First of all, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am in no way in favor of hate crimes. So don't all go saying "Tante! I can't believe that you think hate crimes are a good thing!" I don't. I think that acts of violence or vandalism that are motivated by hatred and bigotry are abominable. I just don't understand why they are a special class of crime, and I don't understand how making them a special class of crime does not violate the First Amendment of the Constitution.
As I understand it, the difference between a hate crime and a run-of-the-mill-non-hate crime is not the crime itself, but what the perpetrator says while doing it. So if you beat me up and leave me for dead, and take my wallet before you run away, that's a regular crime, subject to regular prosecution and sentencing. But if you do the same thing to me, leave me my wallet, but call me a bad name, that is a hate crime, subject to harsher sentencing.
If you vandalize my grandparent's gravesite, toppling the headstone, and spray painting nonsense graffiti, and leave behind the empty bottles of your indulgence, that is a run-of the-mill crime. But if, instead of nonsense graffiti, you spray paint swastikas, that's a hate crime.
If I were the victim of a horrible crime, even if the evildoers did not call me bad names, I would sincerely doubt their intentions for my well-being. I don't see the name calling as the biggest problem with getting beaten up. In fact, as much as I may disagree with the vile opinions that some people express, I have to admit that they have a constitutional right to hate me and tell me so. Of course, they have no right to act on that hatred. The acting on it - the "crime" part, should certainly be vigorously prosecuted and punished.
Displaying swastikas, abominable as I find that practice, is constitutionally protected speech. Vandalizing a gravesite is a crime. The vandalism needs to be punished. But I don't understand why the punishment must be harsher because it involves distasteful expression.
Most people seem to intuitively understand why hate crimes need to be subject to special prosecution. I don't see the ACLU objecting, nor either major political party. What does everyone understand that I don't?
Please convince me that I am wrong about hate crimes.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Most people seem to intuitively understand why hate crimes need to be subject to special prosecution.
I don't agree with that. I think classifying a hate crime and making the punishmnent more severe is punishing someone for thoughts instead of their actions, and I am against policing thoughts.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I can't convince you, because I agree with you entirely.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
If you mug someone while only thinking racist thoughts (for example), you can't be prosecuted for a hate crime. So I don't see how the legislation is policing thoughts.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
It's policing expression of those thoughts. Isn't that inconsistent with the first ammendment?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It penalizes someone for a guess at their motivation and not for the action. If someone beats me up, I'm guessing they do not mean me well. Why does it matter why?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
We have all sorts of laws which take intent as an important aspect of a crime.
If I get in a fight with someone, and I happen to hit them in the throat and they die, I get punished far less than if I had aimed for the throat, intending to kill the person.
If I, in a fit of rage, take out a gun and shoot someone, I'd likely get punished less than if I had planned all week to shoot them in order to kill them.
The differences between murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter is pretty much entirely based on intent!
quote:Murder: First Degree
In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim.
For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Three days later, Dan waits behind a tree near Victor's front door. When Victor comes out of the house, Dan shoots and kills him.
quote:Murder: Second degree
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.
For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.
quote:Manslaughter: Voluntary
Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed; otherwise, the killing may be charged as a first-degree or second-degree murder.
For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. In the heat of the moment, Dan picks up a golf club from next to the bed and strikes Victor in the head, killing him instantly.
quote:Manslaughter: Involuntary
Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as DUI). The usual distinction from voluntary manslaughter is that involuntary manslaughter (sometimes called "criminally negligent homicide") is a crime in which the victim's death is unintended.
For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Distraught, Dan heads to a local bar to drown his sorrows. After having five drinks, Dan jumps into his car and drives down the street at twice the posted speed limit, accidentally hitting and killing a pedestrian.
Taking this outside of the "someone dies" scenarios...
If I happen to valdalize a random house, I'd likely get punished far less than if I had targetted a specific person's house with the intent to intimidate or terrorize them.
Do you have problems with any of these situations taking intent into consideration as an aspect of a crime? If not, what is the difference?
And that last example is really the crux of this matter when it comes to hate crimes I'd say.
