Hate crimes

[Erythritol]

So, I think this is sort of an interesting, debatable topic. Do you think those who commit hate crimes should be given a heavier sentence? For instance, if a man kills another man because he is black/Jewish/whatever, should be be given a longer sentence than a man who killed a man in a crime of passion/whatever? Why/why not?

 

[Fusilli]

I think my first instinct would be no, they shouldn't be given longer sentences. To me, the crime is still the same regardless of a person's motives for doing so, at the end of the day the same damage has been done.

Another point is that it would probably be possible for somebody to lie about their motives, I'm not saying it would be easy but it could be done. A lot of law involves twisting the truth anyway so it'd probably be expected. It's just another possible reason, although I think the first is stronger, because murder is murder whatever the reason.

 

[Soul Saver]

Hmm.
What's to say that a caucasian man killing a caucasian man is any different to a caucasian man killing a black man? Because the cause might be different? It still results in death, and the victim's suffering is by default, the same. The crime and punishment should be the same regardless of intent. It's just silly changing the punishment because one motivation for a crime is considered more or less "evil"/extreme than another. That, and what if something is just branded a "hate crime" just because someone who happened to be part of a persecuted minority happened to be the victim? You never hear of prosecution for reverse "hate crimes", either.

 

[Donald Trump]

I'm inclined to be more lenient towards crimes of passion. Someone's motives for murdering someone doesn't shorten their sentence. Take Murder on the Orient Express by Agatha Christie, basically they murder an evil disgusting person, who's death is a positive thing. They all had noble motives for murdering him, but if it was real and thy were found guilty they would still get 25 to life. So I don't think it's fair to make punishments harsher for hate crimes.
Also I'm pro capital punishment, and I don't think it's possible to give a harsher punishment that death.

 

[Moogles]

I believe sentencing should be uniform regardless of the conditions under which the crime was committed. If the crime is the same, then so should the punishment.

Another point is that it would probably be possible for somebody to lie about their motives, I'm not saying it would be easy but it could be done.

Good point. Motive can be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also I'm pro capital punishment, and I don't think it's possible to give a harsher punishment that death.

In many cases, I feel that criminals get off easy with the death penalty. Some dude totures, rapes and murders a group of children. He gets a painless, lethal injection. Torture the dude, I say.

 

[Laro]

Those who commit crimes need help. They can be really poor so they steal. They could've been badly raised. Punishing them will not make a big difference I think. It may look like a right thing to do, but really they need help in uderstanding. I'm not saying they need a doctor. Maybe a friend that could warm his/her heart.
If one person makes a crime, like beat up another person and let's say he would get 1 year sentence. He would get angry and once the person is free he will continue to do crimes, only for revenge.

 

[Contra Fates]

I'm a bit torn on this topic. The law is supposed to be fair, yet with American law, they make many amendments to go with the times. Most of the hate-crime additions followed repeated, or famous acts of discrimination. Matthew Shepard's murder was the case that really put hate crimes against homosexuals on the map.

Really, I think they just exist as a deterrent, and for that, I believe that the heavier sentences do serve their cause. But, on the other hand, many people use the 'race card' as a way of getting away with crimes. So, like many good ideas that start out with the best intentions, it's an idea that I think is a double edged sword just like the rest.

Personally, I feel that motive and intent SHOULD be considered heavily when sentencing for a crime. If an abused house-wife kills her husband after a heavy beating, compared with a man who raped, beat, and murdered a woman he didn't know....well, I'd feel that the latter would deserve a much heavier sentence, because the crime was much crueler than the first.

 

[Valkyrur]

Nope. I feel that Hate is just another factor to the reason of the crime.
In other words, my belief is that hate is comparable to the reasons why others commit crimes, be it passion, envy or whatsoever. So, the sentence should remain the same.

 

[Crazee Dayzee]

No, because the outcome is equivalent. In terms of punishment (comparing hate crimes and crimes of passion), the only thing that should matter is how the crime is preformed (i.e., out of two murders, one being quick and the other death being torturous, I think that the torturous crime should be more heavily punished). Since we're talking about hate crimes, I think that the reason why said person commits a crime should only determine the kind of psychological help that they need.

But in general, speaking broadly about all crimes, I think that cases can depend on the circumstances (let's say that someone found out that someone planned to murder ten people, so before the latter could preform the action, the former kills him. I think that under a special circumstance like that, the punishment for the crime should be less severe).

