bluebell Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 13 hours ago, The Nehor said: Changing the category of the crime increases the sentencing options for the judge. I'm not sure that the added increase of sentencing options is really necessary though. Is there any evidence to support that idea?
Gray Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 21 minutes ago, bluebell said: Paul Butler, a professor at George Washington University Law School and former federal prosecutor agrees with you. In the quote below he's responding to a question in an interview one whether or not hate crime laws are really punishing thought crimes- You know, as a civil libertarian, as a big fan of the First Amendment, I have to say it concerns me. So, if we think about the Rutgers bullying case, if Mr. Ravi had been convicted of intimidating the victim there because he was a nerd or because he was skinny, then he'd get five years in prison. Because he was convicted of intimidating him because he's gay or is perceived to be gay, he gets 10 years. So it does seem like we're getting awfully close to punishing thought crimes. I think bigotry, including homophobia, is wrong, but I think, in a free society, you have the right to think what you want, no matter how wrong it is. All these different degrees of homicide depend on the defendent's thoughts during the crime. I wonder how concerned Paul Butler is with this? Or does his concern just kick in for laws punishing racially-motivated crimes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law) Quote First-degree murder: any intentional murder that is willful and premeditated with malice aforethought. Felony murder, a charge that may be filed against a defendant who is involved in a dangerous crime where a death results from the crime,[12] is typically first-degree.[13] Second-degree murder: any intentional murder with malice aforethought, but is not premeditated or planned.[14] Voluntary manslaughter: (also referred to as third-degree murder), sometimes called a crime of passion murder, is any intentional killing that involves no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed". Both this and second-degree murder are committed on the spot under a spur-of-the-moment choice, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second-degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.[15] Involuntary manslaughter: (sometimes referred to as fourth-degree murder), a killing that stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional, or negligent, act leading to death. A drunk driving–related death is typically involuntary manslaughter (see also vehicular homicide, causing death by dangerous driving, gross negligence manslaughter and causing death by criminal negligence for international equivalents). Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. All three crimes above feature an intent to kill, whereas involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional", because the killer did not intend for a death to result from their intentional actions. If there is a presence of intention it relates only to the intent to cause a violent act which brings about the death, but not an intention to bring about the death itself.[16] 1
bluebell Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 20 minutes ago, Gray said: No idea. But it might be just. But in some significant ways, crime always affects more than just the person is happens to. If home robberies go up in an area, for example, then everyone in that neighborhood will be terrorized by those criminals, even if they aren't actually ever robbed. Crimes where people have tossed something off of an overpass into oncoming traffic and maimed or killed drivers and passengers cause widespread terror. Crimes against children at schools cause widespread terror among people who's children attend public schools. Etc. If causing widespread terror among a community or group of people deserves extra punishment, then hate crime laws imply that some communities and groups are more important under the law than others. It's hard to argue that unequal protection under the law is actually just. 1
bluebell Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 8 minutes ago, Gray said: All these different degrees of homicide depend on the defendent's thoughts during the crime. I wonder how concerned Paul Butler is with this? Or does his concern just kick in for laws punishing racially-motivated crimes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law) He seems to understands that the law recognizes a difference between intent and belief. It is constitutional to punish someone for their intent. It is not constitutional to punish someone for their belief. Homicide laws focus completely on intent. Homicide laws essentially ask "How intentional was the crime this person committed?" The punishment given is dependent upon intent. What Butler is talking about is how hate crime laws can be interpreted to be asking "How politically correct/acceptable is the belief that this person holds?" He is questioning whether or not it is constitutional for the law to say that a person's punishment is dependent upon belief. I don't think that Butler thinks that hate crime laws are unconstitutional, but that there is room to argue that they are getting there.
