I guess I'm confused regarding sentencing enhancements. Is there a difference between an average state's hate crime law and other aggravating factor considerations. The core of my concern is the idea of a consideration vs. tack-on penalties.

Oh yes, white people are never attacked in black sections of town. Never happens. I guess motive here overshadows frequency. Is it more important that we stop the few white on black crimes (for example) than the much more common black on white crimes? Which would better serve the main purpose of reducing crime?

I'm not aware of any jurisdiction where "hate crime" = tack on x months to the sentence. Where it is used as a sentence enhancement, so far as I know, it is a factor taken into consideration along with other factors in arriving at (one hopes) an appropriate sentence.

As I said earlier, I have heard proposals of establishing "hate crimes" as a separate, chargeable offense, as in "he was charged with one count of assault and one count of committing a hate crime." That's the concept I have trouble with.

You're steering all over the place now.

Motive does overshadow frequency when we're talking about hate crimes.

But crimes of violence remain overwhelmingly intraracial rather than interracial and perpetrated by people we know rather than strangers.

So you wouldn't win a debate there.

ETA: Keep in mind that I never said that heterosexual white males have never been/are/will be targeted for hate crimes. This race, gender, and sexual orientation combo is of the power majority in this country which translates to a small(er) likelihood of group victimization based on race, gender, and/or sexual orientation.

So what? My point is not that we should establish some sort of protection for white people (from minority inflicted crimes), rather that hate crime legislation doesn't serve the purpose of reducing crime. I value a reduction in frequency foremost. What, in your opinion, is the overriding purpose of hate crime legislation? Note, I'm not referring to charges like "ethnic intimidation," I think thats a whole other issue to tackle.

Seriously? The data say white people need to be protected from each other.

But you aren't the only white person who believes that whites need protection from the big-bad black people who attack them in dark alleys (:rolleyes:). That's why they let their guard down and end up attacked and killed by their white family, friends, or acquaintances.

Hate crime legislation isn't about protecting anyone based on frequency but these crimes aren't uncommon enough to ignore them. Plus, we didn't wait for terrorist bombings on domestic soil to be a common occurance before we took a closer look at foreign terrorism (which has been argued to be a massive hate crime based on Nationalism, among other things). It was about infringement on rights and safety. Similar applies to domestic terrorism (of which hate crimes and hate groups are often labeled).

So that people of whatever race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation can live their lives without being schemed on and targeted solely because of these demographics.

I agree they shouldn't be ignored. You said the purpose of the laws were:

"So that people of whatever race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation can live their lives without being schemed on and targeted solely because of these demographics."

If there is no evidence that hate crime laws reduce the frequency of hate crimes or generally act as a deterrent, how would they accomplish your stated purpose?

I think that purpose is a valid one, but I fail to see how hate crimes legislation furthers it.

Again, if this is your metric, you're advocating a lawless society.

Why, because punishment doesn't deter crime? It most certainly does among the general population.

Again then, how do hate crime laws further the purpose you stated?

Law and punishment don't deter crime among the general population.

There has been no evidence that it does either, so I don't know where you're getting this deterrence argument from.

It would be a pretty difficult study to do when you take out the recidivists don't you think? You really don't think laws and punishments deter the general population from crime? It deters me all the time. I'd love to think I'm just more morally corrupt than the average American, but I find that pretty unlikely.

Exactly but the research that has been done has controlled for a number of factors that contribute to crime reduction. These studies are inconsistent in their findings but are leaning toward there being NO substantive deterrent effect.

Are you tempted to murder or become a street level drug dealer and don't do so because there are laws against it. Do you want to commit assaults and robberies? If not, you're the average American who is a law abiding citizen when it comes to almost all forms of crime. Not necessarily JUST because of the laws but because we're socialized based on order rather than disorder.

Yeah, I agree for the most part, however people like me and you are probably more likely to be against things like theft and violence on principle alone than the average person.

However, when you get to other crimes, hit and runs (cars not people), driving under the influence, drug use, things of that nature I think are deterred by laws.

I see this is diverting substantially from the original topic. I'll conclude by saying I simply don't see that hate crime legislation furthers any stated purpose. You mentioned the law as a way to maintain order, and I agree, but I don't see that hate crime legislation would help do that. We already punish for those crimes, so I fail to see how harsher punishment would serve a purpose other than deterrence (not that it would actually deter).