Hate Crime Legislation

[Page]

I do not believe that "Hate Crime" legislation is at all justifiable, at least under US law.

First, It is punishment for thought, not action. The action that is being punished is already criminal under statutes for murder, manslaughter, or assault; the only reason for the additional punishment is what the perpetrator thought about the victim.

Thought is also the difference between first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter...

[Vallermoore]

I'm not in favour of it unless racism or something of that kind was clearly a factor.

[Dogmeat]

I'm not in favour of it unless racism or something of that kind was clearly a factor.

...that's the whole idea?

[Woodfiredpizzas]

Tougher sentences for shittier reasons for committing a crime?
I’m down for that.
Limiting it to only crimes against identities seems like it’s only draw back.

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

Hate Crime Legislation isn't bad as long as it doesn't include thought or words as the direct crime itself

let me rephrase that a bit... If I kidnap and torture four black women implicitly because they are black, women, or any other inate characteristic then it should be considered a hate crime and dealt with accordingly... However if I simply say something racist such as "Blacks are worthless monkeys" then no it shouldn't be considered a hate crime... However in the same jurisdiction, if I say "Look a black man, go kill him." to someone and they do so then I should likewise be charged with a hate crime

essentially be less like Canada and more like The United States

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Having a mens rea aggrevating circumstance is not strange at all. The actus reus of killing can lead to various crimes, based on the mental state of the perpetrator. Killing without intent is involuntary manslaughter. Killing with intent is manslaughter. Killing with a plan and intent is murder.

With regards to hate crime, it is just aggrevating. The person would be guilty of a crime anyway. If you base it on a racist ideal, however, then we punish you harder, because we find a killing based on racial ideology more disgusting than a killing based on practical considerations.

So, there is nothing strange in criminal law about the idea of hate crimes, and it actually portrays how we think about racist crimes. So, there is nothing wrong with it.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Hate Crime Legislation isn't bad as long as it doesn't include thought or words as the direct crime itself

let me rephrase that a bit... If I kidnap and torture four black women implicitly because they are black, women, or any other inate characteristic then it should be considered a hate crime and dealt with accordingly... However if I simply say something racist such as "Blacks are worthless monkeys" then no it shouldn't be considered a hate crime... However in the same jurisdiction, if I say "Look a black man, go kill him." to someone and they do so then I should likewise be charged with a hate crime

essentially be less like Canada and more like The United States

For a hate crime, the act itself always has to be illegal already. Hate crime laws generally don’t create new crimes, they only aggrevate existing crimes.

Then there are hate speech laws, which are different from hate crime laws. I disagree that all language is inherently free from blame. Do you actually know what Canadian hate speech laws say? What kind of speech they ban? Or European hate speech laws?

[Gravlen]

Mens rea is a well-established component of criminal law. It allows us to differentiate intentional acts from accidental ones, which can make a world of difference in terms of deciding whether someone is criminally liable or negligently liable for something, and can also make the difference between someone being charged with murder or manslaughter.

But why should there be a different punishment if I kill someone due to their race as opposed to killing them because I just do not like them?
The killing was just as intentional in either case, and the victim is just as dead. Mens Rea is still the same, I had a deliberate intent to commit the crime. It is just a different reason.

If you're stealing from or murdering someone because of their innate characteristics, e.g. because they're black or Jewish, it's an attack not just upon the individual in question but also an attack on a larger community. So when you attack Bob because he is gay or Sarah because she is a woman, your intent go beyond this particular individual. That makes it a larger crime, worthy of more punishment. You might want to view it as a subset of terrorism.

Here's a different example to show that we already differentiate between people despite the fact that they intend the same result:

- Ken hates Ron. Hates him. With a burning passion. He hates him because Ron got all the things in life that Ken deserved to get, but never did. Ken makes a plan on how to murder Ron. He gathers information on his daily routines, determines the optimal time and place for a murder, and buys a gun a few weeks in advance. He follows through on the plan, and kills Ron by ambushing him in an alleyway and shooting him in the head. Ron dies, just as Ken intended.

- Sam and Dean get along well. They are almost like brothers. However, that all shatters when Sam comes home to find Dean in bed with his wife. Sam feels utterly betrayed and devastated, but decides that this cannot be accepted. He angrily goes to find his gun in the closet, and returns to the bedroom to kill Dean by shooting him in the head. Dean dies, just as Sam intended.

The first example shows a murder in the first degree, while the second example shows a murder in the second degree. Specific criminal definitions and terms might vary by jurisdictions, but generally the first one is punished more severely than the second one.

[The New California Republic]

Mens rea is a well-established component of criminal law. It allows us to differentiate intentional acts from accidental ones, which can make a world of difference in terms of deciding whether someone is criminally liable or negligently liable for something, and can also make the difference between someone being charged with murder or manslaughter.

But why should there be a different punishment if I kill someone due to their race as opposed to killing them because I just do not like them?
The killing was just as intentional in either case, and the victim is just as dead. Mens Rea is still the same, I had a deliberate intent to commit the crime. It is just a different reason.

Because the mens rea of the perpetrator for targeting an individual of the community is on the basis of a trait that is shared by an entire subset of the community. The perpetrator poses a risk to said subset of the community on the basis of that, and the law has a safeguarding duty to the community. It is an aggravating circumstance of the crime that dramatically increases the risk that the perpetrator will strike again, if they encounter another individual of that particular subset of the community again. Therefore the Judge is entirely justified in taking it into consideration during deliberations.