When you vandalize a random grave, you aren't intending to terrorize anyone. When you vandalize a Jewish grave with swastikas, you are intending to terrorize and intimidate an entire group of people.
Your crime does far more damage, and to far more people, so it gets punished more severely. I don't see the problem. Furthermore, you intended to have your crime terrorize an entire group of people, and I myself have no problem including intent as an important aspect of a crime.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I agree with Xavier. Well put.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Xavier's last two paragraphs hit the nail on the head.
Toppling a gravestone and spraypainting nonsense is a crime that targets the family of the deceased, and possibly the owners of the graveyard.
Toppling a Jewish gravestone and spraypainting swastikas is a crime that targets an entire community, and should carry a greater weight of punishment. It is both crime to the family and threat to a greater population.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I think in some ways hate speech does cause more damage to person. If someone beats me up and takes my wallet, I have some closure. The guy (and/or his family) was hungry and needed money, or wanted drugs/alcohol and needed money.
If someone beats me up for anti-semitic reasons, I honestly believe it would do more psychological harm. If it happens more then once, I may even start to believe the things they say.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think it's a false analogy. Hate crimes don't punish intent, they punish the [/i]message[/i]. If you beat me up because I parked too close to your car, or if you beat me up because I'm a dirty spic, the intent is the same! All that changes is the motive, and the only way I can tell the motive is because you communicated it to me.
We can also tell the whether a murder is planned or not through other evidence besides the speech of the perpetrator. For hate crimes, we really only have the "speech" of the perpetrator--or our assumptions based on who the victim is.
And that last part is the most dangerous part, because it creates a class of victims for whom we tend to assume the motivation is hate, and so it creates a class of victim with more protections than others.
Whites can be the victims of hate crimes, but how often are the perpetrators of such hate crimes prosecuted under specifically hate crime statutes?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:It's policing expression of those thoughts. Isn't that inconsistent with the first ammendment?
I think that's a bit misstated, to call a mugging an 'expression of thoughts'. By that logic, every action is an expression of thoughts and thus protected by the first amendment.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I agree with Icarus. The intent thing doesn't work here. Is the guy's intent on toppling the gravestone that he trying to terrorize an entire community, or the more likely scenerio in that he just doesn't like Jews? You're not punishing intent of the crim, your punishing based on its possible effects.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Is the guy's intent on toppling the gravestone that he trying to terrorize an entire community, or the more likely scenerio in that he just doesn't like Jews?
I don't think this question is as strong as you think it is. I think the scenario is very likely that he "doesn't like Jews", and therefore his action could be interpreted as a threat against a community in addition to being an act of vandalism.
I don't think it's a question of judging intent either. I think it's a question of punishing a de-facto threat against a group of people. "We did this to you because you are a f****t. All the rest of you f****ts be warned."
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I think there are three main forces behind Hate Crime Legislation. Two of them are worthless.
1) Its politically powerful. Prove you are tough on the worst of crimminals.
2) It was an approach that liberals appreciated, since they were often the victims of hate crimes and they did not give the classic depiction of the crimminal as a lost/misunderstood soul forced into crime by "the System", while the right just appreciates anything that gets tough on crimminals.
However, the 3rd reason may have some power behind it.
3) Hate crimes, like Sex crimes, grow in severity if they are not stopped early. The idea is that if someone isn't stopped while they are spray painting hate grafitti on your grandpa's tombstone, then they will continue with more and more dangerous outlets for their hate, leading to murder. On the other hands, the punks who are just drunk and disturbing grandpa's tomb won't go down that road.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This ties into terrorism, I think. The arguments for hate crimes more punishable are like the arguments for making terrorist acts more punishable. What are the implications?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I think it's a false analogy. Hate crimes don't punish intent, they punish the [/i]message[/i]. If you beat me up because I parked too close to your car, or if you beat me up because I'm a dirty spic, the intent is the same! All that changes is the motive, and the only way I can tell the motive is because you communicated it to me.
I think this is a good point, Icarus. In this example, I don't see where the intent or the severity of the crime are necessarily different. If it could be proven that the person beat you up in order to scare other Latinos from coming to that neighborhood, then I'd say it is clearly a hate crime, intended to terrorize. That could be very difficult to demonstrate, however. Or perhaps the justification for calling it a hate crime is more along KarlEd's description.
