Should "hate crimes" carry additional penalties?

[Charade]

IMHO, I don't. I don't think people should be punished for their thoughts. Only when those thoughts transform into actions but no additional punishment.

To me that would be like thinking (not planning) about robbing a bank and then being punished for the actual bank robbery and thinking about robbing the bank.

For example, racial slurs spray painted on the side of a building. In some cases there could be (at least) two charges. Vandalism and a hate crime.

I know some people will disagree but I'd like to know why you believe they should.

 

[Master Mason]

My only problem with it is when something is made illegal because it is a hate crime when it wouldn't have been criminal otherwise.

Such as hanging an effigy, If it is not illegal to hang an effigy, then it shouldn't suddenly become illegal if the effigy is of a black person.

 

[genius118899]

I agree with you. Punishing someone for their thoughts is too Big Brother-esque for me.

 

[JR6ooo4]

Is the action being punished or the intent? It is very hard to determine intent. Remember every jail is full of people who did not do the crime they were convicted of.

Mikeeee

 

[Scurvy]

I think a crime is a crime. If you kill someone, they're still dead whether you did it because you didn't like their shirt or because you didn't like their race. If you spraypaint a store it takes just as long to fix it whether you painted your initials or racial slurs. It doesn't matter if you beat someone up because of their sexuality or because they support the wrong football team, they are still just as injured. In my opinion either something is acceptable or it isn't, and it shouldn't matter whether the motive was based on race, gender, sexuality, a bad haircut, the wrong team logo on your shirt, or any other ridiculous reason - the punishment should be the same.

All that is from a legal standpoint. Now socially, I feel differently. Not about the things like murder, but about things like graffiti. There is a big difference between kids just vandalising for fun and those who are spewing hatred. I would shun someone who was spraypainting hateful things, but probably not someone who was spraying their initials.

 

[Charade]

I think a crime is a crime. If you kill someone, they're still dead whether you did it because you didn't like their shirt or because you didn't like their race. If you spraypaint a store it takes just as long to fix it whether you painted your initials or racial slurs. It doesn't matter if you beat someone up because of their sexuality or because they support the wrong football team, they are still just as injured. In my opinion either something is acceptable or it isn't, and it shouldn't matter whether the motive was based on race, gender, sexuality, a bad haircut, the wrong team logo on your shirt, or any other ridiculous reason - the punishment should be the same.

All that is from a legal standpoint. Now socially, I feel differently. Not about the things like murder, but about things like graffiti. There is a big difference between kids just vandalising for fun and those who are spewing hatred. I would shun someone who was spraypainting hateful things, but probably not someone who was spraying their initials.

Your post makes a lot of sense.

 

[Yen Sid]

Being a criminal justice major I would have to say I like the way it is set up, you should recieve a stiffer sentence if you committed a hate crime. They are trying to use it as a detterent so people don't go around bashing gays and people of a different nationality like after 9/11. I don't think the detterren has worked as much as they would like but I don't think we will ever know the true impact it has had.

 

[GeorgeG]

Being a criminal justice major I would have to say I like the way it is set up, you should recieve a stiffer sentence if you committed a hate crime. They are trying to use it as a detterent so people don't go around bashing gays and people of a different nationality like after 9/11. I don't think the detterren has worked as much as they would like but I don't think we will ever know the true impact it has had.

I think I see your logic, but it also implies that it's okay to bash other people who do not fit into you described situations. I think we have really screwed things up in trying to be so politically correct we have lost grasp of "simply correct." The more categories we have for crime, the more room there is for plea bargaining. Pretty pathetic to me.

 

[Mickey'snewestfan]

I do think that hate crimes, at least at some point, should be treated differently.

Often times in hate crimes there's an intent to terrorize, and that intent can have profound effects on the way people feel and the actions they take.

Let me give you an example -- I'm a teacher, let's say I taught high school instead of preschool special ed, and let's say that some of my students, on Halloween, decided to take a can of shaving cream and draw pumpkins or bats or something all over my car. I'd be annoyed, I might even be late for something the next day, and if I knew who they were I'd want them scolded and to have to clean it up and apologize -- but that's all, I'd realize it as an innocent prank and hope they outgrew that stage soon.