[Eglaecia]

Hate speech is the only "hate crime" I think should be legal. Other than that I don't really care. The circumstances around a crime will always contribute to the punishment.

[The New California Republic]

Hate speech is the only "hate crime" I think should be legal. Other than that I don't really care. The circumstances around a crime will always contribute to the punishment.

So a stranger calling me a "faggot that deserves to be put to death" in the street should be legal? Fucking nonsense.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Hate speech is the only "hate crime" I think should be legal. Other than that I don't really care. The circumstances around a crime will always contribute to the punishment.

So a stranger calling me a "faggot that deserves to be put to death" in the street should be legal? Fucking nonsense.

I'm going to create controversy here and say, yes, it should be legal.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

So a stranger calling me a "faggot that deserves to be put to death" in the street should be legal? Fucking nonsense.

I'm going to create controversy here and say, yes, it should be legal.

So a literal call to violence is a-okay?

Doesn’t really create controversy as much as it shows that you don’t understand the existential threat faced by minorities.

[Eglaecia]

Hate speech is the only "hate crime" I think should be legal. Other than that I don't really care. The circumstances around a crime will always contribute to the punishment.

So a stranger calling me a "faggot that deserves to be put to death" in the street should be legal? Fucking nonsense.

Yeah, that should be legal. We shouldn't criminalise things because your feelings are hurt easily.
Now, if they a public figure and explicitly told their followers to put you to death, that's a whole different story.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

So a stranger calling me a "faggot that deserves to be put to death" in the street should be legal? Fucking nonsense.

Yeah, that should be legal. We shouldn't criminalise things because your feelings are hurt easily.

People. Will. Literally. Fucking. Die.

[The New California Republic]

So a stranger calling me a "faggot that deserves to be put to death" in the street should be legal? Fucking nonsense.

Yeah, that should be legal. We shouldn't criminalise things because your feelings are hurt easily.

Oh yes, me not liking someone saying that I deserve to be killed means that "my feelings are hurt easily"(!)

[Ifreann]

Yeah, that should be legal. We shouldn't criminalise things because your feelings are hurt easily.

Oh yes, me not liking someone saying that I deserve to be killed means that "my feelings are hurt easily"(!)

You value your own life? Pfft, toughen up, snowflake. Real Men™ don't care about anything.

[Elwher]

I don't necessarily endorse hate crime legislation, but the idea that you can't take motivation into account when sentencing a crime is... well that's the entire difference between manslaughter and murder. And you didn't complain about that.

I do not disagree with the idea of taking motive into account at sentencing, as called for in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. What I object to is making motive an additional charge, as was done in the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

If I kill you because I do not like you, I am charged with one crime. If I kill you because I do not like your race, I am charged with two crimes. That is not, in my opinion, right.

[Eglaecia]

Yeah, that should be legal. We shouldn't criminalise things because your feelings are hurt easily.

People. Will. Literally. Fucking. Die.

I. Don't. Care.
Rights > Safety

[Eglaecia]

Yeah, that should be legal. We shouldn't criminalise things because your feelings are hurt easily.

Oh yes, me not liking someone saying that I deserve to be killed means that "my feelings are hurt easily"(!)

I don't like a lot of things. Doesn't mean I want to criminalise them.

[Andsed]

I don't necessarily endorse hate crime legislation, but the idea that you can't take motivation into account when sentencing a crime is... well that's the entire difference between manslaughter and murder. And you didn't complain about that.

I do not disagree with the idea of taking motive into account at sentencing, as called for in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. What I object to is making motive an additional charge, as was done in the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

If I kill you because I do not like you, I am charged with one crime. If I kill you because I do not like your race, I am charged with two crimes. That is not, in my opinion, right.

We have always taken motive into account. Why should it be any different with race? If we charge someone with a worse crime because they hated and planned the killing then we should charge someone with a worse crime if they did because of their hatred for a group.

[The New California Republic]

Oh yes, me not liking someone saying that I deserve to be killed means that "my feelings are hurt easily"(!)

I don't like a lot of things. Doesn't mean I want to criminalise them.

This isn't as petty or benign as disliking a certain flavor of soda or some shit. In this case the dislike is of someone saying that you deserve to die. Big difference.

[Lanoraie II]

Thought crime is vile, corrupt, and oppressive. But if someone attacks another specifically for something they can't control (I do not count religion under this), then it's both assault and a hate crime.

[San Lumen]

Oh yes, me not liking someone saying that I deserve to be killed means that "my feelings are hurt easily"(!)

I don't like a lot of things. Doesn't mean I want to criminalise them.

According to you Dylann Roof should not have been charged with multiple hate crime counts when he said at trial bigotry and racism and a desire to start a race war was his motive?

If you don’t know who he is he was the purpotrater of the mass shooting at a historic church in Charleston, SC that killed nine including a state legislator

[Eglaecia]

I don't like a lot of things. Doesn't mean I want to criminalise them.

This isn't as petty or benign as disliking a certain flavor of soda or some shit. In this case the dislike is of someone saying that you deserve to die. Big difference.

Okay??? I still don't care! Freedom > safety. Simple as.