Another Texas Dragging

[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.

[shinerbock]

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

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.

[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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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

You mean, you think it's stupid but don't know what it entails? You said you knew about hate crimes and the legislation.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

Of course you don't care because there's no history (read: historical and contemporary trends and patterns) of heterosexual white males being victimized by others BECAUSE they are heterosexual white males.

Either case, laws don't require that you care. Lucky us.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Of course you don't care because there's no history (read: historical and contemporary trends and patterns) of heterosexual white males being victimized by others BECAUSE they are heterosexual white males.

Either case, laws don't require that you care. Lucky us.

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?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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?

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.