In addition to being a teacher I'm also a white mom with a young black son. Now imagine that I came out to the same car and found it covered with KK images, swastikas, images of someone hanging from a tree -- all done in the same shaving paint. Annoyed would not describe my feelings -- I'd be terrified, and that terror would have profound impact on my actions, from keeping my son very close (likely inside) to possibly moving, at the very least I'd probably invest heavily in an alarm systtem. And if I figured out who had done it, I'd want them to be in a whole lot bigger trouble than having to wash the car and apologize.

So, yes, I do think that the person's intent, and the impact that the crime has on the victim's, and other witnesses's feelings and behavior, should be taken into account when people figure out what the punishment should be.

 

[sha_lyn]

I do think that hate crimes, at least at some point, should be treated differently.

Often times in hate crimes there's an intent to terrorize, and that intent can have profound effects on the way people feel and the actions they take.

Let me give you an example -- I'm a teacher, let's say I taught high school instead of preschool special ed, and let's say that some of my students, on Halloween, decided to take a can of shaving cream and draw pumpkins or bats or something all over my car. I'd be annoyed, I might even be late for something the next day, and if I knew who they were I'd want them scolded and to have to clean it up and apologize -- but that's all, I'd realize it as an innocent prank and hope they outgrew that stage soon.

In addition to being a teacher I'm also a white mom with a young black son. Now imagine that I came out to the same car and found it covered with KK images, swastikas, images of someone hanging from a tree -- all done in the same shaving paint. Annoyed would not describe my feelings -- I'd be terrified, and that terror would have profound impact on my actions, from keeping my son very close (likely inside) to possibly moving, at the very least I'd probably invest heavily in an alarm systtem. And if I figured out who had done it, I'd want them to be in a whole lot bigger trouble than having to wash the car and apologize.

So, yes, I do think that the person's intent, and the impact that the crime has on the victim's, and other witnesses's feelings and behavior, should be taken into account when people figure out what the punishment should be.

While I understand your point, I believe that as most hate crime laws stand they only apply is the vicitim is a minority which IMHO is wrong.
IE if a whit KKK member took shots at an all black school it would be a hate crime. However it wouldn't be a hate crime for a member of a radical black group that promotes hate toward whites to take shots a t an all white school.
Hate is hate be it a member of a majority group feeling hate toward a minority group or the other way around.

 

[nataliesdaddy]

no - the concept of weighting a crime due to hate crime status is an absurdity

 

[Mickey'snewestfan]

While I understand your point, I believe that as most hate crime laws stand they only apply is the vicitim is a minority which IMHO is wrong.
IE if a whit KKK member took shots at an all black school it would be a hate crime. However it wouldn't be a hate crime for a member of a radical black group that promotes hate toward whites to take shots a t an all white school.
Hate is hate be it a member of a majority group feeling hate toward a minority group or the other way around.

Then change that aspect, rather than just getting rid of the laws.

 

[Scurvy]

While I understand your point, I believe that as most hate crime laws stand they only apply is the vicitim is a minority which IMHO is wrong.
IE if a whit KKK member took shots at an all black school it would be a hate crime. However it wouldn't be a hate crime for a member of a radical black group that promotes hate toward whites to take shots a t an all white school.
Hate is hate be it a member of a majority group feeling hate toward a minority group or the other way around.

Hate is hate even if it's one girl who hates another because she stole her boyfriend.

Mickey'snewestfan - Your example makes sense and I can see why one scenario would be more terrifying than the other. I posted earlier that "a crime is a crime" but I do see that someone trying to inspire terror could have more consequences for the victim than more trivial vandalism would, so in that case maybe the punishment should be more harsh. But what if instead of pumpkins the vandals put death threats because they don't like the way you teach? I don't think that would fall under the heading of hate crimes, but would the racially motivated things really be any worse? I certainly think it's reasonable that the details of the crime should be taken into account during sentencing. Writing a threat is worse than drawing a pumpkin - I agree with you that the fear inspired by the threat should carry with it a harsher punishment. But I don't think it should matter what motivated the threat, whether it was inspired by race or something else.

 

[Mickey'snewestfan]

Hate is hate even if it's one girl who hates another because she stole her boyfriend.

Mickey'snewestfan - Your example makes sense and I can see why one scenario would be more terrifying than the other. I posted earlier that "a crime is a crime" but I do see that someone trying to inspire terror could have more consequences for the victim than more trivial vandalism would, so in that case maybe the punishment should be more harsh. But what if instead of pumpkins the vandals put death threats because they don't like the way you teach? I don't think that would fall under the heading of hate crimes, but would the racially motivated things really be any worse? I certainly think it's reasonable that the details of the crime should be taken into account during sentencing. Writing a threat is worse than drawing a pumpkin - I agree with you that the fear inspired by the threat should carry with it a harsher punishment. But I don't think it should matter what motivated the threat, whether it was inspired by race or something else.