 

[Soul Saver]

I'm a bit torn on this topic. The law is supposed to be fair, yet with American law, they make many amendments to go with the times. Most of the hate-crime additions followed repeated, or famous acts of discrimination. Matthew Shepard's murder was the case that really put hate crimes against homosexuals on the map.

Really, I think they just exist as a deterrent, and for that, I believe that the heavier sentences do serve their cause. But, on the other hand, many people use the 'race card' as a way of getting away with crimes. So, like many good ideas that start out with the best intentions, it's an idea that I think is a double edged sword just like the rest.

Personally, I feel that motive and intent SHOULD be considered heavily when sentencing for a crime. If an abused house-wife kills her husband after a heavy beating, compared with a man who raped, beat, and murdered a woman he didn't know....well, I'd feel that the latter would deserve a much heavier sentence, because the crime was much crueler than the first.

I'm willing to make concessions if the victim turns the tables on their oppressor, or someone kills in self defence, definitely. You could say that criminals forfeit those "rights" that they abuse or attempt to abuse, such as the right to life. There is something wrong if a person goes to prison for defending themselves.

 

[Red_Mage]

*Reminded of South Park episode where Cartman is sent to Juvy*

I think hate crimes are the same as normal crimes. Hating someone for being diferent is deplorable, but so is killing anyone.

 

[Contra Fates]

*Reminded of South Park episode where Cartman is sent to Juvy*

I think hate crimes are the same as normal crimes. Hating someone for being diferent is deplorable, but so is killing anyone.

Please put a little more effort into your posts, especially in the Debate section.

I can see the reasoning behind 'the punishment should be about the end result,' but I think that crimes, especially murder, need to be looked at circumstantially. As I mentioned before, I just feel that the increased punishment for hate crimes is just a deterrent to try and promote less discrimination and racism within America.

Though, I'm not too knowledgeable on the laws of other nations, so...are there increased hate crime laws in Britain, etc?

 

[Fusilli]

Hmm, Contra raised a good point about killing someone out of self-defence. Like in the musical Chicago when Billy makes up the story about Roxy and Fred both reaching for the gun, so that it would be either one or the other who got killed. Well, in cases like that then I guess the motive should be considered and the sentence shorter. I'm sure in most cases the person would regret it anyway but feel that they had no choice. Although if it was a case of killing the person as a result of being pushed to the edge then that's different, because there could have been other ways out without having to resort to murder.

 

[Gatekpr]

No. A large, resounding no. Also, Contra, your "deterrent" is simply another outlet for racism. If you acknowledge the difference in any way, even this way, you're advocating it.

I, of course, see that circumstances and motives should be a large part of murder cases, particularly things like the example of the beaten wife compared to the torturing rapist/murderer. However, and I'm still using the above examples, the beaten wife should have alerted the authorities. Now, I know you'll say "But he'd beat her more or kill her for that!" Yes, that is a possibility, which is why she should alert them and stay at a friend's house, or alert them and arm herself in case he does come. This is a self-defence case, we're talking about. If she were to kill him in her own defence, of course, go ahead and give her leniency!

The rapist, torturer, and eventual murderer should by tried like anyone else for typical murder (plus the rape and torture charges). That's just typical murder.

I believe that scenarios should have a sway in the punishment, but not circumstances of thought or existence, like religion, race, sex, or sexuality. As I said earlier, swaying a punishment for any of those four (and more, of course) only seeks to acknowledge the differences and breed more hate.

Just my two cents.

 

[Erythritol]

No. A large, resounding no. Also, Contra, your "deterrent" is simply another outlet for racism. If you acknowledge the difference in any way, even this way, you're advocating it.

I, of course, see that circumstances and motives should be a large part of murder cases, particularly things like the example of the beaten wife compared to the torturing rapist/murderer. However, and I'm still using the above examples, the beaten wife should have alerted the authorities. Now, I know you'll say "But he'd beat her more or kill her for that!" Yes, that is a possibility, which is why she should alert them and stay at a friend's house, or alert them and arm herself in case he does come. This is a self-defence case, we're talking about. If she were to kill him in her own defence, of course, go ahead and give her leniency!

The rapist, torturer, and eventual murderer should by tried like anyone else for typical murder (plus the rape and torture charges). That's just typical murder.

I believe that scenarios should have a sway in the punishment, but not circumstances of thought or existence, like religion, race, sex, or sexuality. As I said earlier, swaying a punishment for any of those four (and more, of course) only seeks to acknowledge the differences and breed more hate.

Just my two cents.

