Why Do We Need Hate Crimes?

Just like we needed it the other times. It gives congress a chance to beat their chest and say "look what we've done for you!" In the process it makes the legal process more obtuse and harder for people without lawyers to do anything. The ABA and various special interest groups are happy so the congress is happy.

do you really believe there is a cause and effect ??

I'm not sure anything quite so nefarious is at work.....

Well it's not the laws actually contribute anything to the process. As many have pointed out, does it really matter what is in the heart of the perpetrator to the victim or the system for that matter? Since the laws do little or nothing, its hard for someone as cynical as me to not think there has to be something gained by the political or legal class parasites for it to happen.

yes, but when you mention special interest groups, one must assume you are talking also about MONEY-- campaign contributions etc.

if you say, there is political gain, and votes to be had, I buy that--- but if you say there is a tit for tat with lobbyists, money for congressional votes, I would step back and suggest moderation.

Oh, I so agree. I think it's disgusting to make one crime greater than another. Kill a cop, and you're smoke. Kill a kid, and maybe yes or maybe no. Why is one life worth more than another?

one life ISN'T worth more than another, you've hit the nail on the head ! ! !

and it even gets worse then a baby is killed, because the "quality of their life has yet to be proven".

How would it be if you were the victim, and the crime was not murder but spray painting pink ribbons on your house? Or breaking out the windows of your store because you sell kosher food? Hate crime encompasses MUCH more than murder.

Sure it does Karl, but the reality remains.

When you deface someone's house or business, you are breaking the law. I find it very difficult to justify any added "punishment" to the perpetrator, simply because the pick ribbons he painted on a house, were motivated by his aversion to _____ pick your minority.

There are laws against breaking out the windows of a building or business-- what does it matter the windows were broken because the owner practices a particular religion?

There is only emotion involved in the elevation of these "hate crimes" above other, ostensibly lesser crimes. There is no intellectual validation for emotionally based justifications seeking to protect so called "minority" citizens.

Where does hate crime stop Karl(other than white males)? With this expansion we're really applying the law to thought. When did we get the ability to read peoples minds? What makes five straight guys beating up one gay man worse than five gays beating up one straight guy? Thought? If that is the case then we're saying that the five straight guys will get 20 years and the five gay guys will get 10 years.

Aren't we suppose to have equal justice under the law? How is that equal justice under the law?

As to your example they should be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law equally. Both are cases of vandalism.

iJack I would agree with you if it were not for the fact that the only thing keeping me from burning down the Pagan forest up by
Sedona is the hate crime law that adds years to arson convictions. I don't want to burn down the Christian Forest around Flagstaff though. See, one whole forest saved because I do not want to spend 15 years in jail. I would gladly spend 10.

lol. But you'd get five more years of free government health care Karl.

Charles, You need to read this article. THE VICTIM WAS GAY, THE PERPETRATOR WAS ALSO GAY. The beating was declared hate crime, EVIDENTLY because of the way in which it was committed. The victim was LURED to a place gays were known to gather.

Charlie, I am a Veteran. I ALREADY HAVE FREE (NEARLY) GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE.

I think you should have it too, EVEN THOUGH YOU SEEM TO BE A CONSERVATIVE.

Nah independent. I don't like following crowds. I don't agree with any party enough to want to join any group. Plus they would end up throwing me out because I would refuse to toe the party line. Last group I joined was the US Army.

wow, this string took on a life of it's own *chuckle*

lol yea it did.

c'est la vie what will be will be que sera sera..... *whooooo-EEEEEEEEEEEEEE*

Aren't all mean, dastardly, destructive, vengeful acts done out of "hate"....

Is there a separation for "love" crimes?

*ROFL* love crimes.... good one Nora.... ! ! !

COME ON MIDNIGHT you know the war in Iraq is being done out of a Love for Democracy that knows no bounds.

do I Karl ?? how would you know that ??

You read the newspapers. UNLESS, HEAVEN FORBID, YOU ARE REALLY SARAH PALIN.