I hear what you're saying but honestly, I still think there's a difference. If an individual targets me that's scary, but people who hate often do so as part of an organized network. If one teenager (or group of teenagers) made a threat against me, it would still feel differently than wondering (or knowing) that the person who did that to my car was representative of a whole group of people who were out to harm myfamily. There's also the added factor, of course, that like any parent I'd far rather risk my own life than see my child in danger.

 

[Anewman]

IMHO, I don't. I don't think people should be punished for their thoughts. Only when those thoughts transform into actions but no additional punishment.

To me that would be like thinking (not planning) about robbing a bank and then being punished for the actual bank robbery and thinking about robbing the bank.

For example, racial slurs spray painted on the side of a building. In some cases there could be (at least) two charges. Vandalism and a hate crime.

I know some people will disagree but I'd like to know why you believe they should.

In your vandalism example.

I do not feel that spray painting "Joanie loves Chachi" on a wall is the same as spray painting a racial slur on a minority persons garage door.

The Hate crime penalties are used to discourage crimes, I dont have a problem with the penalties. If the perpetrators take issue, they could stop committing those crimes.

 

[LaraK]

I think there's a balance. Vadalism is an area where I think there is a difference and something could be called a "hate crime" due to the fact that the penalty for straight vandalism is relatively minor. On the other hand, murder is murder. It's a hate crime no matter what the racial background of either party is.

 

[minnie61650]

I found website with a definition ,details about an offender’s bias motivation, & list of hate crimes in 2004.

Definition
A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.
..............................................

As a result, the law enforcement agencies that participate in the national hate crime program collect details about an offender’s bias motivation associated with the following offense types: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and destruction/damage/vandalism of property.
..............................................................
1 The actual number of incidents is 7,649. However, the column figures will not add to the total because incidents may include more than one offense type, and these are counted in each appropriate offense type category.
2 The term victim may refer to a person, business, institution, or society as a whole.
3 The term known offender does not imply that the identity of the suspect is known, but only that an attribute of the suspect has been identified, which distinguishes him/her from an unknown offender. The actual number of known offenders is 7,145. However, the column figures will not add to the total because some offenders are responsible for more than one offense type, and they are, therefore, counted more than once in this table.
4 Includes additional offenses collected in the NIBRS.

Link to full article:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html

 

[tinatark]

The term "hate crime" is subjective, as far as it being applied to specific crimes. Nearly any crime of white on black, straight against gay, etc. will be classified as a hate crime.

There is a horrific case right now in Knoxville, TN, a white couple was car jacked, tortured (for several days) and murdered by no fewer than 5 black people (5 have been arrested and charged). But it's NOT being considered a hate crime.

Link - I don't usually post wikipedia links as valid, but I know this case pretty well and the link is accurate, with links to local news stories about the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom

 

[nataliesdaddy]

The term "hate crime" is subjective, as far as it being applied to specific crimes. Nearly any crime of white on black, straight against gay, etc. will be classified as a hate crime.

There is a horrific case right now in Knoxville, TN, a white couple was car jacked, tortured (for several days) and murdered by no fewer than 5 black people (5 have been arrested and charged). But it's NOT being considered a hate crime.

Link - I don't usually post wikipedia links as valid, but I know this case pretty well and the link is accurate, with links to local news stories about the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom

wow

 

[Scurvy]

The term "hate crime" is subjective, as far as it being applied to specific crimes. Nearly any crime of white on black, straight against gay, etc. will be classified as a hate crime.

There is a horrific case right now in Knoxville, TN, a white couple was car jacked, tortured (for several days) and murdered by no fewer than 5 black people (5 have been arrested and charged). But it's NOT being considered a hate crime.

Link - I don't usually post wikipedia links as valid, but I know this case pretty well and the link is accurate, with links to local news stories about the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom

And that is a perfect example of why I object to classifying crimes as "hate crimes". The outcome for that couple would have been no different if their attackers had been the same race as they were. The outcome would have been no different if the criminals had been a bunch of kids of several races who just wanted to see what it was like to kill someone. It is completely wrong to punish the attackers differently just because of the races involved, because dead is dead no matter what the motive was.