The jinx of the north

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't think you are right, in both examples you are assaulting the guy because of a specific event. Hate crimes are when people are assaulted because of what they are. In a court, neither of your examples would count as hate crimes. At least, that's how I understand it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the whole idea of "hate crimes" is wrong. A crime is a crime regardless of the motivation. To add another layer on it just muddies up the water. Why should there be a different penalty if I assaulted a straight white male or a gay black male? It's thought police tactics and I suppose Fred was thinking the same way. Murder is murder, assault is assault. What was going through the persons mind when he committed the crime isn't something that should make a difference.

Hate crime is very different from a random crime, Gary.

Hate crimes are when a perp TARGETS a victim because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, or political affiliation.

So lets do a what if. Say I am in a bar and get drunk. In my drunken state I get into a fight and assault the guy next to me because he winks at my wife. I break his nose and arm in the process. That is assault. Now say the guy I beat up was gay. In my drunken state I assaulted him because he made a pass at me. I break his nose and arm. That is assault and a hate crime. Why in the world should the penalty be any different? Both are equally wrong and the penalties should be the same.

Intent.

Lets use a different example. You burn a cross in front of the home of a black family that you want to force out of your neighbourhood. You get arrested for creating a public nuisance (lighting a fire on or near the family's property). Should the penalty you receive merely reflect the nuisance part - or that fact that the context of the crime was one intended to intimidate and terrify the people inside the house?

[GaryC 7]

I think the whole idea of "hate crimes" is wrong. A crime is a crime regardless of the motivation. To add another layer on it just muddies up the water. Why should there be a different penalty if I assaulted a straight white male or a gay black male? It's thought police tactics and I suppose Fred was thinking the same way. Murder is murder, assault is assault. What was going through the persons mind when he committed the crime isn't something that should make a difference.

Hate crime is very different from a random crime, Gary.

Hate crimes are when a perp TARGETS a victim because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, or political affiliation.

So lets do a what if. Say I am in a bar and get drunk. In my drunken state I get into a fight and assault the guy next to me because he winks at my wife. I break his nose and arm in the process. That is assault. Now say the guy I beat up was gay. In my drunken state I assaulted him because he made a pass at me. I break his nose and arm. That is assault and a hate crime. Why in the world should the penalty be any different? Both are equally wrong and the penalties should be the same.

You can be charged for a hate crime, but the prosecution to prove that it indeed was a hate crime. If they can't, then all they can prove is assault. There is a reason why the justice system is set up the way it is. But a gay guy making a pass at your wife? Think about it.

Other than the varying degrees of murder the reason for doing the crime should be immaterial. If I kill because I wanted someones car or I kill because someone is black should be the same penalty.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Other than the varying degrees of murder the reason for doing the crime should be immaterial. If I kill because I wanted someones car or I kill because someone is black should be the same penalty.

But it isn't - because the case could be made there that you didn't 'intend' to kill the guy at all because you wanted his car. Now if you killed the guy for no other reason than that he was black - well... there's no way to spin that.

[Dan J 277]

I think the whole idea of "hate crimes" is wrong. A crime is a crime regardless of the motivation. To add another layer on it just muddies up the water. Why should there be a different penalty if I assaulted a straight white male or a gay black male? It's thought police tactics and I suppose Fred was thinking the same way. Murder is murder, assault is assault. What was going through the persons mind when he committed the crime isn't something that should make a difference.

Hate crime is very different from a random crime, Gary.

Hate crimes are when a perp TARGETS a victim because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, or political affiliation.

So lets do a what if. Say I am in a bar and get drunk. In my drunken state I get into a fight and assault the guy next to me because he winks at my wife. I break his nose and arm in the process. That is assault. Now say the guy I beat up was gay. In my drunken state I assaulted him because he made a pass at me. I break his nose and arm. That is assault and a hate crime. Why in the world should the penalty be any different? Both are equally wrong and the penalties should be the same.

You can be charged for a hate crime, but the prosecution to prove that it indeed was a hate crime. If they can't, then all they can prove is assault. There is a reason why the justice system is set up the way it is. But a gay guy making a pass at your wife? Think about it.