But instead of debating your example, allow me to offer one that I feel is more clear cut in indicating the need for hate crime legislation.
Say someone climbs up to a billboard in a prominent Jewish community, and spray-paints a giant swastika and a message reading "Burn all Jews!" or something equally vile.
Then compare it with a man, climbing to the exact same billboard, and spray-painting "San Demus high school football rules!".
Unless I have mistaken your positions, according to you and Tante, these two crimes are identical.
To me, the two crimes are fundamentally different, in both intent and degree of damage. I further believe that the disconnect is so great between the two crimes, that if we had no ability to prosecute one to a greater severity than the other, I'd consider it a gap in our legal system.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Not all speech is protected.
The common example of this is that you can't falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, because you are endangering others in doing so.
I think hate crimes fall under this "restricted free speech" umbrella.
Setting fire to a pink flamingo someone has on their lawn is one thing - burning a cross on someone's lawn is another. While both are setting fire to something, the latter has added weight because of the terror inflicted upon the community.
Also, effects have as much weight as intent - which is why we have different punishments for "attempted murder" and "murder". Tossing a cigarette out the window is littering. Tossing a cigarette out the window while sitting in a gas station, thereby setting the whole gas station on fire and killing three people, is far more than just littering.
While the intent and act might be the same, the effects were far more damaging and receive greater punishment.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
X-
Do you believe someone should be allowed to hold up a sign that says "Burn all Jews!" or something equally vile? I mean, absent the vandalism question. Do you believe it is inherently criminal to hate and/or to give expression to that hate?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
In regards to policing speech, is there a difference in protection for the following two phrases? "God Hates F*gs" and "Kill all F*gs".
I would guess (and it's just a guess) that the first is protected free speech and the second could be prosecuted as a crime. (Inciting to commit a crime). We also prosecute for libel and slander. So just because something is "punishing the message" doesn't mean the message itself isn't punishable under US law. I'm not saying this is specifically true of hate crimes and hate speech, but the objections to it have to be much stronger than "But that's punishing speech". Lot's of "speech" is punished. Lots of "thoughts", once expressed, are punished.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Senoj, as implied by my post (which i posted before reading yours), I think "Burn all Jews!" is criminal. I think it is inciting others to commit a crime.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I don't think this question is as strong as you think it is. I think the scenario is very likely that he "doesn't like Jews", and therefore his action could be interpreted as a threat against a community in addition to being an act of vandalism.
I don't think it's a question of judging intent either. I think it's a question of punishing a de-facto threat against a group of people. "We did this to you because you are a f****t. All the rest of you f****ts be warned."
It's obvious that he doesn't like Jews, but to interpret that action as a threat against the community is not valid if he didn't threaten the community.
Part of the problem is that I hate laws in which the punishment doesn't fit the crime, simply for the purpose of making an example of the person so discourage others from doing it.
Also, I don't like laws for which motivation can make the penalty worse. There can be many motives for shoplifting-thrills, genuinely needing the item, habit, greed, etc. However, these aren't taken into account in considering classification of the crime. Like katharine said, we get into the worrisome territory of judging peoples' thoughts and intent when deciding if this crime has been committed.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
In Canada, hate as a motivation is considered during sentencing, along with other enumerated possible motivations; there isn't a separate parallel classification system for "hate crimes" specifically. [Added: This quote is directly from the Criminal Code.]
quote:718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor,
(ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s spouse or common-law partner,
(ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years,
(iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim,
(iv) evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, or
(v) evidence that the offence was a terrorism offence
shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances;
[Added: Drat, hit "post" too soon. In any case, a lot of those things (e.g. the precise nature of a "terrorism offence" or a "criminal organization") are defined elsewhere in the Code. Further, on the subject of "protected speech," I find the justification for restrictions on hate speech outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada stands quite well, at least within the context of our own legal framework. I posted relevant pieces of it, along with some background, here the other day.]