I think I'll make up some new words for the "Oh I wish I was an Oscar Meyer Weiner" ditty, and call the song, "I Wish I Was Sarah Palin." *chortle guffaw chortle guffaw*

Seems to me that any voilent crime constitutes hatred.

"Love" crimes would be a crime of passion. Maybe?

I don't know Elizabeth, I just thought it sounded funny....

On a somewhat serious note. The only reason I have heard for making the punishment for hate crime more severe than the punishment for crime motivated by more conventional causes is quite simple. When a hate crime is committed, everyone who fits the description of the perpetrator is considered a danger to everyone in the community under attack.

IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN SOME HOMOPHOBIC IDIOT BEATS A GAY MAN TO DEATH, I BECOME SUBJECT TO SUSPICION AND FEAR. AND SO DO ALL THE STRAIGHT MEN IN THIS CONVERSATION.

well, that is a good point....
you're no longer a threat to a random individual....
but a whole group.....

You got it backwards. Why am I not surprised? The group attacked, may, and sometimes does retaliate by doing the most convenient member of the attackers group. You do remember 9/11 DON'T YOU?

That was an extreme case of victims attacking the innocent members of a population.

Odd how a simple question about the philosophy behind a law is so DIFFICULT to answer. Or how difficult the answer is to understand.

Hate crime laws are about cause and effect. They are a public policy effort to prevent one act of violence from escalating into two wars in the Middle East.

Karl.... *chuckle* The Middle East ???

WTF ???

your tangent is beyond obtuse.....

jJack,
I couldn't agree more. Excellent article. One huge problem with the whole concept is that it violates the "equal protection" clauses. Suppose two identical crimes are inflicted upon two people. The one that is said NOT to be a victim of a hate crime watches his/her perp get a lighter sentence for the SAME offense. No equal justice. Doesn't seem hard to me. I don't think Martin Luther King would go for hate crimes either.
The other problem is how do you really establish motivation for an action that anyone takes. Try that determination with any politician that you know and you'll see the difficulty in that game.

agreed....
pretty simple stuff....

How can two crimes be the same if one is a hate crime?
Someone took your parking space, you send them to the hospital, another shows his black face in your town, you send him to the hospital.

I see the more heinous crime, yes they're terrible crimes and I would feel for both victims but which crime could cause a holocaust?

Without hate crimes legislation Republicans would get more violent.

because hate crimes are a construct of someone's overzealous emotional baggage and not based in legality or logic.

Rude,
Your examples are not equivalent.
jJack is right. The 'hate crime' part is subjective and can applied arbitrarily where ever. Two assaults, one on an Arab man and one on a guy with a New York Yankees tee-shirt, are equivalent and should have the same penalty regardless of why they occurred. Otherwise the legal system deteriorates to whimsy. Why is Lady Justice blindfolded?

ding ding ding ! ! !

Look here on Gather. Because someone slung hate words towards me, and then "accidentially tripped" me while Iwas walking by, I could prove it was a "hate crime" by just producing copies from these posts.

See how misconstrued these scenarios can become?

If we have "hate" crimes because someone hated the victim, then congress most definately also have the "I have to kill you crime because because if I let you get away you can "finger" me and I will go to prison, (usually done (I would assume) by most middle-aged white men who molest young girls), the "Oop's, I didn't mean to do it law", usually done by someone who actually didn't want to kill anyone, they just did something stupid like driving while intoxicated or not paying attention to the road and/or people and were applying akeup, texting, talking on the cellphone, etc).. the "I'm really, really pissed law", usually people that got jilted by someone, or people that found out their spouse was cheating on them, or even people that got made fun of alot more than they could "handle", the "I don't want to take "me" time away from myself and take care of this person for years" don by doctors for women that screw around, but aren't mature enough to care for their baby. (Oh, yeah, called abortion, already passed into a law that says, "That's ok". Anyways, how about those laws coming into effect too?...

Carolyn *chuckle* good stuff....

