it. I intentionally commit the same crime, I do the same amount of damage to the victim in both cases, and my penalty if I'm convicted differs just because of my motive?
Really?
Intent can never be fully proven externally, only guessed at. When the person that committed the crime admits to doing it because they hate the other, that is a close to proof as you can ever get.
In any case, a crime is a crime, penalties should be the same period.
All in all, to hate just ain't PC.
Nevertheless, to commit crime as a Trump hating rioting libtard hypocrite is PC.
Angry snowflakes all get a PC pass, you see.
There aren't poor-stealing, robin-hood-stealing, selfish-stealing and hate stealing. There is just stealing.
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.
Hate is also used as a policy tool of control. If you can get your followers to rely on hate, you can control them and use them.
Crime is crime. (A is A.)
That reason is all that is needed to stop using it. Every crime is harm done to another person(s) and nothing else.
Two other phrases I can think of, which should also be dropped from use...
"honor killings"... which says the justification was honor, so it was ok.
"crime of passion"... a lawyer's trick to imply the crime was justified and suggests leniency.
that it was not premeditated.
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.
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.
"beyond a reasonable doubt" as a standard is already hazy enough because of "reasonable" without throwing intent in there to muddy it further.
Pyschology is not on the same plane of reliability and repeatability as Chemistry or Physics.
You can try, judge, convict, punish pretty consistently on actions, the who/what/when/where. That is the basis of a/our legal system. Once Why gets in the mix fog overshadows fact.
Why is outside the act. Of concern for the relatives of Justice, Vengeance, Retribution, but not a legal necessity.
Load more comments...