How do you describe a hate crime ?

[JennyMominRI]

Correct, however, when I said murder, I was considering 1st degree. Not manslaughter, which could be accidental.

Manslaughter can be intentional in some cases...The man who killed Dominique Dunne was charged with and convicted of manslaughter for choking her for almost 2 minutes...There was no premedition in his case.
Not that this has anything to do with the OP. sorry

 

[LukenDC]

A hate crime is a crime against someone not because of their individual circumstances, but because of their membership in a particular demographic group. Hate crimes are designed to send an intimidating message to an entire class of people.

If a gay man is attacked because he is wearing a Rolex, then that is a crime of opportunity, not a hate crime. If a gay man is attacked because of his sexual orientation, then that is a hate crime.

Some people say that hate crimes are those that attack people based upon immutable characteristics, but I disagree with that definition. Religion and nationality for example are not immutable characteristics. Yet criminals who target people based upon their religious expression or nationality are guilty of hate crimes.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

Murder... now there's a hate crime. All murder is a hate crime. There is (or should be) no difference in the eyes of the law whether a person is of a certain color/creed/or chooses to sleep with people of the same sex. Murder already is a hate crime.

 

[Mrs.Toad]

I believe the intent of a killer is always taken into account when it comes to charges...In most states, Intent, malice aforethought and premeditation are taken in looked at whem deciding what to charge someone with . None of these things have anything to do with the *value* of the victim.

Lets say Mary Jane is killed

In the first scenario Mary jane is killed by Bill who hits her with his car. He wasn't drunk but he was maybe driving to fast..He won't be charged with murder...There was no intent or premedition..You may be able to argue that there was malice involed because he was speeding..He will probably be charged with some form of manslaugher

In the second scenario Mary Jane is killed by her boyfriend in a fit of rage..In most cases because there was no premedition he won't be charged with 1st degree murder,but he may be charged with 2nd degree as you can prove intent(to kill her) and malice

In the 3rd scenario MaryJane is a lesbian an Bills kills her because he hates gay people..Now if he went out looking for a gay person to kill you can probably charge him with 1st degree murder because there is premeditation,intent and malice...If he killed her in a fit of rage because he finds out she is gay he may get second degree murder because he had malice and intent, but not premeditition..
I believe that "hate crime" goes to the intent and malice portion of the charges...I don't believe it has anything to do with the value of Mary Jane .
I'm sure there are some lawyers here that can say how accurate I am

This is the way I see it.

Also, I don't think hate crimes can only be perpetrated against minorities. I think the murder of Matthew Shepard is just hateful as the racially motivated murder of an AA person. But I also think that the racially motivated murder of a white person, or the murder of a straight person based on his sexual orientation, is equally hateful.

I haven't looked at the legislation, so I don't know how the punishment for a hate crime would differ from the punishment in another case of first degree murder. I'm not necessarily in favor of punishing a criminal more severely for a hate crime, but instead using it as an explanation of intent, like "crime of passion", etc.

 

[leighe]

I, personally, think it is ridiculous to say that it's worse to kill someone because of their skin color, sexual orientation, religion, whatever than it is to kill someone because you want to steal their car. The fact that you killed someone is the point - not why you killed them. And I do understand that there are different degrees of murder but doesn't that have more to do with the way in which the murder occured - was it premeditated, did you just get mad and snap, etc.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

What's the harm in giving some scumbag a harsher sentence if he wakes up one Sunday morning and decides to firebomb a church full of people, and in the process, kills a little girl in Sunday School, because he hates Christians versus the sentence given to an otherwise rational man who kills another man when we walks in on him having sex with his wife?

For the life of me, I just don't understand why there is so much resistance to Hate Crime bills...

 

[JennyMominRI]

I, personally, think it is ridiculous to say that it's worse to kill someone because of their skin color, sexual orientation, religion, whatever than it is to kill someone because you want to steal their car. The fact that you killed someone is the point - why you killed them.

Well then we need to get rid of the intent and malice portion of ALL charges

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Well then we need to get rid of the intent and malice portion of ALL charges

That does seem to be where their argument is coming from. No more 1st or 2nd degree murder, no more manslaughter...if you kill someone, regardless of reason or intent, you're charged with the same crime and get the same sentence.

 

[Bob Slydell]

What's the harm in giving some scumbag a harsher sentence if he wakes up one Sunday morning and decides to firebomb a church full of people, and in the process, kills a little girl in Sunday School, because he hates Christians versus the sentence given to an otherwise rational man who kills another man when we walks in on him having sex with his wife?

For the life of me, I just don't understand why there is so much resistance to Hate Crime bills...

Those two situations should be handled differently. But not because the first person hated Christians, but rather because the first situation was clearly pre-meditated (regardless of who he was targeting) versus the second situation which, I assume, is not planned in any way.

ETA: Quick question -- do you think the man in your first situation should be punished any differently if it was determined that he bombed the church not because he hated Christians, but rather because he was just a psychopath who felt the need to bomb some building and the church was the first place he came upon?

