Can someone help me with the dem position on hate crimes?

[Mattforclark]

First of all, this is not meant to be bait, and in the spirit of civil discourse I honestly present my view and hope to understand the other side of the issue that I may not be seeing.



http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Civil_Rights.htm

From the democratic platform:

"Pass hate crime legislation including gays

The very purpose of hate crimes is to dehumanize and stigmatize. Every crime is a danger to Americans’ lives and liberty. Hate crimes are more than assaults on people, they are assaults on the very idea of America. They should be punished with extra force. Protections should include hate violence based on gender, disability or sexual orientation. And the Republican Congress should stop standing in the way of this pro-civil rights, anti-crime legislation."



Don't hate crime laws increase sentences based on alleged motivation? Aren't they then creating an extra punishment based on alleged thoughts? Isn't that criminalizing thought (in this case hatred)? Though I agree with the platform that hate crimes are "assaults on the very idea of America," it seems to me that hate crimes legislation is even more so.

So what is the justification behind these laws? Are they based on a purely utilitarian calculation that less people will be subjected to attacks motivated by bigotry with these laws in place? Are they just an excuse to rail against the KKK? What do these laws have to do with civil rights, or is it a civil right to not be hated by anyone? Why should a murder based on one motivation carry any heavier a penalty than murder based on another? How can you tell with a sufficient level of certainty whether someone commited a crime with a certain motivation or not?

[auntpattywatty]

1. They are a'gin em!

[ButterflyBlood]

2. hate crimes are meant to intimidate

it's much like cross burning, most liberals would let the civil liberties side of them win and let racist rednecks burn crosses at a nonviolent KKK rally, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to leave one on the lawn of an interracial couple. attacking someone of a minority group for that reason alone is meant to intimidate the whole group, different than attacking someone to mug them. The implications of smashing the windows of a synagogue or black church are far greater than smashing the windows of a Starbucks.

[Mattforclark]

15. burning cross on private property

"It's much like cross burning, most liberals would let the civil liberties side of them win and let racist rednecks burn crosses at a nonviolent KKK rally, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to leave one on the lawn of an interracial couple."

In the case of putting a cross on their yard, I would object to that on the basis that you can't just put anything on someone's yard against their will.

"attacking someone of a minority group for that reason alone is meant to intimidate the whole group, different than attacking someone to mug them. The implications of smashing the windows of a synagogue or black church are far greater than smashing the windows of a Starbucks."

Quite true. In the case of smashing a synogogue window, I would 1) punish for breaking a window (probably a fine), 2) punish for making a death threat, and 3) punish for what ever degree of reasonable expectation that thowing a brick thorugh a window could hurt someone.

[Orangepeel]

3. motivation is always important in determining the crime

It's the difference between murder I and manslaughter, for example. A jury decides whether or not there was a certain motivation in that case.

[Mattforclark]

16. But

they are deciding whether there is a motivation, or whether the killing was reflexive, and basing it off of that, not what kind of particular motivation there was.

[sangha]

23. Not true

Murder for hire is very specific about motive.

[stopthegop]

4. aren't they criminalizing thought (in this case hatred)?

yes they are...and that is the danger...
who will get to specify unacceptable thoughts next year? the year after?

[sangha]

5. I'm sorry, but I have a problem believing this isn't flame bait

The "thought crime" argument has been fought out and so I find it hard to believe that someone who is truly interested in the Dems position on this has had any problem finding out what theur argument. But, in the hopes that this is an sincere question I will point out that many crimes allow increased sentences based on the motives of the perpetrator. There are differing sentencing guidleines for "murder for hire" and "murder in the heat of passion" but no one ever complains about that.

The thought is criminalized. If you don't beleive it, go have that thought and see if the cops come knocking on your door. (It never happens). The only problem you'll have is you commit a criminal act and demonstrate, through acts (not thought), that your criminal behavior is motivated by certain specific forms of hatred.

Why should a murder based on one motivation carry any heavier a penalty than murder based on another?

Because some forms of murder pose a greater threat to the social order than others.

[Mattforclark]

13. Not flame bait

"The "thought crime" argument has been fought out and so I find it hard to believe that someone who is truly interested in the Dems position on this has had any problem finding out what theur argument. But, in the hopes that this is an sincere question I will point out that many crimes allow increased sentences based on the motives of the perpetrator. There are differing sentencing guidleines for "murder for hire" and "murder in the heat of passion" but no one ever complains about that.

The thought is criminalized. If you don't beleive it, go have that thought and see if the cops come knocking on your door. (It never happens). The only problem you'll have is you commit a criminal act and demonstrate, through acts (not thought), that your criminal behavior is motivated by certain specific forms of hatred."