This is probably off topic, but whatever. I really think I need to set you straight about domestic violence. I really wish it were as easy as "oh she just needs to go to the authorities!", but it's not. Domestic violence is VERY hard to escape. It's also very difficult to legally prosecute. The legal definition of assault, at least in New York, is absolutely ridiculous. In order for the injuries sustained to be considered assault, serious internal damage must be done to an organ. This is just for ASSAULT. I may remind you that assault isn't even a felony. At most, the law can issue a restraining order against the abuser. However, most abusers tend to be obsessive and violate the restraining orders. For this, at MOST, they'll spend less than a year in jail. I would like to also point out that physical abuse is not the only type of abuse that exists. There's financial, emotional, and psychological abuse. Many women feel they cannot leave an abusive situation for financial reasons or for fear that the abuser will hurt a loved one or pet. There may also be children involved, which makes it even more complicated. Another interesting fact: of the women who were killed by their abuser, a majority (I think something like 80%) were killed while they were in the process of leaving the abuser.

So basically, no, it's not as simple as calling the police or leaving. Abused women are not, as many people like to believe, weak. They are in terrible situations and really need more legal protection.

 

[Contra Fates]

No. A large, resounding no. Also, Contra, your "deterrent" is simply another outlet for racism. If you acknowledge the difference in any way, even this way, you're advocating it.

I, of course, see that circumstances and motives should be a large part of murder cases, particularly things like the example of the beaten wife compared to the torturing rapist/murderer. However, and I'm still using the above examples, the beaten wife should have alerted the authorities. Now, I know you'll say "But he'd beat her more or kill her for that!" Yes, that is a possibility, which is why she should alert them and stay at a friend's house, or alert them and arm herself in case he does come. This is a self-defence case, we're talking about. If she were to kill him in her own defence, of course, go ahead and give her leniency!

The rapist, torturer, and eventual murderer should by tried like anyone else for typical murder (plus the rape and torture charges). That's just typical murder.

I believe that scenarios should have a sway in the punishment, but not circumstances of thought or existence, like religion, race, sex, or sexuality. As I said earlier, swaying a punishment for any of those four (and more, of course) only seeks to acknowledge the differences and breed more hate.

Just my two cents.

I think it's a bit unfair to put a 'racism' stamp on the fact that I called 'Hate Crime Punishments' a deterrent. Especially due to the fact that Hate Crimes can occur to people who aren't of 'different races.' For example, a hate crime against a Caucasian Homosexual by another Caucasian, as in the case of Matthew Shepard [Though it was more than one], Matthew Shepard was a homosexual, not someone of a different race. I don't want to stretch this out too far, but claiming that as a 'racist statement' means that you would file homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Hindus, or anyone of a different lifestyle, culture, or religion....a race. I do realize you mentioned later that you don't believe a person should be further punished for committing a crime against a person of a different race, religion, culture, etc., but I feel that crimes that are motivated by discrimination, should receive a harsher punishment, because, it IS their motive.

Also, just to follow up to what Erythritol had said about the beaten-wife example...not only is it nearly impossible for most battered wives to escape their husbands...in the example I gave, it is VERY LIKELY that she would have GONE TO JAIL.

Killing someone after the fact, is retaliation. Retaliation, is a crime, and gets people jail time. If that battered-wife stabbed him in the back, or shot him in the back [as would be the most likely event, because, as a battered wife, she is afraid of him, and wouldn't attack him head-on], it shows that it WAS NOT in self-defense. He could not have avoided her attack. That's retaliation, and even though many would sympathize with her, it's likely that she would still be given jail time.

To follow up with an example, in my Criminal Law class, my Professor, who is a defense attorney, told us of one of his most painful cases. A client of his, who used to do drugs with her abusive boyfriend, and finally quit in order to get a job, had returned from work one night to see her boyfriend, high on meth, holding a beer bottle in one hand, and a hunting knife in the other. There was a history of abuse between the two, but she was too afraid of him to leave him. He came up to her, and told her to do some drugs with him, and to spend time with him. As he came closer, she moved back towards the door. He suddenly moved forward, and as a reflex, she held her hands out, and ended up smacking the wrist that held the hunting knife. As a result, the knife was plunged into her boyfriend's chest, and killed him almost instantly.

She explained her case in front of a jury, and told every detail...and they decided that the accidental killing of a drug-addict was worth sentencing her to TWENTY YEARS OF PRISON.

All I'm trying to say, that even though many would agree that battered-women should get a 'get out of jail free card,' it's not how it ends up.

