Another Texas Dragging

[KSig RC]

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.

So instead we just rely on prosecutorial discretion in determining whether to apply the standard? And judicial discretion in instructing the jury on how to determine whether the hate-crime 'kicker' penalty should be added?

[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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

So instead we just rely on prosecutorial discretion in determining whether to apply the standard? And judicial discretion in instructing the jury on how to determine whether the hate-crime 'kicker' penalty should be added?

Contact your state legislator.

[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 DSTCHAOS

"Aggravating factors" like "targeted because of race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion?"

Yes. Some sample aggravating factors:

-- the offense was committed for the benefit of, or at the direction of, any criminal street gang;

-- the offense was committed for the purpose of avoiding a lawful arrest;

-- the defendant has hired or paid to commit the offense;

-- the offense was particularly heinous, atrocious or cruel;

-- the victim was very old, very young, or physically or mentally handicapped;

-- the defendant took advantage of a position of trust;

-- the offense was committed against a victim because of the victim's race, color, religion, nationality or country of origin.

This kind of "hate crime" I have no problem with, although I think it is a misnomer to call it a "hate crime," since that implies a separate chargeable offense. But I have heard calls to actually create a separate chargeable offense called a "hate crime," and that is what I have problems with. Sorry if I haven't been clearer.

[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?

[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 MysticCat

But I have heard calls to actually create a separate chargeable offense called a "hate crime," and that is what I have problems with. Sorry if I haven't been clearer.

Thanks for doing so.

[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

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?

[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 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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Contact your state legislator.

Didn't the state legislature create the hate crime legislation that doesn't actually solve any of the problems you listed?

I'm saying there are still huge problems with the implementation of such an act. Massive, massive holes, that make me question their very function - those two problems you wanted to solve via hate crime standards still exist.

[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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Didn't the state legislature create the hate crime legislation that doesn't actually solve any of the problems you listed?

I'm saying there are still huge problems with the implementation of such an act. Massive, massive holes, that make me question their very function - those two problems you wanted to solve via hate crime standards still exist.

If you have a critique, contact your state legislator.