Bernard Gui Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 5 minutes ago, bluebell said: What Butler is talking about is how hate crime laws can be interpreted to be asking "How politically correct/acceptable is the belief that this person holds?" He is questioning whether or not it is constitutional for the law to say that a person's punishment is dependent upon belief. Can haters be victims of hate crimes? For example, if a white supremicist is beat up by an Antifa mob, are they guilty of a hate crime? Opponents of various social justice causes are routinely labeled haters. Would assaults against them not be hate crime? Seems to me that all crimes that result in intentional harm involve hate.
bluebell Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Can haters be victims of hate crimes? For example, if a white supremicist is beat up by an Antifa mob, are they guilty of a hate crime? Opponents of various social justice causes are routinely labeled haters. Would assaults against them not be hate crime? Seems to me that all crimes that result in intentional harm involve hate. They can. Butler talked about that a bit- There was a recent case in which some African-American boys were alleged to have gone after a young white boy and they were prosecuted for a hate crime. There are kinds of weird permutations. In New York recently, there was a case in which a group of lesbians beat up a gay man and they were charged with a hate crime based on sexual orientation because the guy was gay, even though they were also gay. So there are some weird kind of configurations, but the law is, as long as the prosecution can prove intent to discriminate against that group, doesn't matter what group the defendant is in.
Gray Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 23 minutes ago, bluebell said: He seems to understands that the law recognizes a difference between intent and belief. It is constitutional to punish someone for their intent. It is not constitutional to punish someone for their belief. Homicide laws focus completely on intent. Homicide laws essentially ask "How intentional was the crime this person committed?" The punishment given is dependent upon intent. What Butler is talking about is how hate crime laws can be interpreted to be asking "How politically correct/acceptable is the belief that this person holds?" He is questioning whether or not it is constitutional for the law to say that a person's punishment is dependent upon belief. I don't think that Butler thinks that hate crime laws are unconstitutional, but that there is room to argue that they are getting there. When that belief is "all dark-skinned people must die" then yes, it's appropriate to take that into account for punishment. Intent and belief are both thoughts. But only hate crime laws constitute "thought crime"? Even though no one is getting punished only for thoughts?
Gray Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 41 minutes ago, bluebell said: But in some significant ways, crime always affects more than just the person is happens to. If home robberies go up in an area, for example, then everyone in that neighborhood will be terrorized by those criminals, even if they aren't actually ever robbed. Crimes where people have tossed something off of an overpass into oncoming traffic and maimed or killed drivers and passengers cause widespread terror. Crimes against children at schools cause widespread terror among people who's children attend public schools. Etc. If causing widespread terror among a community or group of people deserves extra punishment, then hate crime laws imply that some communities and groups are more important under the law than others. It's hard to argue that unequal protection under the law is actually just. Which is why intent is so important in sentencing. Hate crime legislation addresses intent.
bluebell Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 Just now, Gray said: Which is why intent is so important in sentencing. Hate crime legislation addresses intent. I agree that it can. It doesn't always though. Like in the case of the lesbians that beat up the gay guy. Their intent was not to terrorize the gay community, but that didn't matter, they were still charged with a hate crime. Adding hate crime to the list of crimes they were charged with didn't address the actual intent of the women at all.
bluebell Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 4 minutes ago, Gray said: When that belief is "all dark-skinned people must die" then yes, it's appropriate to take that into account for punishment. Intent and belief are both thoughts. But only hate crime laws constitute "thought crime"? Even though no one is getting punished only for thoughts? Why? Knowing that the constitution specifically makes it illegal to prosecute people for believing that "all dark-skinned people must die", how is it appropriate under the law to punish someone more severely for holding that belief? 2
pogi Posted January 25, 2018 Author Posted January 25, 2018 15 hours ago, The Nehor said: I am not watching South Park. The idea of some kind of ideal law that supersedes and creates complete equality is a beautiful but no one short of God could execute it and would look unfair to us because we do not see what God sees. I am not talking about creating laws that impose equality, I am talking about avoiding laws that create even greater inequality. 15 hours ago, The Nehor said: Equality under the law? What does that mean? Does it mean that all crimes under the same statute should be punished equally? What I mean by equality under the law is that protection for ALL citizens should be equal based on their humanness. It doesn't matter if you are white, black, gay, Jew, a veteran, a liberal, a conservative, a girl, a boy, vocation, a prostitute, a cheater, a liar, 90 years old, disabled, ugly, skinny, stinky, blue eyes, brown hair, etc. etc. etc. Where do you draw the line??? The "protected class" should be human beings. Pretty soon, everybody will be agitating to be included in hate-crime laws...pretty soon, everything is a hate crime! How is it constitutional to protect Jews but not prostitutes? No, we shouldn't protect one class over another. We should not legislate inequality.