Motive crimes is a better way to put it than thought crimes. I am pretty young and have not been politically aware for a huge amount of time, especially on domestic issues, so that is probably why I haven't seen much of it before. I did a google search before posting this thread, but wasn't able to really find anything helpful.

"Because some forms of murder pose a greater threat to the social order than others."

So a utilitarian justification? I am generally sympathetic to utilitarian arguments, but I have a real difficult time with them on 1st amendment issues.

[sangha]

24. Not utilitarian. It protects liberty

Social order doesn't merely mean "people crossing on the green, and not in between". It involves people not reacting to others violently.

Also, if you do agree that it's not a "thought crime" (the increased sentences are based on motive, not thought) then why re-raise the 1st Amendment?

I'm willing to take you at your word, but you do seem awfully intent on making this a 1st Amend, or "thought crime", issue. If you're going to criticize hate crimes because they are based on motive, then you are going to have to argue that murder for hire should be punished as harshly as negligent murder, not to mention thousands of other differences in sentencing based on motive. I really don't think you want to go there.

[FreeState]

6. Criminalizing thought, nope....

"Don't hate crime laws increase sentences based on alleged motivation? Aren't they then creating an extra punishment based on alleged thoughts? Isn't that criminalizing thought (in this case hatred)? Though I agree with the platform that hate crimes are "assaults on the very idea of America," it seems to me that hate crimes legislation is even more so."

They do not increase sentences on "alleged" motivation. The motivation must be proved in court, so its not alleged at all at that point, but shown beyond a reasonable doubt.

Last time I checked killing someone or harming someone because they belong to a minority group was not a thought. The laws do not punish thoughts- however the actions. For example:

A man kills a gay man.

1) to be a hate crime it must be proven that he was killed because he was gay.

2) if he was killed because the killer wanted his wallet, its not a hate crime.

3) if he was killed because the killer wanted his wallet and the the man was a member of the KKK, its not a hate crime.

4) if he was killed because the killer hated gay men, and desides he wants his wallet also, its a hate crime.

What it comes down to is motivation. Was Matthew Shepard killed because the two killers wanted his shoes? Nope. They killed him because he was gay. This was proven in court by statements the killers made to their girlfriends about killing him.


Hope this helps... The way I see it is as another type of crime. I was on a murder trial once as a juror. We could chose guilt in several categories. 2nd degree if it was not premeditated or 1st degree if it was premeditated (a form of thought, planning). With hate crimes it comes in as would it be a premeditated murder that was intended to send a message to a minority community.

[ButterflyBlood]

8. good summary

I hear right wingers all the time saying shit like "if i hit a black guy because my girlfriend cheated on me with him, it's a hate crime, but if a black guy hits me for the same, it's not", that's total bullshit.

[Mattforclark]

10. thanks for your reply

First of all, thank you for your reply.

"They do not increase sentences on "alleged" motivation. The motivation must be proved in court, so its not alleged at all at that point, but shown beyond a reasonable doubt."

Point taken. Sloppy use of language on my part.

"Last time I checked killing someone or harming someone because they belong to a minority group was not a thought."

True.

"The laws do not punish thoughts- however the actions. For example:

A man kills a gay man.

1) to be a hate crime it must be proven that he was killed because he was gay.

2) if he was killed because the killer wanted his wallet, its not a hate crime.

3) if he was killed because the killer wanted his wallet and the the man was a member of the KKK, its not a hate crime.

4) if he was killed because the killer hated gay men, and desides he wants his wallet also, its a hate crime."

Exactly. I certainly think that someone who commits murder because of bigotry should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for murder. But if you add on any extra punishment based on the "because," you seem to be adding something else. I can see no physical difference between killing someone "because x" and killing them "because y." Certainly in the case of James Byrd, for example, who was killed by being dragged along a road by a pickup truck (for apparently bigoted reasons), that would be different physically from a quick gunshot death, but it is different physically because it was torture, and particularly cruel and gruesome, not because of motivation. I would have no problem trying his killers for torture as well as murder, for example.

"What it comes down to is motivation. Was Matthew Shepard killed because the two killers wanted his shoes? Nope. They killed him because he was gay. This was proven in court by statements the killers made to their girlfriends about killing him.

Hope this helps... The way I see it is as another type of crime. I was on a murder trial once as a juror. We could chose guilt in several categories. 2nd degree if it was not premeditated or 1st degree if it was premeditated (a form of thought, planning). With hate crimes it comes in as would it be a premeditated murder that was intended to send a message to a minority community."

Yes. But I don't understand how you reconcile the idea that "the laws do not punish thoughts- however the actions" with this.

