Hate Crimes
From Wikipedia:
As defined in the 1999 National Crime Victim Survey, "A hate crime is a criminal offense committed against a person or property motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a racial group, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, or disability. The offense is considered a hate crime whether or not the offender's perception of the victim as a member or supporter of a protected group is correct."
In the United States federal prosecution is possible for hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity. As of October 2007, Congress is considering the Matthew Shepard Act (Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007), legislation that would add gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list.
The most famous example of a hate crime is the murder of Mathew Shepard - he was killed for being gay.
In many states, hate crime penalties are considerably tougher than similar, non-hate crimes. For example, if I get into a bar fight with a man who happens to be gay and break his jaw, I might be charged with one crime; however, if I call him a fa*got, then break his jaw, I could be facing more sever charges.
I understand the psychological need for "hate crime" laws, but I personally feel they are anti-American, unconstitutional, and against the philosophy of free-thinkers everywhere.
Why? Because it is punishing a person for what he is thinking at the time of a crime and differentiating that from other thoughts that would not be punished as severely under the exact same circumstances..
It's the Thought Police.
If someone shoots me in the chest I expect the punishment for my attacker to be the same, whether he shot me in the course of a robbery or whether he hates Italians. His motive is, and should be, immaterial.
We're supposed to punish the act, not the thought behind it.
Yes, motives come into play in the courtroom, but this is not the same. In the case of Hate Crimes, the State is not using motivation for a crime as a step on the way to prove it happened; rather, they are criminalizing the actual motivation itself.
In America, I'm allowed to hate gay people. Or blacks. Or albino midgets or whatever. It's only when I infringe on someone else's civil rights should I be prosecuted. At least, that's the way it's supposed to work.
With Hate Crime laws on the books however, the same exact crime can bring drastically different punishments depending on the perpetrator's personal and private thoughts.
Say I went through a White Power phase in college but got over it. Hell, let's say I'm just fascinated with Nazis in general and have lots of books, movies and papers on that time in history.
If I get into a bar fight with a Jewish man the prosecution can use my past - or even my love of history - against me in such a way I would be looking at a completely different sentence. Prosecuting attorneys are not exactly known for going after the lesser charge when a more serious one is in the offing, you know?
And I think this is dead wrong and potentially dangerous for Americans everywhere.
What are your thoughts?
7 Replies
good thread and discussion...for some reason, I did not respond much to VoraciousReader's very good points and I wish I had....and Hobby did a great job of research and arguing the other side.
We could use more "serious" threads around here these days.
Looks like a lot of smart people wasting their time.
A topic many people enjoy discussing when they’re lounging around.
I thought this was a very good discussion. I always agreed with Dom's original position. I also agree that to the victim, it matters not one whit. The whole concept must serve some purpose, but it doesn't serve the victims.
I realize after reading through this thread that our differing opinions are mostly respected and refutations are reasonable. Our civil discourse should be emulated by many today.
Now that I am a senior citizen, I'm glad that an assault on senior citizens carries a harsher penalty. After all, I'm delicate.
Sent from my Pixel 7a using Tapatalk
I get why this feels uncomfortable. It touches a real tension in the law. On one side, the idea is that bias-motivated crimes cause wider harm. They target whole communities, not just one person. That’s why lawmakers treat motive as an aggravating factor. On the other side, your concern about punishing thoughts is valid. Free speech and belief are core values. The line is supposed to be action, not opinion. In practice, courts casino-nalu.uk still punish the act, but weigh motive when deciding impact and risk. Whether that balance is right is a fair debate. Reasonable people land on different sides of it.
