Another Texas Dragging

[litAKAtor]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Can the DA prosecute for a hate crime if there's no hate crime legislation?

Even if there were slurs while in the club, the biggest debate is whether he stuck his head in the truck or was grabbed. If it's proven that he stuck his head in the truck, he wasn't too bright and the case is shot.

Most likely not. And correction, just because someone sticks their head in a truck and is exhanging words with someone does not justify dragging someone behind a truck. . . .If anything that is, if the guy dies, 2nd degree murder . . . .He may not get prosecuted under a hate crime statute (and I can't believe after the Byrd case nothing has been enacted . . welcome to the good ol south . .where the price of a N's head is not worth much), but should get either attempted murder if the guy doesn't die or at the very least 2nd degree (engaged in activity that had a high propensity of resulting in the death of another human being . . . but wasn't intentionally attempting to kill the person - although that is a HARD sell since normal people who aren't attempting to kill someone don't usually drag a person behind a truck).

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by litAKAtor

Most likely not. And correction, just because someone sticks their head in a truck and is exhanging words with someone does not justify dragging someone behind a truck. . . .If anything that is, if the guy dies, 2nd degree murder . . . .He may not get prosecuted under a hate crime statute (and I can't believe after the Byrd case nothing has been enacted . . welcome to the good ol south . .where the price of a N's head is not worth much), but should get either attempted murder if the guy doesn't die or at the very least 2nd degree (engaged in activity that had a high propensity of resulting in the death of another human being . . . but wasn't intentionally attempting to kill the person - although that is a HARD sell since normal people who aren't attempting to kill someone don't usually drag a person behind a truck).

Let's say he stuck his head in the truck and grabbed the driver. Self defense meant he had to drive away or something.

I hear ya, though.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

On a side note, hate crime legislation is stupid.

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Of course it is when heterosexual white males are the least likely group to be targeted because of hate.

Although I don't think I'd use the word "stupid," I tend to agree with shinerbock on this one. That is, I don't see much point in a separate classification for a "hate crime."

Most jurisdictions already have a system of aggravating and mitigating factors that are used to heighten or lesses punishment for a crime. To me, it makes more sense and is overall more consistent with criminal laws in general to make racial (or gender, or religious, or whatever) hatred an aggravating factor -- "that the crime was motivated by racial [or whatever else] hatred" -- rather than to charge someone for assault or murder and also charge them with a hate crime.

[litAKAtor]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Although I don't think I'd use the word "stupid," I tend to agree with shinerbock on this one. That is, I don't see much point in a separate classification for a "hate crime."

Most jurisdictions already have a system of aggravating and mitigating factors that are used to heighten or lesses punishment for a crime. To me, it makes more sense and is overall more consistent with criminal laws in general to make racial (or gender, or religious, or whatever) hatred an aggravating factor -- "that the crime was motivated by racial [or whatever else] hatred" -- rather than to charge someone for assault or murder and also charge them with a hate crime.

I do not practice criminal law, but my understanding of hate crime legislation (in Florida) is it imparts more severe punishment on crimes that are committed based on race, gender, national origin and sexuality. If you kill someone, it may enhance the punishment if you didn't intend to kill the person to an intentional crime if the government can establish that the crime was done based on a person's protected status. I think it is good call on the part of legislatures to attempt to eradicate these types of crimes, that are based solely on another's contempt for someone that is different. Contrary to what people want to admit . .hangings still do occur.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by litAKAtor

I do not practice criminal law, but my understanding of hate crime legislation (in Florida) is it imparts more severe punishment on crimes that are committed based on race, gender, national origin and sexuality. If you kill someone, it may enhance the punishment if you didn't intend to kill the person to an intentional crime if the government can establish that the crime was done based on a person's protected status. I think it is good call on the part of legislatures to attempt to eradicate these types of crimes, that are based solely on another's contempt for someone that is different. Contrary to what people want to admit . .hangings still do occur.

You mean like figurative lynchings? I'm sure hangings have occurred, but I highly doubt there is a recent trend.

[litAKAtor]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

You mean like figurative lynchings? I'm sure hangings have occurred, but I highly doubt there is a recent trend.

No, like literal lynchings . . .didn't say it was a trend . . but it still does occur.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Most jurisdictions already have a system of aggravating and mitigating factors that are used to heighten or lesses punishment for a crime. To me, it makes more sense and is overall more consistent with criminal laws in general to make racial (or gender, or religious, or whatever) hatred an aggravating factor -- "that the crime was motivated by racial [or whatever else] hatred" -- rather than to charge someone for assault or murder and also charge them with a hate crime.

