Hate Crime Legislation: An Experiment

Before we begin, let's include the legislation itself:

Now, let's make it simple:


This is Bill


Bill works for a manufacturing company that produces portable electronic devices. He's married, with one child and has a record free of any criminal activity. One evening, Bill returns to his home to find his wife in bed with another man. In a sudden fit of rage due to the circumstance, Bill causes physical injury to both his wife and her companion (via fist fighting)... with intent to cause bodily harm. Some would call this a crime of passion, as his target range is narrowed to those that have caused him emotional harm.




This is Dave


Dave is a college student with some new friends that share racially extremists views. He's unmarried, no children, with an impressive GPA and a record free of any criminal activity. While in school, his attendance has slumped and he's decided to dedicate more time to racial-preservation seminars and groups, and associates begin to notice a change in his demeanor. One morning, Dave decides to target the nearest non-white man seen with a white woman... and finds what he's looking for. He begins to physically harm the individual with intent to cause injury. Some would call this active intolerance, as his target range is widened to anyone of any non-white race seen with a white woman.

Which man is more a danger to society? Explain your answer, please.

 

No takers?

 

Dave is more of a danger. Any black person is in danger from him because of Dave's racist views. Dave beat up the black man solely because he was black.

Bill beat up a man he caught with his wife. He didn't decide to beat up the man, it was likely a reaction due to anger. Bill is only a threat to anyone who sleeps with his wife, but Dave is a threat to any non white.

IMO.

 

You did a great job in creating imaginary scenarios where you will get the answer you want. Let's try reality a bit. Two men get in a fight in a bar and both are arrested. But, one called the other a honky moth@@@@@er so he is also charged with having committed a hate crime. Is that reasonable to you?

Please keep in mind that if someone is beat up because they're fat or because they crossing a picket line or because they eat meat and it offends a Vegan, those are not hate crimes. No, it's only a hate crime if you attack certain people.

In Hawaii they want to add a penalty for attacking tourists but the locals went berserk and some even had t-shirts made that said, "Rob me, I'm Hawaiian."

Hate crime laws are unreasonable and unworkable in other than hypothetical fantasies. Think for a moment of the New Black Panther Party and the racists in government.

 

I like how Dave is an intolerant white guy who is looking to harm innocent minorities instead of the much more realistic scenario of Dave being an angry minority who has been fed so much victimhood rhetoric that he feels a deep compulsion to "get back at" the white man.

Since you said in another thread yesterday that hate crimes laws protect everyone equally, I just find it interesting that you would opt to go with the less likely scenario.

 

Dave is premeditating a crime therefore more dangerous .

 

Although you're correct, I didn't mention the victims race lol.

Racial slurs during an altercation shouldn't be means for a hate crime charge in my opinion. People are heated, and I don't expect civil discourse during a fist fight. However, if it's determined that race is the motivating factor behind an attack... absolutely, a hate crime charge is quite reasonable.

I actually think the spectrum should be extended to "any attack whereby said instance is evidenced to have initiated through bigotry or intolerance for immutable/habitual circumstances not exclusive to singular persons, whether it be set communal belief structures, racial superficialities, sexual orientation or preference, politics, voluntary/involuntary behavioral patterns, etc. shall be subject to penalty outlined within existing hate crime legislation". To me, arguing that it only protects some is only advocating that it should do more.

That's not a hate crime.

To pretend as if the scenario I provided isn't a realistic thing is only a fantasy, and I'd have to wonder why your impulse reaction was to come to the defense of a theoretical being.

One of the reasons, yes. Would you also claim that someone who plans to harm a specific person for a specific personal reason is equally dangerous as someone who plans to harm the nearest _____?

 

Dave, bigotry and racial intolerance are sociopathetic behaviors that beget of reduced mental capacity and difficulty in reasoning. Not only that, his crimes are premeditated.

I think I know where you're trying to go with this, and I'm going to stick with the same argument against it I've always had. When we start getting into the business of punishing people for their thoughts, it's starting down a slippery slope that I'm not interested in. A premeditated crime should always be punished more harshly regardless of who or what is being targeted.