Other than the varying degrees of murder the reason for doing the crime should be immaterial. If I kill because I wanted someones car or I kill because someone is black should be the same penalty.

That depends, which one is more likely to be a crime of opportunity and which one is likely to be premeditated and planed? Most robberies tend to be a crime of opportunity, while most hate crimes tend to be planned. Of course, with both cases there are exceptions.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's never immaterial. The reason's behind a crime are the basis for the severity of the penalty for the crime once the guilt is established. The role of the judge is to decide what punishment fits the crime within proscribed limits.

Again, neither of your examples really get's to the nub of intent in terms of hate crimes. I think that in both your instances the death would be seen as pre meditated and so the result would be the same in terms of sentence. However, there are instances where the intent would insite a stiffer or a lighter sentence.

I could be wrong, but I thought if you carried a weapon during a crime, any resultant death is considered pre meditated? I think we need someone who knows more about the law to step in here...[]

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gary - I seem to remember you saying not so long ago that you advocate minimum sentencing. How do you think that would play with removing the contextual distinction for applying harsher sentences for certain type of crime?

[no name 1]

THe title of the thread: The jinx of the north, not when is a hate crime a crime or just plain hate?

Typical derailing of topic to take away from the points being made.

[GaryC 7]

THe title of the thread: The jinx of the north, not when is a hate crime a crime or just plain hate?

Typical derailing of topic to take away from the points being made.

Well since yours and Charles comments about Thompsons votes on hate crimes started it then I guess you should look to yourself for the derailing of the topic, yes?

But back to the OT. History has shown us a pattern. And if that pattern holds true then Clinton and Oboma don't stand a chance. Lets hope history repeats itself!

Edited September 5, 2007 by GaryC

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

THe title of the thread: The jinx of the north, not when is a hate crime a crime or just plain hate?

Typical derailing of topic to take away from the points being made.

i don't see anything wrong with the temporary tangent on definition of hate crime as it was related to thompson's voting record which gary was explaining.

[Caladan 19]

I think the whole idea of "hate crimes" is wrong. A crime is a crime regardless of the motivation. To add another layer on it just muddies up the water. Why should there be a different penalty if I assaulted a straight white male or a gay black male? It's thought police tactics and I suppose Fred was thinking the same way. Murder is murder, assault is assault. What was going through the persons mind when he committed the crime isn't something that should make a difference.

Hate crime is very different from a random crime, Gary.

Hate crimes are when a perp TARGETS a victim because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, or political affiliation.

So lets do a what if. Say I am in a bar and get drunk. In my drunken state I get into a fight and assault the guy next to me because he winks at my wife. I break his nose and arm in the process. That is assault. Now say the guy I beat up was gay. In my drunken state I assaulted him because he made a pass at me. I break his nose and arm. That is assault and a hate crime. Why in the world should the penalty be any different? Both are equally wrong and the penalties should be the same.

You can be charged for a hate crime, but the prosecution to prove that it indeed was a hate crime. If they can't, then all they can prove is assault. There is a reason why the justice system is set up the way it is. But a gay guy making a pass at your wife? Think about it.

I think Gary's got the wrong idea of how this works. It's just not true that any gay guy who is the victim of a crime is automatically the victim of a hate crime. There are no hate crime muggings or hate crime hold-ups. He can get drunk and slug people all he wants and all he'll get convicted of is assault. Inner city black on black crime doesn't count as a hate crime.

Where it comes into play is when Gary goes out with his group of thugs to beat up a guy for being black or gay or whatever. The guy has to be TARGETED in order for a hate crime to be on the table.

[GaryC 7]

I think the whole idea of "hate crimes" is wrong. A crime is a crime regardless of the motivation. To add another layer on it just muddies up the water. Why should there be a different penalty if I assaulted a straight white male or a gay black male? It's thought police tactics and I suppose Fred was thinking the same way. Murder is murder, assault is assault. What was going through the persons mind when he committed the crime isn't something that should make a difference.

Hate crime is very different from a random crime, Gary.

Hate crimes are when a perp TARGETS a victim because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, or political affiliation.