The purpose behind hate crime legislation is to achieve formal legal guidelines for the aggravating and mitigating factors as they pertain to group membership. As opposed to relying on judicial and presecutorial discretion.

[shinerbock]

I understand precisely what hate crimes are. However, if you're trying to tell me that hate crime prosecution only occurs when the primary motivation was race, you're completely wrong. Remember that guy (NY I think?) that recently made news because he beat up some black kid while the kid was boosting cars? He used a racial slur, and last I heard they were prosecuting for a hate crime. Its simply ridiculous.

WE ALREADY PROSECUTE CRIME.

If there was a shred of evidence that hate crime legislation acted as a deterrent, it may make some logical sense.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I understand precisely what hate crimes are. However, if you're trying to tell me that hate crime prosecution only occurs when the primary motivation was race, you're completely wrong. Remember that guy (NY I think?) that recently made news because he beat up some black kid while the kid was boosting cars? He used a racial slur, and last I heard they were prosecuting for a hate crime. Its simply ridiculous.

WE ALREADY PROSECUTE CRIME.

We never get rid of laws just because laws aren't 100% effective.

Every law can be misapplied.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

We never get rid of laws just because laws aren't 100% effective.

Every law can be misapplied.

Theres no sound reason for the law in the first place.

[litAKAtor]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

If there was a shred of evidence that hate crime legislation acted as a deterrent, it may make some logical sense.

To be sure, none of the criminal legislation really acts as a deterrent - thus why the prison populations continually growing. Does that mean we eliminate all criminal statutes we don't agree with?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by litAKAtor

To be sure, none of the criminal legislation really acts as a deterrent - thus why the prison populations continually growing. Does that mean we eliminate all criminal statutes we don't agree with?

Exactly. There is no deterrence.

So if lack of evidence of deterrence was the point, we should get rid of capital punishment, drug penalties, traffic laws, and most of the criminal code.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by litAKAtor

To be sure, none of the criminal legislation really acts as a deterrent - thus why the prison populations continually growing. Does that mean we eliminate all criminal statutes we don't agree with?

Yes, I think we should eliminate most criminal statutes I don't agree with.

However, the point is that we don't NEED hate crime statutes nor do they provide any noticeable benefit. I'm all for reducing hate crimes, but I'm for reducing all crimes. I question the punishing of intentional crimes differently because of the identity of the victim. If there were some overriding public policy, the protection of children perhaps, I think it could have some merit.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by litAKAtor

I do not practice criminal law, but my understanding of hate crime legislation (in Florida) is it imparts more severe punishment on crimes that are committed based on race, gender, national origin and sexuality.

That's exactly what aggravating factors do as well.

If you kill someone, it may enhance the punishment if you didn't intend to kill the person to an intentional crime if the government can establish that the crime was done based on a person's protected status.

Not unlike the felony murder rule. If you manage to kill someone while in the commission of another felony, say robbery, you can be charged with murder even if the other elements of murder (such as intent) are not present.

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

The purpose behind hate crime legislation is to achieve formal legal guidelines for the aggravating and mitigating factors as they pertain to group membership. As opposed to relying on judicial and presecutorial discretion.

Aggravating factors are set by statute, just like definitions of crimes are.

Understand, I have no problem with the motivation and goal behind hate crime legislation. In some ways, it's a semantics thing. Where "hate crime" means "sentencing enhancement," I'm all for it. But in those instances where the classification of "hate crime" is proposed as essentially a separate chargeable offense, that's when I have a problem.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Aggravating factors are set by statute, just like definitions of crimes are.

Understand, I have no problem with the motivation and goal behind hate crime legislation. In some ways, it's a semantics thing. Where "hate crime" means "sentencing enhancement," I'm all for it. But in those instances where the classification of "hate crime" is proposed as essentially a separate chargeable offense, that's when I have a problem.

"Aggravating factors" like "targeted because of race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion?" If so, hate crime legislation is redundant. If not, the aggravating factors aren't detailed enough and that's why we have hate crime legislation.

Whatever the semantics may be, hate crimes are essentially a sentencing enhancement because offenses like vandalism and assault carry tougher penalties if they are motivated by hate.