To end with the topic at hand, I still see no problem with harsher punishment for hate crimes, especially if that's the motive that ties the killer to the victim. Though, it is not necessary in a court trial to prove or discuss motive, it is a rather critical component for a jury. But, keep in mind that people can 'claim' it was a hate-crime all they want, but unless they have facts to back it up, a 'hate crime charge' can hold just as little water in court as any other evidence of motive.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

So, I think this is sort of an interesting, debatable topic. Do you think those who commit hate crimes should be given a heavier sentence? For instance, if a man kills another man because he is black/Jewish/whatever, should be be given a longer sentence than a man who killed a man in a crime of passion/whatever? Why/why not?

A crime is a crime, all hate crimes do, is prove that we are all different(physcially) by separating us. I think its law that if you commit a crime in the heat of the moment(aka passion) you get a lighter sentence, because at the time you weren't mentally stable.

As such it will turn into John killed Bob because hes 1/4 Cherokee, when in fact John killed bob because Bob was cheating with his wife, or if Bill kills Steve whos 1/2 Hungarian, when in fact Steve killed his dad. Lame examples ftw

See where it gets ridicolous? We are all equal, all hate crimes will do is prove that statement otherwise, plus some people will try to turn it into a political agenda.

And Contra, I can see where your coming from, but bear in mind good intention always go sour, look at GreenPeace, now its an Anti-Capitalism group.

- Kuja

 

[Erythritol]

A crime is a crime, all hate crimes do, is prove that we are all different(physcially) by separating us. I think its law that if you commit a crime in the heat of the moment(aka passion) you get a lighter sentence, because at the time you weren't mentally stable.

As such it will turn into John killed Bob because hes 1/4 Cherokee, when in fact John killed bob because Bob was cheating with his wife, or if Bill kills Steve whos 1/2 Hungarian, when in fact Steve killed his dad. Lame examples ftw

See where it gets ridicolous? We are all equal, all hate crimes will do is prove that statement otherwise, plus some people will try to turn it into a political agenda.

And Contra, I can see where your coming from, but bear in mind good intention always go sour, look at GreenPeace, now its an Anti-Capitalism group.

- Kuja

Okay, I know it's nice to think "we are all equal", but that's just not realistically the case. We are NOT all equal. As long as racism exists, there will always be groups that are more vunerable to attacks. Your examples are, quite frankly, invalid. That's not how the law works. Courts don't discredit motives if race is involved. People aren't so racist that, if a white person shoots a black person, the judge immediately bangs his gavel and says, "IT WAS BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK, OBVIOUSLY!"

Consider this: someone defaces a school with something lewd like a penis or a swear word. Now, another person defaces a synagogue with swastikas. Which is more offensive? I think the answer is obvious. Should the crimes be punished equally? Quite frankly, I think they shouldn't. One is just juvenile and stupid, while the other is quite obviously inciting racism and causing anguish to an entire group of people.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

Okay, I know it's nice to think "we are all equal", but that's just not realistically the case. We are NOT all equal. As long as racism exists, there will always be groups that are more vunerable to attacks. Your examples are, quite frankly, invalid. That's not how the law works. Courts don't discredit motives if race is involved. People aren't so racist that, if a white person shoots a black person, the judge immediately bangs his gavel and says, "IT WAS BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK, OBVIOUSLY!"

I never said thats how the law works, i merely stated that it will create racial suspicion, and in response to the judge thing, Nowhere in my post did I make any indication such a thing would occur. >.>

Consider this: someone defaces a school with something lewd like a penis or a swear word. Now, another person defaces a synagogue with swastikas. Which is more offensive? I think the answer is obvious. Should the crimes be punished equally? Quite frankly, I think they shouldn't. One is just juvenile and stupid, while the other is quite obviously inciting racism and causing anguish to an entire group of people.

Now your just taking what I said out of context. You can call your example a hate crime, or an expression of hate. Again what i said made no indication thats how I thought, as such. Anyone with logical sense would catagorize these arguments as one more severe than the other. As such I fail to see, how you'd assume I see these as the same? Oh wait because I don't support hate Crime? Your example is a bad one in support of Hate Crime legistlation. And btw the racist of people of jewish ancestry obviously deserves a more harsh punishment.

Again I think your argueing too much on emotion, just because I dont see eye to eye with you, doesn't make me the bad guy. Personally what Contra said I agree with, however like I said hate crimes can also be hijacked into a political game, and not be what it was intended to be.


- Kuja