Should A Crime Be Penalized More If A Hate Crime

[+ Lucky]

towleroad.com this morning discusses an attack in Boston wherein a gay man is assaulted by three African-American lesbians. Of course, he wants it to be labeled as a "hate crime" since it could conceivably increase the penalty imposed, although hate crimes are notoriously hard to prosecute and juries often do not buy them.

 

From

The Boston Herald:

“My guess is that no sane jury would convict them under those circumstances, but what this really demonstrates is the idiocy of the hate-crime legislation,” said civil liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate. “If you beat someone up, you’re guilty of assault and battery of a human being. Period. The idea of trying to break down human beings into categories is doomed to failure.”

So, do you agree with the civil liberties lawyer?

 

Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/#ixzz1nVBu0iDv

[maxwellissmart]

towleroad.com this morning discusses an attack in Boston wherein a gay man is assaulted by three African-American lesbians. Of course, he wants it to be labeled as a "hate crime" since it could conceivably increase the penalty imposed, although hate crimes are notoriously hard to prosecute and juries often do not buy them.

 

From

The Boston Herald:

“My guess is that no sane jury would convict them under those circumstances, but what this really demonstrates is the idiocy of the hate-crime legislation,” said civil liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate. “If you beat someone up, you’re guilty of assault and battery of a human being. Period. The idea of trying to break down human beings into categories is doomed to failure.”

So, do you agree with the civil liberties lawyer?

 

Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/#ixzz1nVBu0iDv

 

The flip side of this argument is: should a defense be allowed to incorporate personal ideology and bias as justification, even if actions based on those beliefs are against the law? For example: "I shot him because I felt rage and shame after he made a pass at me—and I'm male."

[josephga]

a guy was jumped on by a few guys here in atlanta few weeks back. It was a brutal street beating caught on tape outside a convenience store. the gang video tapped the beating and put it on the internet

http://www.lawofficer.com/video/news/atlanta-police-release-surveil

 

georgia doesn't have a state hate crime law.

 

Hate Crimes legislation passed in Georgia in 2000, however, the language did not include categories, therefore, the new law was challenged in court. It was overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court in 2004 - the definition of a hate crime was determined to be "too vague." Hate Crimes legislation has been introduced every year since 2004, and every year it has included categories including sexual orientation and gender identity. The legislation has failed to pass despite having broad support including GBI Director Vernon Keenan, and several religious organizations, and national and international police organizations.

[+ beethoven]

I consider myself a civil libertarian, and I've belonged to the ACLU longer than many of you have been alive. I'm not a lawyer, but I've always thought "hate crime" legislation is a bad idea. As the Boston Herald is quoted above, assault and battery is just that. Trying to guess the perp's motivation verges on thought control.

The internet spying at Rutgers that resulted in Tyler Clementi's suicide has just gone to trial. The facts are not in much dispute; the jury is being asked to decide WHY the student who broadcast Mr. Clementi's sexual liaison via webcam did so. Not only is that almost impossible to decide, but it penalizes people for holding certain views, odious though they may be. Punish people for their actions, not their thoughts.

[+ sam.fitzpatrick]

I am not a supporter of hate crime laws. I have had three friends/co-workers murdered over the years. In each case, a spouse was involved as they were heading to divorce. There was definitely hate involved in the crime, but nothing that would fall under a "hate crime" as defined by the laws of the state I lived in at the time. Having the jury determine whether it is was a hate crime or not, sidetracks the jury from making the decision whether the crime itself was committed.

 

I agree with beethoven. A crime is a crime.

[+ deej]

The intent of hate crime laws has been perverted a bit.

 

The intent was to allow higher authority to step in where local prejudice may make it difficult if not impossible to deliver justice. Would that such laws were in place in the Jim Crow south! How many lynchings or draggings might not have happened, or might have resulted in justice, had local authorities not been protecting the perps?

 

A crime is a crime, yes, but not when it's protected by local authorities.

