Another Texas Dragging

[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.

[DSTCHAOS]

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]

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

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.

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]

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?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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

The way most aggravating factor/mitigating factor or sentence enhancement procedures work, sentencing starts with a statutory presumptive sentence for each crime. Then the judge or jury determines whether any of the delineated aggravating factors or mitigating factors are present. If aggravating factors in the jurisdiction include something along the lines of "the offense was committed against a victim because of the victim's race, color, religion, nationality or country of origin," then the judge or jury will consider whether the evidence in a particular case supports the existence of that factor in the case.

If aggravating and mitigating factors are found to be present, and if in the opinion of the judge or jury, the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors, the sentence can be made longer than the presumptive. If the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating factors, the sentence can be made shorter than the presumptive.

Either way, there is usually a scale that's followed, so that the degree of deviation from the presumptive is not completely at the whim of the judge and so that there's some uniformity in the system. At least, that's how it's supposed to work. Mileage may vary.

[litAKAtor]

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by litAKAtor

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.

Or if he has an overall social consciousness that allows him to place himself in others' shoes.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Or if he has an overall social consciousness that allows him to place himself in others' shoes.

I hope a person who commits a crime against me gets appropriately punished for that crime. If I get beat up for being white, I hope they get the maximum sentence for the appropriate crime. I don't really care whether they did it because I'm white or because I'm an asshole.

[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.