New York immigrant dead in apparent hate crime

[daboyz 36]

Scum. Give him the chair.

[mRx 16]

I guess we could think about motives- stupid as they may be. Take out the anti- component of it and you likely don't have much of a motive to commit murder. Hence, hate.

Well let's not even talk murder. Let's talk simple assault.

Why would a punishment vary depending upon what color/sexual orientation you identify with?

This is a prime example of a law that creates an inequality.

While it's not right to assualt someone of another sexual orientation, it's not right to assualt anyone. Favoring groups with increased punishment towards their offenders, only creates more inequality, and group segregation.

You're judging only the outcome of the crime though and ignoring the motive. For example, the sexual orientation of the victim is not evidence enough to call it a hate crime, but if the only reason that the crime was committed was because the victim was gay, then it is a hate crime.

If a straight, white man were targeted for a crime simply because he was a straight, white man, then that would be a hate crime too.

What if someone was targeted for wearing a hat, or walking a dog, or even being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Every crime could therefore be a hate crime. See how ridiculous it can get? The punishment a criminal is given should only correalate with the action, not the status of the victim.

Motive is used to prove a crime, not determine harsher sentences based on victim group affiliation.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Motive is often conisdered ameliorating circumstances in determining sentence.

[mRx 16]

Hmmm.

I don't get the 'inequality of punishment' bit.

Different crimes have always had different charges and sentences based upon the committed act. Otherwise, you wouldn't have 'murder one' or 'murder two' or 'manslaughter'.

The degree of murder deals with the specific action; not the victim. (i.e. premeditated, non-premeditated, assault without intention of murder, heat of passion, temporary insanity, etc) None of the specifics deal in any way with the victim.

The Federal creation of the "hate crime" is just another way for government to pander to a specific class of American, which is an inequality. If you and I were both assaulted by the same person, shouldn't we be entitled to equal justice under the law?

[rebeccajo 14]

Hmmm.

I don't get the 'inequality of punishment' bit.

Different crimes have always had different charges and sentences based upon the committed act. Otherwise, you wouldn't have 'murder one' or 'murder two' or 'manslaughter'.

The degree of murder deals with the specific action; not the victim. (i.e. premeditated, non-premeditated, assault without intention of murder, heat of passion, temporary insanity, etc) None of the specifics deal in any way with the victim.

The Federal creation of the "hate crime" is just another way for government to pander to a specific class of American, which is an inequality. If you and I were both assaulted by the same person, shouldn't we be entitled to equal justice under the law?

The very essence of a hate crime has nothing to do with a specific victim. That's why it's in a category in and of itself.

[mRx 16]

Motive is often conisdered ameliorating circumstances in determining sentence.

But motive still has nothing to do with the victim. It can prove guilt, but not determine sentencing. Maybe if they were trying to go Murder 1 and prove meditation. Nevertheless this has nothing to do with the victim.

Not even sure if you were directing this at me, but thanks for sending me to the dictionary.

[Jenn! 918]

Maybe some clarification of how certain crimes get called hate crimes is in order. I've always assumed (maybe incorrectly) that the victim being some kind of minority is not sufficient to denote a hate crime.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The precise definition of a hate crime varies from state to state. Some states define a hate crime as any crime based on a belief regarding the victim's race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry. Some states exclude crimes based on a belief regarding the victim's sexual orientation. Others limit their definition to certain crimes such as harassment, assault, and damage to property. In all states the victim's actual status is irrelevant. For example, if a victim is attacked by someone who believes that the victim is gay, the attack is a hate crime whether or not the victim is actually gay.

http://www.answers.com/topic/hate-crime

[mRx 16]

Hmmm.

I don't get the 'inequality of punishment' bit.

Different crimes have always had different charges and sentences based upon the committed act. Otherwise, you wouldn't have 'murder one' or 'murder two' or 'manslaughter'.

The degree of murder deals with the specific action; not the victim. (i.e. premeditated, non-premeditated, assault without intention of murder, heat of passion, temporary insanity, etc) None of the specifics deal in any way with the victim.

The Federal creation of the "hate crime" is just another way for government to pander to a specific class of American, which is an inequality. If you and I were both assaulted by the same person, shouldn't we be entitled to equal justice under the law?