The Nehor Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) 50 minutes ago, pogi said: I am not talking about creating laws that impose equality, I am talking about avoiding laws that create even greater inequality. What I mean by equality under the law is that protection for ALL citizens should be equal based on their humanness. It doesn't matter if you are white, black, gay, Jew, a veteran, a liberal, a conservative, a girl, a boy, vocation, a prostitute, a cheater, a liar, 90 years old, disabled, ugly, skinny, stinky, blue eyes, brown hair, etc. etc. etc. Where do you draw the line??? The "protected class" should be human beings. Pretty soon, everybody will be agitating to be included in hate-crime laws...pretty soon, everything is a hate crime! How is it constitutional to protect Jews but not prostitutes? No, we shouldn't protect one class over another. We should not legislate inequality. I do not think you understand what a protected class is. Everyone belongs to multiple protected classes. There are not a bunch of no class people and then a bunch of people who need extra protection. Hate crime laws allow harsher punishments for people who hate and target based on specific classes. In other words, they are trying to create inequality by making black people or Mormons or whatever afraid to go to certain places or to do certain things. It is targeting to deny rights or, more correctly, intimidate people out of exercising them. No one is “special” because they belong to a protected class. Edited January 25, 2018 by The Nehor 1
The Nehor Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 38 minutes ago, bluebell said: Why? Knowing that the constitution specifically makes it illegal to prosecute people for believing that "all dark-skinned people must die", how is it appropriate under the law to punish someone more severely for holding that belief? Because someone who acts on it is likely to do it again.
pogi Posted January 25, 2018 Author Posted January 25, 2018 13 hours ago, Gray said: Terrorizing the community. Functions like making death threats. You are conflating hate crimes with terrorism. They are not the same. If they were, then haters should be prosecuted as terrorists and not simply haters. Hate crimes laws can have many unintended consequences like giving extra punishment to ordinary criminals who use racial slurs and trash talk while committing a crime. Suddenly we are prosecuting against our first amendment rights. People are punished more severely because of what they think instead of what they do. Hate crimes can be interpreted how ever they want, giving unfair treatment of one class over another. For example: Quote The best argument against "enhanced penalty" laws is the constitutional one. In the United States, we are taught, you can be sent to prison for what you do but not for what you think. Not only that, if government picks and chooses which crimes are the most serious based on the motivation behind them or the ethnic background of the victim, that is a violation of the 1st Amendment, isn't it? That was the message of a celebrated 1992 decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as a violation of the 1st Amendment a St. Paul, Minn., "bias-motivated crime ordinance," under which a white teenager had been prosecuted for burning a cross on the lawn of a black family. The ordinance said in part: "Whoever places on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender, commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said that language was too broad. Although it was permissible for St. Paul to punish "fighting words" (and fighting symbols like a burning cross), the law violated the 1st Amendment because it picked and chose among which "fighting words" could land you in jail — those insulting someone on the basis of race, for example, but not sexual orientation or membership in a labor union. The decision striking down the ordinance was unanimous and seemed likely to doom not only "pure" ethnic intimidation laws such as St. Paul's but also "piggyback" hate-crime laws (in which the penalty for a crime is enhanced, depending on the motivation behind it). A year later, however, when a lower court cited the St. Paul decision in striking down a Wisconsin hate-crime law, the Supreme Court refused to follow its own logic and allowed the state's hate-crime law to stand. Interestingly, the decision in the Wisconsin case upheld the doubling of a sentence for a black man convicted of inciting violence against a white victim. http://www.latimes.com/news/la-op-mcgough3dec03-story.html Read the whole article in LA Times, it is good.
pogi Posted January 25, 2018 Author Posted January 25, 2018 20 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Because someone who acts on it is likely to do it again. So now people are guilty before they commit a crime?