Yup,this is what it's come to; Great post,Carolyn!-Norman

I think this is because there are so many out there committing crimes based on other's orientation, skin and otherwise.
These laws are becoming specialized basically to stop hate of any kind. In theory, of course.
If you have tougher penalties because of this, then you might just think twice before you hate someone for no reason.

Think about that for a second Angela-- is a skin head, filled with hate, going to be deterred by a supercilious law he probably isn't even aware of ?

What about some teenage boy, full of conflict and emotion about his own sexuality-- what happens when the high school football team goes out to beat up homosexuals, will the confused boy disregard peer pressure because some law tells him it's "extra bad" to beat up homosexuals?

I just can't wrap my head around it, I see no logic to it, and see emotionalism dripping all over it....

I'm just theorizing myself. Not many laws are deterants these days. It seems that everyone is so angry and blaming the other guy that they're not taking responsibility for themselves.

agreed....

I think the purpose is possibly more nefarious. Today the nebulous 'hate crimes' are defined as ones that, with a stretch, might make some sense like crimes against gays, or Arabs, etc. But later some will want to slide down the slippery slope and apply this 'hate' criteria for more agenda based purposes, like speech against abortion (or morality in general) might become a hate crime, certain political protests , or even protests against say climate change or health care.

Remember that in "1984" by Orwell, 'thoughts' against the government were basically hate crimes. Considering how this administration is treating Fox news, that interpretation doesn't seem terribly far away.

iJack, you really don't get it. There is a MOTIVE in virtually all crimes. In hate crimes the MOTIVE is defined as a desire to harm a group of people by hurting one of that group. The retaliation for that if it happens is as random as the act itself. If a Glurb Beats an Mursk for no reason other than the Mursk is a Mursk, ALL Mursks become fearful and feel victimized. One or all of them may retaliate against the Glurbs. It is in the interest of the Glurbs to PREVENT as much as possible the initial attack. FAILING to prevent the attack it is necessary for the Glurbs to punish the attacker.

It makes perfect sense if you CONSIDER THAT MOST LAW IS INTENDED TO PREVENT CRIME, NOT PUNISH IT.

As I said above, I can't see how such laws equate to equal justice for the victims (specifically the non-hate crime one)?

karl, you're using the same argument people use to defend their notions of torture--- you believe if we torture someone, they will torture US.

The simple truth is, they torture people as a matter of course, and we torture people as a last resort.

But the concept of, "if you attack one of us, you attack us all," is firmly entrenched in the very alliances countries bind themselves together with, and such primal tribalism are very difficult to break. Gang mentality takes over rather quickly when large numbers are present, and it isn't difficult to turn a crowd into a mob.

These things have nothing to do with the concept of "hate crimes."

I still have a problem saying that someone is harmed more than others simply because of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It seems to me to be minimizing certain victims because that don't fall into certain classifications.

And I still think it comes back to trying to read someones mind to determine the level of punishment. ie. punishing thought. And where does the punishment of "thought" end?

Plus if I remember correctly the government doesn't have to prove that you had hateful thoughts. You have to prove that you didn't. Seems like it should be reversed. Just because a white guy robs and beats up a black man doesn't automatically make it a hate crime.

Charles, agreed....

iJack, I AM using the argument that if YOU beat up gays. GAYS MAY RETALIATE BY BEATING ME.

Your failure to make that connection is what YOU need to work on. If ten percent of all Americans want to exploit Nigerian or Kenyan Oil at 40% of real value, and simultaneously are willing to allow the oil companies to ravage the land around the oil fields, WHY ARE YOU SURPRISED WHEN Nigerians or Kenyans KILL American Oil Workers?

That. on a global scale is what hate crime legislation is all about. Maybe you would understand better if you went in a bar with a bully, and he started tearing the place up. YOU would not be able to go back there.