 

[laurie31]

What's the harm in giving some scumbag a harsher sentence if he wakes up one Sunday morning and decides to firebomb a church full of people, and in the process, kills a little girl in Sunday School, because he hates Christians versus the sentence given to an otherwise rational man who kills another man when we walks in on him having sex with his wife?

For the life of me, I just don't understand why there is so much resistance to Hate Crime bills...

To compare apples to apples - what if two churches were blown up. In the first, the bomber just wanted to kill random people and in the second, the bomber hated Christians. The little girl is just as dead either way. The bomber should be punished the same because he planned and carried out the action, whether he hated the people inside the church is irrevelant.

Another senario - Suppose a man is walking down the street. He is jumped by a gang of thugs, beaten, robbed and murdered. Is it worse if they did it because he is (gay, muslim, obese, whatever) or if they did it just because they were bored and high and dared each other to kill the next person who came along?

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Quick question -- do you think the man in your first situation should be punished any differently if it was determined that he bombed the church not because he hated Christians, but rather because he was just a psychopath who felt the need to bomb some building and the church was the first place he came upon?

Yes, I do. Both crimes are premeditated, but the intent is very different.

 

[toto2]

Wow , nice conversation !


Just to add to the conversation :


"The current federal hate-crimes law, enacted nearly 40 years ago, covers only bias attacks based on race, ethnicity, national origin, and religion. In the case of a hate crime based on gender, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity, our government's hands are tied -- it doesn't have the authority to prosecute these violent crimes."

from:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-solmonese/here-we-go-again_b_47547.html

Some religious groups (Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, James C. Dobson from Focus on the familly) dont want to stop that hate crime bill , they only want crimes based on gender, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity to not be included in the bill.

It is , I think unacceptable ! What do you think ?

PS: This law does not prevent any group from preaching hate towards a group of people.

 

[Bob Slydell]

Yes, I do. Both crimes are premeditated, but the intent is very different.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree at this point then.

 

[Cool-Beans]

Those two situations should be handled differently. But not because the first person hated Christians, but rather because the first situation was clearly pre-meditated (regardless of who he was targeting) versus the second situation which, I assume, is not planned in any way.

Not to mention the fact that killing 300 people carries 300 charges and would make for a harsher sentence.

ETA: Quick question -- do you think the man in your first situation should be punished any differently if it was determined that he bombed the church not because he hated Christians, but rather because he was just a psychopath who felt the need to bomb some building and the church was the first place he came upon?

It shouldn't. It is the killing people that is wrong.

Hate is allowed. Hate is legal. It isn't nice, but you can't punish folks for hate.

And I keep saying it, but if society starts deciding that killing this guy is worse than killing that guy it will not lead anywhere good.

 

[JennyMominRI]

If we get rid of *intent* questions when it comes to killing someone you have to get rid of them all..The person who kills because his *intent* is to save his life would recieve the same charges as someone who killed because their *intent* was to kill a black man...Both crimes would have to be treated the same..Either we look at intent in all cases or in none.

 

[Cool-Beans]

Yes, I do. Both crimes are premeditated, but the intent is very different.

So which groups of people can we kill and get lighter sentences? Saying you hold the majority viewpoint (which is what it would come down to), who is it better to kill?

We are assuming that you hold the majority viewpoint, though.

Because God help us all if this crap becomes law and then the majority of folks decide something else.

 

[Bob Slydell]

If we get rid of *intent* questions when it comes to killing someone you have to get rid of them all..The person who kills because his *intent* is to save his life would recieve the same charges as someone who killed because their *intent* was to kill a black man...Both crimes would have to be treated the same..Either we look at intent in all cases or in none.

Intent to kill someone should be treated the same, regardless of who that someone happens to be: black, white, straight, gay, Christian or otherwise.

 

[Cool-Beans]

If we get rid of *intent* questions when it comes to killing someone you have to get rid of them all..The person who kills because his *intent* is to save his life would recieve the same charges as someone who killed because their *intent* was to kill a black man...Both crimes would have to be treated the same..Either we look at intent in all cases or in none.

It is the intent to KILL that is bad. That's what intent is about, whether or not you meant to DO it.

Intent and motive are two different things. Motive is hauled out to show why. If you prove to the jury that the guy hates black folks and said he was going to kill one and then did, it helps you prove it.

It is the murder than he should be punished for. Not the hate.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

So which groups of people can we kill and get lighter sentences? Saying you hold the majority viewpoint (which is what it would come down to), who is it better to kill?

Hate crimes not included, under current laws now on the books, you can kill a wide variety of people under different circumstances and get lighter sentences...

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

It is the intent to KILL that is bad. That's what intent is about, whether or not you meant to DO it.

So you attack me, and in self defence, I kill you with intent...do I need to go any further?

ETA: I meant to kill you to stop you from killing me.