[Added 2: 718.2(b) and onward don't seem relevant to the discussion, so I omitted them.]
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Do you believe it is inherently criminal to hate and/or to give expression to that hate?
I don't believe it's legally criminal to hate. nor do I think that it ever will be. I do think that hate is useless, and therefor a waste of time. Hate is never constructive, the more so because (in my mind) hate is also never rational. In this sense it is the opposite of love.
attempt to illustrate:
LOVE (to like something/someone beyond reason) v v v LIKE (to feel positively about something/someone and being able to give reasons for your preference) v v v INDIFFERENCE (needs no explanation) v v v DISLIKE (to feel negatively about something/someone and being able to give reasons for this viewpoint) v v v HATE (to dislike something/someone beyond reason)
Where love can lead to creation, hate only destroys. In that sense I could agree to deeming hate to be inherently criminal. Personally try to hate only hate. But most of the time I just don't hate at all. IMO It's like the frog sang: "All you need is love and understanding." Excuse my vagaries. Hope this makes some sense
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Whites can be the victims of hate crimes, but how often are the perpetrators of such hate crimes prosecuted under specifically hate crime statutes?
According to some data here (near the bottom), often. At least in this one area at this one time. This FBI Report table breaks it out a bit more. there appears to be a 3:1 ratio between offenses against blacks vs. those against whites (this can be fudged if you are looking solely at race, since many/most of the religious offenses were against Jews, and could be rolled up into the "White" category.
I note that the offenses are fairly low in terms of total crime, so I don't see much evidence of abuse (though I'm sure there is some), and even if there is, it isn't as much as one might expect.
---
Of course, hate crime legislation came out of the realization that in many locales the safeguards of our judicial system were systematically failing in their duty for justice. In particular, people who committed racially-motivated violent crimes were let off the hook by a jury of their peers, perpetuating, and tacitly justifying, the criminal behavior.
To me, the only way to get hate crime laws off the books is to work to ensure such failures are miniscule across the board (not low in general, but with certain spikes in different areas). I'd love to see them go, and think they are misapplied as they currently stand, but currently they are a relatively small defect in out society as a whole. Personally, I'd rather they not be considered as a parallel/additional set of charges, instead they should be a required part of the penalty phase of trials, with mandatory minimums involved.
Of course IANAL, so it may not be feasible.
-Bok
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I was going to post more or less the same thing Xavier was going to. Obviously we take thoughts and intent into the severity of crimes.
I think people are taking a too simplistic apporach to how one could potentially classify something as a hate crime. When deciding whether killing someone is first degree, second degree, manslughter, etc. we don't just go by "It seems like he really wanted to kill him bad." Rather, there are elements of the crime that need to be proven for each of these steps. The same sort of system could be part of proving whether or not something was a hate crime.
One aspect that hasn't been brought up yet is rehabilitation. One of the reasons why we punish the same action differently base on intent is because, say killing someone after a long period of planning suggests that the perpetrator is less likely to be rehabilitated than someone who kills someone in the heat of the moment. The same can be said for people who commit hate crimes. It adds an extra reason to believe that they are going to do the same or similar things again.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I don't think this question is as strong as you think it is. I think the scenario is very likely that he "doesn't like Jews", and therefore his action could be interpreted as a threat against a community in addition to being an act of vandalism.
I don't think it's a question of judging intent either. I think it's a question of punishing a de-facto threat against a group of people. "We did this to you because you are a f****t. All the rest of you f****ts be warned."
It's obvious that he doesn't like Jews, but to interpret that action as a threat against the community is not valid if he didn't threaten the community.
Whereas I'm arguing that whether or not he feels he is threatening the community, he is, in fact, threatening the community. One may think one is "borrowing" one's neighbor's lawnmower, and may even intend to give it back, but if one removes the lawnmower from the neighbor's property without asking, one is stealing.
quote:Also, I don't like laws for which motivation can make the penalty worse.
Where as I think it can be argued that it isn't making the penalty worse because of the motive, it's giving additional punishment for additional offense.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Whereas I'm arguing that whether or not he feels he is threatening the community, he is, in fact, threatening the community. One may think one is "borrowing" one's neighbor's lawnmower, and may even intend to give it back, but if one removes the lawnmower from the neighbor's property without asking, one is stealing.