Thanks jJack, (even though I don't think alot will be amused).

tragedy becomes comedy, comedy becomes tragedy, and the circle of life is complete. some will utter words of scorn, some will laugh along, either way the day becomes complete, and the symphony of tragedy and comedy clashing together becomes the recognizable norm to all that conform with reality.

it matters not if there are those unamused, as I am highly amused, and in my mind that's all that really counts *chuckle*

LOL Amusement and some points, not too bad for an rticle, enjoy both!

that would be article. Keybard seems to be messing up and "issing" letters more and more.

and that would be missing

ooopsie *chuckle*

And are there only certain disabilities that are covered? Because if not then damn near everything could be subject to being a hate crime. Young kid attacks elderly woman in a wheel chair. Hate crime or just easy target?

good point Charles ! ! !

There is too much to dislike than to hate someone for there beliefs , gay, black ,Democrat
I cannot explain this .because i do not understand why it is happening ...THE HATE. It does not make any sense...if you screw me over than we have a problem...white or black..red and green...but not because of color. I have friends that are gay...hey ,they were born that way. I do not think hanging around one is going to make me get on my knees....GIVE IT A BREAK....hate starts in the home...how you are brought up ! I cannot answer because I do not know why it happens at all..you are a asshole ...then you are a asshole...its plain as day !

cornholio... *chuckle*

cornholio...lol

were you a beavis and butthead fan ???? *huh, huh huh, huh huh"

i used to watch..beavis and butthead...not a big fan...i like the family guy though.

thanks for the input Korak ! ! !

I really did not give any input but to let you know their is good people out there...I guess...thank you .

For old point whores like me, "input" equates to "points." At this particular juncture I am looking to score some extra cash, via gather. Therefore, everytime you post a comment on one of my articles, you are in effect paying me for your time.

So let me thank YOU.....

nooooo , yesss...Pineapple express it ! Answer that one .
I will go check out your post...always willing to help.

you already did that man, are you sure you need to eat anymore of that pineapple??? *chuckle*

I love the movie also...i have some snickle fritze on a plate now .

a dedicated fan....

lol, a very much one..I like that new actor Seth Rogen. he is really funny.
He seems like a normal person.

My friend Robert, the simple man...in 30 days recieved 1801 points. I do not understand how..I have been here 2 months just breaking a 100pts...lol

the point system is complicated to understand, but some people are obviously charismatic....

I think his dog was injured bringing all the women to his post. Hey, I am a kool dude..and i see more visits to a post than i have to my site. Well then sir I am here to help you !

my dog he got three legs.... *chuckle*

hey
Did you hear about the dog that walked into a bar...saying ;'' i am looking for the man who shot my paw ! ''

chortle chortle guffaw guffaw *good one&

I should have said a three legged dog ,huh ?

it's an old paul mcCartney song *grin*

lol

Hate crimes are used to give special protected class status to certain groups of people. What really bothers me is that hate crimes are determined by what a judge or jury believes was the criminal's motive. As if they could know what the criminal was thinking when the crime was committed. That's why they are called thought police. Why is one motive worse than another. A crime is a crime. All crimes are some form of hate.

It's no suprise how some crimes do not fit the the "hate crimes template." There are only certain groups of people who can be victims of a hate crime and the people of these very same groups are never considered perpetrators of hate crimes when they commit an "equal" crime. Hate crimes are meant to protect them and never to convict them.

Hate crime laws are used for social engineering purposes. It's interesting how many of these same engineers say we can't legislate morality. And yet that's exactly what they are trying to do. However, it is their own morality or lack there of they want legislated.

three good points Lee....

Do the words politically correct ring a bell? The motivation is not to dispense equal justice under the law but rather to allow latitude to levy punishment for the percieved mental deficiency of intolerance.

what?

i just cant see it though or perceive that we hate for ideas being different or color...I just cant see it eventhough i know it is out there..thats all.

An afterthought. The whole idea of more severe punishment for "hate" crimes is dripping with irony. We have chosen to deal differently with a perpetrator who is aleged to have chosen a victim because they are different?

it's all so laughable.... *chuckle*

Of course we don't need hate crimes. People could very well keep their hate to themselves. They can even mumble a bit or make rude jokes (or rude noises). What they really ought to avoid doing is kicking or hitting or killing or like that.

we should all avoid kicking, hitting or killing, no matter whom we might designate as a target....