 

Why are neither of the guys Pro Masculine (Gay) Minor Attracted NAMBLA Machers ?

 

a man planning to kill his wife because she's unfaithful is of no danger to you if he lives nearby. A man planning to kill a woman because he despised them is a danger to every couple on the block. Therein lies the difference.

 

Why do the specifics matter? Does this hurt or something?

 

I don't agree. Acting out in the "heat of the moment" results from temporary insanity, you literally aren't yourself. If after some time you decide it's still a good idea to murder another human being I'd submit you've probably been a danger for a long time, your just better at hiding it... no surprise that the neighbors of most serial killers describe them as nice/polite etc. Crazy is crazy, and premeditated murder is crazy.

He may be more of a danger, but until he commits a crime he's on the same level as anyone else, we can't prove someone's thoughts and as such I'm not interested in getting into the business of punishing folks for having them.

 

Might have been fueling some erotic fantasy for him.

 

me either... and that's not something I'm talking about. I don't even think anyone's been charged for a hate crime by thinking it. Has that ever happened? (sincerely asking)

 

No clue, but it seems to be the path it creates, and you may not be sentenced for the thought, but your term is increased as a result of why it's believed you committed said crime.

I think what underlies my opinion on this matter is I think punishment for first degree murder ought to be extremely harsh, so when the duration is long regardless of motivation, I don't have to equivocate on whether they did it because they're a bigot, or just a standard psychopath.

 

Lack of sympathy here. If you can't prove why you did something vs. some "flimsy speculation", you did it. I also don't buy the slippery slope stuff... until it's even uttered, that's rubbish.

excuse me for asking, because I feel as if we've been through this. Is someone with a larger target radius more dangerous than someone who targets one person (both premeditated)? If the answers yes, I don't get your gripe. "I think he's worse but I hate the thought of added punishment"?

 

Actually that's not true at all, the requirement is beyond a shadow of a doubt, if the "flimsy speculation" provides an alternative theory a jury is bound to acquit. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

I don't think either is more dangerous than the other, one may be less discriminating in his targets, but the resulting loss of life is the same (assuming we're discussing murder). Your OP though asked which is a larger threat to society, not more dangerous and no I don't feel my answers are ambiguous.

He's equally dangerous, but not just to as many people. In either case, harsh punishment for premeditated murder with mandatory minimums makes it so we don't have to spend time on why crazy people are crazy and can punish crimes instead of motivations.

 

Crime=crime. Those on the receiving end are victims, those commit the crime are perpetrators. End of story.

 

You showed to photos I assumed the are white ?

Planning to harm is more dangerous in any case

 

This is Bill
One night, after drinks with friends, Bill decides to rob a white person with his friends because they are angry about the injustices they feel they face. Once stalking a victim and completing their crime, he and his friends are arrested and charged with robery and assault.
Bill is sentenced to 1 year in prison and probation of 1 year.


This is Dave
One night, after drinks with friends, Dave decides to rob a black person with his friends because they are angry about the injustices they feel they face. Once stalking a victim and completing their crime, he and his friends are arrested and charged with robbery, assault, and a hate crime.
Bill is sentenced to 1 year in prison and probation of 1 year plus 10 years in prison and a probation of 5 years due to the hate crime minimum sentencing.

Which poses a greater danger to society?

 

neither poses a greater risk but the sentences are out of whack

 

I didn't say it wasn't realistic (don't twist my words). I simply said it was less realistic than the one I proposed. Which it is.

Again, I only point this out because you insisted yesterday that hate crimes laws protect everyone equally. So I just find it odd that you wouldn't utilize this opportunity to add some credence to that claim. Instead you chose a cliché.

 

A = color photograph, suit and tie, smiling
B = black and white photograph, t-shirt, sullen

Try again, but this time take away the photographs that were intended to prejudice the response.

 

Are you sure its Dave and not Obama's brother? LOL

I still say Dave. Racism is more prevalent among whites.

 

Equal time for equal crime.