Chicago Victim Interviewed on CNN tonight Jan 9

Will do - thanks for bringing this to our attention.

A crime is a crime. I personally am against adding a "hate" label to an already heinous crime.

I agrre with Jeff a crime is a crime. Labelling it changes that fact. Punishment lets talk about that. Who here is in favor of the death penalty?

hmm.....I'm not a big fan of the death penalty. This is a good example to justify it though.

A hate crime should carry more weight in the sentencing process than other crimes. The only reason these people are victims is because of hatred. Otherwise, who should care. It isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

No Joe the severity of a crime is determined in the judicial process and in the sentencing. Labeling it a hate crime means they are being charged for what they were thinking when they committed the crime and its too arbitrary.

Ok, Jeff.

I am glad that this is airing, I do not have cnn but just hearing that this interview is happening makes me happy that awareness is being raised.

Jeff,

It is true that in recent years several localities, states and indeed the federal government have adopted hate crime legislation. However, the notion of a hate crime has expanded beyond the strictly legal implications. The term hate crime is now used colloquially to refer to crimes that are motivated by hated against an individual based on animus toward the group to which the victim is perceived to belong (e.g., sexual, racial, gender minority).

As someone who treasures his libertarian ideals I too have very ambiguous feelings on the notion of hate crime enhancement in sentencing. I am very sympathetic to the notion that hate crime laws would appear to criminalizes thought by increasing the penalty for crimes based on the motive for committing those crimes.

That said, crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs.

Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes. In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause.

Mr. Robinson that's a good point. I still think that the effect you are looking for can be determined by a judge who has the power to escalate the punishment that fits the crime. I don't think there is much difference between a crime motivated by greed or hate.

In my opinion you can charge somebody for murder and you can prove it with evidence witness testimony and forensics. To charge somebody for what they were thinking when they committed the crime is pure speculation.

The other issue is that its becoming a tool used to pit groups of people against each other. I look at the Duke University students and the hell they were put through and continue to be put through because of speculation before the facts are known. African American civil rights groups were marching in the streets willing to hang 4 Kids who from all evidence now revealed weren't even guilty. The creation of the hate crime is the result of emotions getting mixed into what is supposed to be a rational objective process. The Judge can send a message in sentencing that's why crimes have Minimums and maximums in sentences to be determined by ajudge.

I respect your opinion and hope you can understand my point of view as well.

Jeff,

I respect your point of view but I do believe you are conflating two disparate realities.

First, there's the matter of prejudice, either toward a victim or the accused. We all have some level of prejudice based on our personal experience. At time the race, nationality, gender or sexual orientation of the victim or the accused tend to sway public opinion before all the facts are in. In my view this isn't a result of hate crimes laws or the concept of a hate crime.

With regard to judicial discretion, I agree that a thoughtful weighting of the facts is call for in all cases. However, in many jurisdictions the so-called truth in sentencing laws have greatly restricted the judicial discretion leaving the matter in the hands of the prosecutor. This presents many issues for criminal justice advocates (but I will save that discussion for another time).

Hate crimes laws as they currently stand require evidence that indeed the crime was motivated by animus. For example, the perpetrator use epithets or there is evidence that a particular group was being targeted.

Finally, I would differ with you opinion somewhat on the notion that crimes motivated by animus toward an individuals or a group innate characteristics and crimes motivated issues such as greed are the same. While the affects on the victim may well be the same racially motivated lynching were not only intended to do harm to the targeted individual(s) they were a message to a whole group of people about the consequence of being in the "wrong neighborhood" or being to familiar with an individual of another race. Likewise, gay bashing is often not about the individual target but a tactical way to send a message of disapproval.

I don't think we are that far apart in our views. I for one have no desire to create "thought police." On the other hand I do believe we as a society need tools to send a clear message that we will not allow violence to be used as a tool of oppression based on racial, religious, gender or sexual orientation.