While this is true and I think you're very often right, I think it's also important to note that there are a lot of instances where motivation & intent are so murky that assigning persecution as one of the two could very easily be wrong.
For example, if a black man shoots a white man, do we assume he's threatening the community? What about if an asian person does the shooting? If a black man shoots an asian man? If a woman shoots a man?
I understand that it's easier to find overtones of persecution when the criminal is a majority and the victim a minority, but I think it's just as dangerous to overgeneralize.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not clear here whether people are objecting to the idea of hate crimes in any way, shape, or form, or if they are saying that current (or potential) ways of determining if something is a hate crime are inadequate.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
If the black man shoots a white man after yelling "White people must die!", that's a lot different than if he shot him after saying "Give me your wallet!"
I think the point about rehabilitation is a valid one, too. The period of rehabilitation is longer for those who commit a premeditated crime (first degree murder), for instance, than those who commit an accidental crime (involuntary manslaughter). The first person is far more likely to commit a similar crime than the latter.
With regards to hate crimes, if you declare that you are commiting a crime against a member of a community, rather than an individual, it speaks to your likelihood of commiting further crimes against members of that community in the future - and calls for a longer rehabilitation period.
Not that longer imprisonment actually equates to more rehabilitation, but it seems a valid argument for upgrading a crime's severity if it has a more general "hate crime" intent.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Thanks for the insights. I am glad to reconsider my opinion, and now I have something to chew on.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The differences between murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter is pretty much entirely based on intent!
A couple of quick points.
First, intent is absolutely not the same thing as motive. Motive is why a person commits an act. Intent is related to purposely committing the act. For example, if someone turns the wheel of their car to aim it at the person, the intent is to hit the person. The motive might be because the driver was bullied by the victim in high school. Motives basically don't have to be proved to convict. Intent, depending on the crime, might have to be proved to convict.
Homicide is a consequence-defined category of crimes: someone dies because of someone's actions. It is graded largely by intent.
Almost every crime contains a mental element (called mens rea). From Xavier's quotes about the various types of homicides, the mental elements are:
First Degree Murder: willful and premeditated Second degree murder: intent to kill or lack of concern for human life (often worded as depraved indifference for human life) Voluntary Manslaughter: current intent to kill Involuntary manslaughter: negligence or recklessness
None of these parallel the motive "because I hate <protected group>." Some hate crimes include a mental element "with intent to intimidate a person based on <protected categories>." Hate crimes worded like this have mental elements that parallel the mental state of these homicide crimes. In these cases, we are simply declaring some intentions to be more harmful than others and are not really making a new kind of crime.
Poorly worded hate crimes base the element on motive, and many of these have been changed after the first rush of passage to base them on intent.
I'm not expressing an opinion on their desirability of intent-based hate crime definitions here, but motive-based hate crime definitions are unacceptable.
Basically, I had the same confusion Squicky did three posts above, and am posting this to attempt to introduce clarified vocabulary so people can discuss which aspect disturbs them.
[ October 17, 2006, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Of course, hate crime legislation came out of the realization that in many locales the safeguards of our judicial system were systematically failing in their duty for justice. In particular, people who committed racially-motivated violent crimes were let off the hook by a jury of their peers, perpetuating, and tacitly justifying, the criminal behavior.
I believe that was the motivation for federal civil rights laws, not hate crime legislation. If juries are letting people off for crimes against minorities, I'm not sure how a hate crime law stops that. The civil rights laws, however, provide for a different sovereign entity to prosecute in an attempt to alleviate the problem of systemic bias.
We should note that civil rights laws are quite different from hate crimes. The Rodney King officers were acquitted of state assault charges but convicted of federal civil rights charges. It's not clear what the state jury would have done differently if the charge had been hate assault.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Wow………….. I think this might be a first. I thought just like Tante did and now after reading a few posts hate crimes make a bit more sense to me now.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Maybe I'll change the thread title to "Convince Me and Everyone Who Agrees With Me..."