It is true that you can be punished differently based on whether your murder was premeditated or merely reflexive, and that in a broad sense of the word thought, that you would be punishing someone differently based on whether they had thought about and carefully planned to murder someone. And that seems perfectly legitimate to me.

But whether you thought about and planned to murder someone seems different to me. One would not say that "He murdered Matthew Sheppard because he premeditated that he would" in the same way that you would say "He murdered Matthew Sheppard because he doesn't like gay people." And the point of the premeditated/unpremediated distinction is to punish people who did not intentionally kill less than people who did, not to increase the punishment the other way around, although admittedly it has the same effect.

You are very right that it comes down to motivation. That is probably the language I should have used originally. I think a clearer way to put it may be that harsher punishments for 1st degree, premeditated murder, are punishing because there IS a motive in the first place, whereas in the case of unpremeditated murder, there isn't ANY motive at all. So while premeditated murder punishes for the existence of malignant motivation - any malignant motivation, hate crimes laws punish for certain kinds of malignant motivation.

I'll keep thinking about it though.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

12. Let me comment

Yoo sez:

I certainly think that someone who commits murder because of bigotry should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for murder. But if you add on any extra punishment based on the "because," you seem to be adding something else. I can see no physical difference between killing someone "because x" and killing them "because y."

Intimidation. Terrorizing a segment of population besides the obvious victim. Ergo, it is murder PLUS another anti-social act. I have no problem with boosting a penalty once a hate motivation is duly proven in court.

[Mattforclark]

17. That is an excellent point.

"Intimidation. Terrorizing a segment of population besides the obvious victim. Ergo, it is murder PLUS another anti-social act. I have no problem with boosting a penalty once a hate motivation is duly proven in court."

I think that hate crimes, or at least a large segment of hate crimes, could qualify as death threats against members of particular groups.

Could they be prosecuted for 1) murder and 2) making a death threat against the larger community? I wouldn't object to that.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

18. I consider "hate crime" a vocabulary invention to say just that. (nt)

[FreeState]

20. Sorry just saw the reply

Nothing like trying to work and post on-line at the same time:)

Thanks for the reply to my reply. It got me thinking as well. I think some of the other post touch on this but it might help in explaining my position on it as well.

With the murder case I was on the guy was actually charged with 5 counts. All of them stemmed from the murder. For example...

1st degree murder
2nd degree murder
Discharging a gun in public
Possession of a gun while on probation
(cant remember the 5th one)

So with a hate crime it would include an additional count stemming from the one action. This would be placed as a deterrent and a way to help the government protect disenfranchised groups of people.

I know for me I run into people all the time that think when you are convicted of a crime, such as murder, that its just one count. They don't realize the law is set up to charge a suspected person on multiple counts stemming from one action.

For me I agree with hate crimes because I believe our society has an obligation to do all it can to protect minorities and freedoms of groups in the country.

(PS it has been a just over a year since I was a juror and to tell you the truth I would have a very hard time doing it again in a murder case. I understand why I needed to take part int he system, but the memories of families involved still haunts me to this day. I don't feel that it brought real justice to the problem or helped the individual that was ultimately found guilty and sentenced to 50+ years. Both the families will have to live with a loss the rest of their lives, my heart still goes out to both sides.)

[newyawker99]

19. Hi Free State!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[FreeState]

21. Thanks

and a big hello back to you!

[bowens43]

7. We're against them.

[Mattforclark]

11. So am I, but that's not the issue.

It is like with abortion, you can be against it but not think that it should be illegal. (I certainly think murder should be illegal, but am quite edgy about hate crimes being more than that).

[sadiesworld]

9. Thought vs. Intent

[enki23]

14. we already sentence based, in part, on motivation

this would simply codify it further for a certain class of motivations. wouldn't hate-crimes legislation, essentially, just add one to the list of murder and assault classifications respectively?

for those who say "murder is murder" (or the equivalent) all i can say is, you must be really naive to think that's how our system works, or is even *supposed* to work. or that we should *want* it to work that way. in a TV nation full of cop shows and courtroom dramas, surely you've heard the phrase "first-degree murder" at some point. before you say something like "murder is murder" you might want to ponder the implications of the whole 'degree' thing.

[E-Z Rider]

22. I think they are redundant

Crimes should be crimes b/c you violate somebody's rights.

I think they (hate crimes) set a bad precedent that can get out of hand.

I think it is for one, hard to really prove a person's motivations in this respect. Two...it sets another precedent of identifying and associating people by their group identity, and not their individuality. For example, in a murder case the focus becomes that a straight guy killed a gay guy, and not that he alienated another person's basic right to life. I think that it could eventually have quite the opposite effect from what its supporters intend; it could end up alienating civil rights.