[Kevin Slater]

Absolutely agree. The constitution guarantees the right to think, feel, and hate as one wishes. Acting upon those thoughts, feelings, and hatreds may be illegal, but the underlying motivation is constitutionally protected. I don't agree with W. on much, but I always approved of his line that all crimes are hate crimes. The state doesn't belong in the business of sorting out the defendant's untoward motivations.

 

Kevin Slater

[orbital sander]

I agree with Kevin Slater on this, all crimes are hate crimes. It does seem like a slippery slope to try and categorize motivations. If someone is assaulted based on the fact they are gay, is that any worse than someone who is assaulted who is know to carry a lot of money in there wallet and is assaulted for that reason? An assault is and assault and the criminal(s) who perpetrate it should be treated accordingly. Every crime is a hateful act. The one exception may be the person who is starving to death who takes food to eat, that is survival...but even in these tough times in the USA, that crime seems unlikely and unnecessary.

[+ Lucky]

Labeling a crime a "hate crime" became the fashion in the early 1990's. Gays were especially delighted, as were Jews. The main Jewish lobby provided much funding to educate lawyers, especially prosecutors, on the new law. It quickly became political. Victims were enraged if a prosecutor did not add the hate crime allegation when they were assaulted. Judges and juries were almost unanimously vetoing the idea, refusing to convict on the charge or refusing to add to the penalty. Many of the objections were the same as voiced here, that you cannot see into someone's mind to determine how hate played a role. At least most of the time. Sometimes assailants were quite helpful to the prosecution by proclaiming their hatred. Even at that, juries continued to look for the main crime and convict on that. Plea bargains almost always included a dismissal of the hate crime allegation.

 

The above is a historical commentary. I am not up to date on current use of the hate crime allegation, or whether modern education has made judges and juries more amenable to the charge. But it remains true that it can be quite difficult to determine a motivation when someone has not otherwise stated it. And I'd like to think that punishing the crime is sufficient to deter more of the same. There was a time when gay bashing was barely punished, if at all. Nowadays it would be a rare prosecutor who would turn his back to a gay victim.

[+ Charlie]

I am opposed to "hate crime" laws because they privilege certain kinds of hate while ignoring others. Why should the victim of a crime motivated by hatred of his sexual orientation receive more compensation than the victim of a crime motivated by hatred of his financial status, or of his relationship with the perpetrator's ex-girlfriend? Prosecution should be based on the nature of the crime itself, not on the emotional motivation of the perpetrator at that moment, since hard evidence for that is usually difficult to come by.

[MsGuy]

I am opposed to "hate crime" laws because they privilege certain kinds of hate while ignoring others. Why should the victim of a crime motivated by hatred of his sexual orientation receive more compensation than the victim of a crime motivated by hatred of his financial status, or of his relationship with the perpetrator's ex-girlfriend? Prosecution should be based on the nature of the crime itself, not on the emotional motivation of the perpetrator at that moment, since hard evidence for that is usually difficult to come by.

 

Our laws have always recognized that crimes threatening to the community as a whole may be punished more severely than similar crimes not deemed so threatening. Most states punish home invasion more harshly than B&E of a store, although the substance of the crimes are virtually identical. Folks just naturally find the idea of someone kicking down the door of a condo at three in the morning a more heinous crime than prizing open the back window of their local bodega at the same time.

 

In an ethnically diverse community, a beat down motivated by racial hatred can reasonably be regarded as more dangerous to community peace than an essentially private beatdown motivated by protecting the honor of someone's sister. A few years back, I recall a couple of jokers were driving around in WeHo smacking down gays with baseball bats. Seems to me this behavior was considerable more disruptive to lots more folks than a similar number of attacks motivated by greed or private quarrels would have been.

 

As to whether it's wise policy or even feasible to elevate "hate" crimes to this special status of being especially disruptive to the larger community, I leave to others smarter than me to debate. I can see good arguments on both sides.