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: I thought just like Tante did and now after reading a few posts hate crimes make a bit more sense to me now.
Ditto. I love Hatrack. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: When you vandalize a random grave, you aren't intending to terrorize anyone. When you vandalize a Jewish grave with swastikas, you are intending to terrorize and intimidate an entire group of people.
quote: But instead of debating your example, allow me to offer one that I feel is more clear cut in indicating the need for hate crime legislation.
Say someone climbs up to a billboard in a prominent Jewish community, and spray-paints a giant swastika and a message reading "Burn all Jews!" or something equally vile.
Then compare it with a man, climbing to the exact same billboard, and spray-painting "San Demus high school football rules!".
Unless I have mistaken your positions, according to you and Tante, these two crimes are identical.
To me, the two crimes are fundamentally different, in both intent and degree of damage. I further believe that the disconnect is so great between the two crimes, that if we had no ability to prosecute one to a greater severity than the other, I'd consider it a gap in our legal system.
A point htat I brought up in corresponding with Twinky on another thread bears repeating here.
It's easy to point to your two statements as fairly clear examples of hate speech, but what if instead of spray painting Jewish graves with swastikas, someone just spray painted 'Jews suck'. Still hate speech?
A t-shirt that says 'I love Hitler'...or just has a picture of Hitler. Hate speech or not?
How about 'Hello Kitty' stickers just on Jewish graves?
How about the recent Danish cartoons targeting Muslims?
How about a reprint of a 19th century eugenics text?
What about an article saying that gay people shouldn't be able to adopt?
The big problem with hate speech, to me, is that it isnt' always clear where the hate is, or how much hate is present. Because what is said and what is understood can be wildly divergent, the fact that something that may seem innocuous to one person may be totally inappropriate to another, there is a huge, grey area in how hate speech laws can or should be applied. As I mentioned to Twinky, almost any speech can possibly be hate speech to someone.
I believe, too, that there is a time and a place for hate. I'm sure that we can all agree that it's legitimate to hate Nazis. However, if we print articles expressing our hate of Nazis, have we committed a 'hate speech' crime?
Thus, to me, the biggest reason to not make 'hate speech' a crime is that it's rife with potential for abuse, confusing in its application, and because the term is so vague, I believe it would very likely have a chilling effect on speech.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What if someone where to kill someone for a list of reasons, ONE of them being that he was black?
"So and so stole my wife, and took my kids as his own, so I killed him, I expected no different from a negro."
Clearly the man doesn't like blacks, but does his murder count as a hate crime?
What about unintended consequences? Say someone burns a cross in a town of 100 people, it's going to affect a lot less people than if someone did the same thing in a city of 10,000. Should his punishment be a thousand times more severe for hurting that many more people? After all, when you kill 10 people, you get a punishment 10 times worse than when you kill one.
It assigns motive. What if a black man kills another black man, all the while shouting the N word to his face. Now he's using a racial epithet, but as a black man himself, does that remove anti-racial motive? So now Race on Race or Gender on Gender or Gay on Gay crimes wash out? What if a school yard fight turns bad, and one kid who has absolutely no problem with gays at all just wants to hurt the feelings of a gay kid and calls him a f**? Convicting him of a hate crime assigns punishment for assumed thoughts or feelings.
If you want to punish the ripple effect that a hate crime has, it needs to be worded differently, and it needs to be about a thousand pages long to cover all the specifics that any situation might entail. Good luck enforcing it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Clearly the man doesn't like blacks, but does his murder count as a hate crime?
Does America actually have a parallel set of crimes for hate cases? I think it's much simpler to do what we've done in Canada, which is to consider it as a possible aggravating factor during sentencing.
The only "hate crime" situations that aren't addressed during sentencing here are related to hate propaganda, which as Storm notes I was just discussing with him on another thread (there's a link in my first post).
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I believe very few places in America have hate crimes, Twinky. I think it's something that's determined by municipality?
I would wiki it, but I'm lazy. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm sure that we can all agree that it's legitimate to hate Nazis.
I'm sure you're wrong.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
k. Thanks for your fascinating insight into the whole issue.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)