So lets do a what if. Say I am in a bar and get drunk. In my drunken state I get into a fight and assault the guy next to me because he winks at my wife. I break his nose and arm in the process. That is assault. Now say the guy I beat up was gay. In my drunken state I assaulted him because he made a pass at me. I break his nose and arm. That is assault and a hate crime. Why in the world should the penalty be any different? Both are equally wrong and the penalties should be the same.

You can be charged for a hate crime, but the prosecution to prove that it indeed was a hate crime. If they can't, then all they can prove is assault. There is a reason why the justice system is set up the way it is. But a gay guy making a pass at your wife? Think about it.

I think Gary's got the wrong idea of how this works. It's just not true that any gay guy who is the victim of a crime is automatically the victim of a hate crime. There are no hate crime muggings or hate crime hold-ups. He can get drunk and slug people all he wants and all he'll get convicted of is assault. Inner city black on black crime doesn't count as a hate crime.

Where it comes into play is when Gary goes out with his group of thugs to beat up a guy for being black or gay or whatever. The guy has to be TARGETED in order for a hate crime to be on the table.

We already have laws that cover just about any offense you can think of. I don't understand why we need another category of crime. Can someone name me an offense that would be covered by a hate crime law that isn't covered by the existing laws?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the whole idea of "hate crimes" is wrong. A crime is a crime regardless of the motivation. To add another layer on it just muddies up the water. Why should there be a different penalty if I assaulted a straight white male or a gay black male? It's thought police tactics and I suppose Fred was thinking the same way. Murder is murder, assault is assault. What was going through the persons mind when he committed the crime isn't something that should make a difference.

Hate crime is very different from a random crime, Gary.

Hate crimes are when a perp TARGETS a victim because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, or political affiliation.

So lets do a what if. Say I am in a bar and get drunk. In my drunken state I get into a fight and assault the guy next to me because he winks at my wife. I break his nose and arm in the process. That is assault. Now say the guy I beat up was gay. In my drunken state I assaulted him because he made a pass at me. I break his nose and arm. That is assault and a hate crime. Why in the world should the penalty be any different? Both are equally wrong and the penalties should be the same.

You can be charged for a hate crime, but the prosecution to prove that it indeed was a hate crime. If they can't, then all they can prove is assault. There is a reason why the justice system is set up the way it is. But a gay guy making a pass at your wife? Think about it.

I think Gary's got the wrong idea of how this works. It's just not true that any gay guy who is the victim of a crime is automatically the victim of a hate crime. There are no hate crime muggings or hate crime hold-ups. He can get drunk and slug people all he wants and all he'll get convicted of is assault. Inner city black on black crime doesn't count as a hate crime.

Where it comes into play is when Gary goes out with his group of thugs to beat up a guy for being black or gay or whatever. The guy has to be TARGETED in order for a hate crime to be on the table.

We already have laws that cover just about any offense you can think of. I don't understand why we need another category of crime. Can someone name me an offense that would be covered by a hate crime law that isn't covered by the existing laws?

Gary the point is - identifying the perpetrators intention is rather important in terms of applying an appropriate sentencing. Pre-meditation (which would apply in the targetting of a person for a specific reason - i.e. because of race or orientation) is generally regarded less favourably than crime of opportunity. Might mean the difference between several different charges, and / or the difference between 10 years and life without parole.

[GaryC 7]

I think the whole idea of "hate crimes" is wrong. A crime is a crime regardless of the motivation. To add another layer on it just muddies up the water. Why should there be a different penalty if I assaulted a straight white male or a gay black male? It's thought police tactics and I suppose Fred was thinking the same way. Murder is murder, assault is assault. What was going through the persons mind when he committed the crime isn't something that should make a difference.

Hate crime is very different from a random crime, Gary.

Hate crimes are when a perp TARGETS a victim because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, or political affiliation.

So lets do a what if. Say I am in a bar and get drunk. In my drunken state I get into a fight and assault the guy next to me because he winks at my wife. I break his nose and arm in the process. That is assault. Now say the guy I beat up was gay. In my drunken state I assaulted him because he made a pass at me. I break his nose and arm. That is assault and a hate crime. Why in the world should the penalty be any different? Both are equally wrong and the penalties should be the same.

