Another Texas Dragging

MysticCat · #1 03-08-2007, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

On a side note, hate crime legislation is stupid.

Quote:

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 · #2 03-08-2007, 03:13 PM

Quote:

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 · #3 03-08-2007, 03:32 PM

Quote:

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 · #4 03-08-2007, 03:36 PM

Quote:

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 · #5 03-08-2007, 03:18 PM

Quote:

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 · #6 03-08-2007, 03:26 PM

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 · #7 03-08-2007, 03:28 PM

Quote:

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 · #8 03-08-2007, 03:34 PM

Quote:

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.

DSTCHAOS · #9 03-08-2007, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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

No, there's no sound reason for your opposition to the law.

Or you just haven't articulated it.

litAKAtor · #10 03-08-2007, 03:35 PM

Quote:

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 · #11 03-08-2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

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 · #12 03-08-2007, 03:43 PM

Quote:

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.

DSTCHAOS · #13 03-08-2007, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

However, the point is that we don't NEED hate crime statutes nor do they provide any noticeable benefit.

Maybe they do and maybe they don't.

There have been no studies to test the effectiveness of this law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

We always punish crimes based on the identity of the victim and perpetrator. Ever read the sentencing guidelines research based on race, class, and gender? Ever read the domestic violence laws and research?

shinerbock · #14 03-08-2007, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Maybe they do and maybe they don't.

There have been no studies to test the effectiveness of this law.

We always punish crimes based on the identity of the victim and perpetrator. Ever read the sentencing guidelines research based on race, class, and gender? Ever read the domestic violence laws and research?

Well do hate crime statutes provide for additional punishment or just additional consideration in sentencing?

litAKAtor · #15 03-08-2007, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

There is some merit to the enhancement for hate crimes, but unless you potentially could become a victim of such a crime, OR have historically been a victim of such crimes, I doubt you will have an appreciation for it.