The very essence of a hate crime has nothing to do with a specific victim. That's why it's in a category in and of itself.

It deals with a group or race of people. But specific victims do fall into this group. It has nothing to do with the specific action of the assailant. Using a racial or discriminatory slur, while classless, is not a crime. Assaulting a person is a crime. But when you combine these elements, you have a hate crime which commands greater penalties for the criminal, and more justice for the victim.

This is precisely my point.

[rebeccajo 14]

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_re...rime/index.html

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.

Hmmm.

I don't get the 'inequality of punishment' bit.

Different crimes have always had different charges and sentences based upon the committed act. Otherwise, you wouldn't have 'murder one' or 'murder two' or 'manslaughter'.

The degree of murder deals with the specific action; not the victim. (i.e. premeditated, non-premeditated, assault without intention of murder, heat of passion, temporary insanity, etc) None of the specifics deal in any way with the victim.

The Federal creation of the "hate crime" is just another way for government to pander to a specific class of American, which is an inequality. If you and I were both assaulted by the same person, shouldn't we be entitled to equal justice under the law?

The very essence of a hate crime has nothing to do with a specific victim. That's why it's in a category in and of itself.

It deals with a group or race of people. But specific victims do fall into this group. It has nothing to do with the specific action of the assailant. Using a racial or discriminatory slur, while classless, is not a crime. Assaulting a person is a crime. But when you combine these elements, you have a hate crime which commands greater penalties for the criminal, and more justice for the victim.

This is precisely my point.

Well, maybe my problem with understanding your point is that I don't see what the problem is. The bias of the assailant has everything to do with his motive for the crime.

Edited December 14, 2008 by rebeccajo

[Jenn! 918]

The precise definition of a hate crime varies from state to state. Some states define a hate crime as any crime based on a belief regarding the victim's race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry. Some states exclude crimes based on a belief regarding the victim's sexual orientation. Others limit their definition to certain crimes such as harassment, assault, and damage to property. In all states the victim's actual status is irrelevant. For example, if a victim is attacked by someone who believes that the victim is gay, the attack is a hate crime whether or not the victim is actually gay.

http://www.answers.com/topic/hate-crime

Right, this is what I thought. I think that's an important point that contradicts the assertion that the crime is classified based on characteristics of the victim. There's inevitably a strong correlation between believing someone to be gay and that person actually being gay, but the fact that the victim is gay is incidental to the classification as a hate crime.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I believe the problem is that two completely legal acts (hating someone because of their race and using slurs), committed during an illegal act, may end up making him serve more time in prison than if he had committed the illegal act alone.

[rebeccajo 14]

I believe the problem is that two completely legal acts (hating someone because of their race and using slurs), committed during an illegal act, may end up making him serve more time in prison than if he had committed the illegal act alone.

It all goes to motive. I've never known anything in the US legal system that didn't take motive into account either in the charges, the sentencing, or both.

[mRx 16]

The precise definition of a hate crime varies from state to state. Some states define a hate crime as any crime based on a belief regarding the victim's race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry. Some states exclude crimes based on a belief regarding the victim's sexual orientation. Others limit their definition to certain crimes such as harassment, assault, and damage to property. In all states the victim's actual status is irrelevant. For example, if a victim is attacked by someone who believes that the victim is gay, the attack is a hate crime whether or not the victim is actually gay.

http://www.answers.com/topic/hate-crime

All crimes should be punished to the full extent of the law. Hate crimes carry more punishment than the full extent of the law would allow for an action of similar intensity.

I hate seeing people go shopping wearing pajama bottoms. I'm free to hate as I wish. It's not a crime. If I assaulted someone who wore pajama bottoms at Walmart, I should be punished more because I went into the crime with prior reservations about pajama wearing? What about another victim who wasn't wearing pajama bottoms; her pain isn't equal to the pajama wearer?

[mRx 16]

Well, maybe my problem with understanding your point is that I don't see what the problem is. The bias of the assailant has everything to do with his motive for the crime.

But, motives don't determine how harsh the punishment will be, only actions do.

Motives can assist in determining guilt though. But that comes before sentencing.