You can be charged for a hate crime, but the prosecution to prove that it indeed was a hate crime. If they can't, then all they can prove is assault. There is a reason why the justice system is set up the way it is. But a gay guy making a pass at your wife? Think about it.

I think Gary's got the wrong idea of how this works. It's just not true that any gay guy who is the victim of a crime is automatically the victim of a hate crime. There are no hate crime muggings or hate crime hold-ups. He can get drunk and slug people all he wants and all he'll get convicted of is assault. Inner city black on black crime doesn't count as a hate crime.

Where it comes into play is when Gary goes out with his group of thugs to beat up a guy for being black or gay or whatever. The guy has to be TARGETED in order for a hate crime to be on the table.

We already have laws that cover just about any offense you can think of. I don't understand why we need another category of crime. Can someone name me an offense that would be covered by a hate crime law that isn't covered by the existing laws?

Gary the point is - identifying the perpetrators intention is rather important in terms of applying an appropriate sentencing. Pre-meditation (which would apply in the targetting of a person for a specific reason - i.e. because of race or orientation) is generally regarded less favourably than crime of opportunity. Might mean the difference between several different charges, and / or the difference between 10 years and life without parole.

To me it does not matter why someone does a particular crime but the fact he did it is what is important. I still don't understand what difference it makes if I assault someone because I want his wallet or I am assaulting someone because I don't like gays. Please explain to me why this requires a separate law.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the whole idea of "hate crimes" is wrong. A crime is a crime regardless of the motivation. To add another layer on it just muddies up the water. Why should there be a different penalty if I assaulted a straight white male or a gay black male? It's thought police tactics and I suppose Fred was thinking the same way. Murder is murder, assault is assault. What was going through the persons mind when he committed the crime isn't something that should make a difference.

Hate crime is very different from a random crime, Gary.

Hate crimes are when a perp TARGETS a victim because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, or political affiliation.

So lets do a what if. Say I am in a bar and get drunk. In my drunken state I get into a fight and assault the guy next to me because he winks at my wife. I break his nose and arm in the process. That is assault. Now say the guy I beat up was gay. In my drunken state I assaulted him because he made a pass at me. I break his nose and arm. That is assault and a hate crime. Why in the world should the penalty be any different? Both are equally wrong and the penalties should be the same.

You can be charged for a hate crime, but the prosecution to prove that it indeed was a hate crime. If they can't, then all they can prove is assault. There is a reason why the justice system is set up the way it is. But a gay guy making a pass at your wife? Think about it.

I think Gary's got the wrong idea of how this works. It's just not true that any gay guy who is the victim of a crime is automatically the victim of a hate crime. There are no hate crime muggings or hate crime hold-ups. He can get drunk and slug people all he wants and all he'll get convicted of is assault. Inner city black on black crime doesn't count as a hate crime.

Where it comes into play is when Gary goes out with his group of thugs to beat up a guy for being black or gay or whatever. The guy has to be TARGETED in order for a hate crime to be on the table.

We already have laws that cover just about any offense you can think of. I don't understand why we need another category of crime. Can someone name me an offense that would be covered by a hate crime law that isn't covered by the existing laws?

Gary the point is - identifying the perpetrators intention is rather important in terms of applying an appropriate sentencing. Pre-meditation (which would apply in the targetting of a person for a specific reason - i.e. because of race or orientation) is generally regarded less favourably than crime of opportunity. Might mean the difference between several different charges, and / or the difference between 10 years and life without parole.

To me it does not matter why someone does a particular crime but the fact he did it is what is important. I still don't understand what difference it makes if I assault someone because I want his wallet or I am assaulting someone because I don't like gays. Please explain to me why this requires a separate law.

I dunno Gary - there's been several pages explaining the difference.

Why have different degrees of murder, different attachments to it (like Depraved Indifference) to highlight the specific (unique) nature of that particular crime?

I already pointed out to you that simple example about cross burning. What might seem to be a nuisance crime on a superficial level really being intended to specifically intimidate people, which is surely a far worse crime. Not hard to understand IMO.