The Nehor Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, pogi said: So now people are guilty before they commit a crime? No, I said they acted on it and thus are likely to act on that hatred again. Edited January 25, 2018 by The Nehor
bluebell Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 27 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Because someone who acts on it is likely to do it again. But believing that all black people must die is not the same thing as intending to kill all black people. That’s why the law differentiates between intent and belief. The law is suppose to punish intent but not belief. That can get muddled in regards to hate crime legislation. But most of our justice system and political system spends a lot of time being muddled. Maybe muddled is the best we’ll get. 2
pogi Posted January 25, 2018 Author Posted January 25, 2018 26 minutes ago, The Nehor said: ...and then a bunch of people who need extra protection. That is exactly what you are arguing. 28 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Hate crime laws harsher punishments for people who hate and target based on specific classes. Yep, but they make some classes more important and "special" then others. If I beat up a fat kid screaming, "I hate all fat kids!", or you could substitute that with "I hate all lawyers, males, democrats, etc.etc. etc. why should I be punished less severely for beating up a fat kid, then if I beat up a black kid screaming "I hate all black people!"? Inequality of class. "Special class". That is the only reason.
pogi Posted January 25, 2018 Author Posted January 25, 2018 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: No, I said they acted on it and thus are likely to act on that hatred again. Right, you are punishing them more harshly for what they might do again?
pogi Posted January 25, 2018 Author Posted January 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, bluebell said: But most of our justice system and political system spends a lot of time being muddled. Maybe muddled is the best we’ll get. Yes indeed, but no point in making things more muddled then necessary.
The Nehor Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 Just now, bluebell said: But believing that all black people must die is not the same thing as intending to kill all black people. That’s why the law differentiates between intent and belief. The law is suppose to punish intent but not belief. That can get muddled in regards to hate crime legislation. But most of our justice system and political system spends a lot of time being muddled. Maybe muddled is the best we’ll get. Yeah, but if you believe all black people should die and then act on that and kill one isn’t that an indicator you might do it again? Do we apply this distinction to conventional terrorists? Okay, they killed some Americans and think America must be destroyed but we cannot hold them for their beliefs and have to treat the incident like any other identical incident and not factor in that they are likely to do it again because of their beliefs?
The Nehor Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 3 minutes ago, pogi said: That is exactly what you are arguing. Yep, but they make some classes more important and "special" then others. If I beat up a fat kid screaming, "I hate all fat kids!", or you could substitute that with "I hate all lawyers, males, democrats, etc.etc. etc. why should I be punished less severely for beating up a fat kid, then if I beat up a black kid screaming "I hate all black people!"? Inequality of class. "Special class". That is the only reason. If we had a problem with people wanting to kill all fat people it would become a protected class quickly. And no, that is not what I am arguing.
The Nehor Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 4 minutes ago, pogi said: Right, you are punishing them more harshly for what they might do again? Yes. This is normal and why judges have discretion in sentencing. You try to discern how dangerous they are and what is a just punishment. There is no exact sentence for each crime. Hate crime laws allow more leeway on sentencing to factor in how much more damaging those crimes can be to society and how the perpetrator is more likely to be a continuing risk. 1
Gray Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, bluebell said: I agree that it can. It doesn't always though. Like in the case of the lesbians that beat up the gay guy. Their intent was not to terrorize the gay community, but that didn't matter, they were still charged with a hate crime. Adding hate crime to the list of crimes they were charged with didn't address the actual intent of the women at all. What case are you referring to? I would add that the criminal justice system often screws up on all fronts, not just how they handle hate crime. Edited January 25, 2018 by Gray
Gray Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Why? Knowing that the constitution specifically makes it illegal to prosecute people for believing that "all dark-skinned people must die", how is it appropriate under the law to punish someone more severely for holding that belief? Because it is part of their intent in regards to their violent crime. Anyone can hold any crazy belief they want without fear of punishment.
Recommended Posts