All I ever see conservatives say about "hate crimes" are things like "What does it matter if the victim is black or gay? Murder is murder!"

Do you all understand that hate crimes are about the motive of a crime, not the identity of the victim? Do you get that the killing of any black person by any white person (or vice versa) is not necessarily a hate crime?

It's difficult to prove motive for any crime, so the burden of proof for calling a crime a "hate crime" should be high. But in cases where someone is CLEARLY targeted as a result of the perp's bias against their race, religion, or sexual identity, there should be a harsher price to pay. Society has an interest in taking special care that violence due to any of these prejudices does not spin out of control, as we've seen happen too many times in this world and in this country.

that's your opinion and it's emotionally based, not logically based...

I don't know where you get emotionally based from. Care to counter with your own logic?

I don't you don't know where my conclusion comes from---

I've stated my logic already, though I must admit I didn't enunciate the "equal protection under the law" argument.

"All I ever see conservatives say about "hate crimes" are things like "What does it matter if the victim is black or gay?"

All I ever see liberals say about "hate crimes" are things like "How can we take more freedom away from gullible Americans and put more money in our own pockets by making government 10 times bigger with more czars and new agencies to manage hate crimes?"

*chuckle* good stuff berf....

Hahaha, you got nothing. Too bad, I was game for a good debate.

hahaha whatever....

The first hate crime prosecution was against some young black males who saw Mississippi Burning and went into a beating frenzy, beating up white folks.

I would suggest if these types of crimes were more prevalent, many a repub would change his mind on hate crime legislation.

I see ulterior motives for Neocons hating Hate Crime laws.

Oh, I almost forgot........*chuckle*

whatever you "see" is based upon what is already in your head--- the anti-rose colored glasses are constructed of your thoughts.....

lol,
i cannot comment because I do not understand why we hate for these reasons...Screw with me then we can talk..but for Gayness or black in color....I cannot see this...good day.

even if you don't understand, you can acknowledge....

you do know sisssies get beat up, right ???

Jack I agree with you again tonight.

thanks Randi ! ! !

iJack, You are right WE DON'T NEED HATE CRIMES. That's why they should be illegal. NOBODY NEEDS THEM.

Interesting post. I personally agree with Hate Crime legislation. I feel that there is a difference between someone who murders in order to take any stranger's possessions and one who deliberately targets a specific group of people based on their sex or sexual orientation or race. It is not a matter of equality in that one person's life is more important than another's. It IS a matter of basic intent - do you murder out of rage, or premeditation? That's a delineation in the law now. Do you murder randomly? Or, do you murder specific targets, such as serial killers who target young women? That is definitely taken into consideration in the law right now. Intent is not a new concept. It still comes down to evidence, not guessing.

One of the most famous examples is the Holocaust. If Hitler had not targeted Jews and homosexuals, but rather randomly gassed and shot and tortured indiscriminately the same number of people, would it still have the impact it had on our historical collective consciousness? If the genocide in Rwanda had not been one group targeting another, would it have been the same?

Whether you accept it or not, targeting due to race, religion, sex or sexual orientation is an important societal concept and all should be considered 'special' circumstances when evidence and motives are weighed.

Just don't murder gays or minorities for the simple fact that they ARE gay or minorities and you don't have to worry about hate crime laws.

Yeah, now I know why you hate hate crime laws.

I think the need is real. Itr is because that certain groups will target specific people to attack. If you do not address the whole of the problem, then you will never have any effect against it. The problem is, most "Hate Crime Bills" usually only deal with Law Enforcement, and not the deeper issue at hand. When a group pushes their opinion on the larger society, this can cause civil anarchest groups to react negatively. So the whole of the issue needs addressed, from both points of cause.
Educate to respect, not indoctrinate, and a lot of the issues of "Hate Crimes" will vanish. But lets face it, they will never go away, too many thrive on hate.