7818. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:35 AM PDT
Niner: Ok, my dictionary has "motive" and "intent" as synonyms, but it shouldn't surprise me that lawyers use them to describe different aspects of the roots of a perps behavior.
Still, I have heard stories about judges using motive ("stealing food to feed a family" vs. "stealing car radios to feed a drug habit") as mitigating criteria in sentencing. And I know, regardless of what the law may state, that *people* make such distinctions when judging the severity of the actions. I personally don't mind codifying this discretionary judgment into law, but could be convinced otherwise if a strong enough case could be made.
7819. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:35 AM PDT
cllrdr
I don't know. Isn't it a manhunt?
7821. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:39 AM PDT
109109:
But premeditation implies a different motive. A man who intentionally kills his wife to get her inheritance (first degree murder) is punished more severely than a man who intentionally kills his wife after losing his temper during an argument (second degree murder). In any case, the central point is that the severity of a crime is not determined solely by the result, but also by the thoughts and mental state of the criminal. So your "equal result = equally heinous" argument runs counter to our entire legal tradition.
7822. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:40 AM PDT
max -- Which administration are you talking about? Post #7814 covers several of them.
109 -- Yes, it's a manhunt, but Reno and Freeh -- and everyone else who've dealt with Rudolph -- have felt the need to mention his motives. Were they wrong to do so? Is a bombing just a bombing? (apologies to Gertrude Stein)
7823. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:41 AM PDT
"Still, I have heard stories about judges using motive ("stealing food to feed a family" vs. "stealing car radios to feed a drug habit") as mitigating criteria in sentencing. And I know, regardless of what the law may state, that *people* make such distinctions when judging the severity of the actions. I personally don't mind codifying this discretionary judgment into law, but could be convinced otherwise if a strong enough case could be made."
Different issue, different crimes, but illuminating on one problem of hate crime legislation. He stole my radio a) because he's a thief and 2) because I'm black. Oh Lord, what a gift to the ambitious prosecutor.
As for motive, you are correct to the extent you are talking about sentencing, but sentencing is very individualized as is. If a judge determines that you blew up a house because its occupants were gay, or because you were involved in an insurance scheme, but you knew you were killing folks just the same, you will be at the whim of that judge, on that day. That is not the law so much as it is human nature, and, in fact, it may obviate the need for hate crime legislation.
7828. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:46 AM PDT
109109:
"And if the two thugs who killed the poor kid in Wyoming intended to strike terror into the hearts of homosexuals nationwide, I'll be shocked."
It has reminded me, yet again, to be careful. I assume it will have a similar effect on many other gay people. It's easy to get complacent.
7831. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:46 AM PDT
"But premeditation implies a different motive."
False. Premeditation means to think an act beforehand, for any reason.
"In any case, the central point is that the severity of a crime is not determined solely by the result, but also by the thoughts and mental state of the criminal. So your "equal result = equally heinous" argument runs counter to our entire legal tradition."
You are right and wrong. Mental state factors into punishment, as do thoughts, but normally to lessen a charge (rage, drunk, diminished capacity, insanity), not to increase it. That is our legal tradition.
Unless you would like to open the door to "hate" as a new defense (the Colin Ferguson/Ron Kuby gambit on its head).
7833. CharlieL - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:47 AM PDT
Premedication, however, is a different matter entirely.
7834. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:48 AM PDT
cllrdr
"109 -- Yes, it's a manhunt, but Reno and Freeh -- and everyone else who've dealt with Rudolph -- have felt the need to mention his motives. Were they wrong to do so? Is a bombing just a bombing? (apologies to Gertrude Stein)."
I don't know the sitiuation. My guess, if he is captured, they'll charge with everything they can, as they should, motive notwithstanding. But motive may very well have something to do with their efforts.
7836. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:50 AM PDT
109109:
"As for motive, you are correct to the extent you are talking about sentencing, but sentencing is very individualized as is. If a judge determines that you blew up a house because its occupants were gay, or because you were involved in an insurance scheme, but you knew you were killing folks just the same, you will be at the whim of that judge, on that day. That is not the law so much as it is human nature, and, in fact, it may obviate the need for hate crime legislation."
Well, part of the reason hate crimes laws have been passed is because judges were unable to impose enhanced penalties on criminals motivated by hatred under the existing laws.
7840. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:52 AM PDT
109 re #7823 -- In other words it's up to the whims of the judiciary -- which it would be anyway even with hate crime laws in place. But the real problem, Niner, is your attempt to level the playing field. A black man stealing a radio from you might qualify as a "hate" crime if the man in question were, say, Michael Jordan -- and he yelled "Up yours Whitey!" as he sailed out the door. We are not equal in the eyes of the culture. We do not have an equal amount of leverage. The killers of Mark Shepherd have the advantage that someone in the judiciary may hate gays almost as much as they do, and let them off easy as a result. (Until shown otherwise, I am firmly convinced that they'll walk.) The lesbian couple whose house was trashed last week didn't go to the police because they knew, from previous encounters with the authorities, that these representatives of the state do not recognize them as full and equal citizens. Rather, they think they're sub-human, and are quite willing to say so to their face. Just as the policeman who hassled me felt about my being black.
But let's get back to impeachment, and take this up in the "Gay" thread when it (soon I hope) resumes.
7842. max012000 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:55 AM PDT
Jexter. 7827:
I wasn''t suggesting impeachment without eveidence. I wonder why congress if fooling around with much less important charges? If there is nothing to this China business, why have so many principals fled the country? Why is the administration making such an effort to stonewall? Why do individuals like yourself jump to the conclusion that there is no evidence with no evidence? Suppose, just suppose there might be evidence, don't you care? Do you think this kind of stuff with the sort of cuddlies that run things in China is cool?
7843. jexster - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:57 AM PDT
Boobie, as we see, is master of the *immaterial* viz his Bar Review Quizes.
Still in all he owes me 2 answers
- Asked me about Rule Against Perpetuities to which I gave him a trust clause I drafted asking for his learned Law Review comment
- Asked me about interpleader, in response to which I cited the California statute asking him to review same.
But what I really want to know is how Hyde could hire Shippers? First thing the man was supposed to do was outline the charges for the impeachment inquiry. Tow weeks later, Henry redid them.
What's up with that?
7844. JaDeGoLd - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:58 AM PDT
Mcla;
I don't believe you're a lawyer, either. So what?
Heck, Clarence "Uncle" Thomas is a lawyer and a SC Justice. Big deal. He's still a moron.
7846. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:59 AM PDT
109109:
"You are right and wrong. Mental state factors into punishment, as do thoughts, but normally to lessen a charge (rage, drunk, diminished capacity, insanity), not to increase it. That is our legal tradition."
No, mental state can either reduce or increase the severity of the crime. Our legal tradition holds that premeditation makes a murder a worse crime, even though the result may be identical to an unpremeditated murder. So again, for the third time, your "equal result = equally heinous" argument contradicts our accepted legal principles, doesn't it? So it doesn't make any sense to argue that a hate crime is no worse than an ordinary crime on the basis that the results are the same, does it?
7847. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:59 AM PDT
cllrdr
"In other words it's up to the whims of the judiciary -- which it would be anyway even with hate crime laws in place."
Yes. All the laws in the world will not supplant jury or judge disaffection.
"But the real problem, Niner, is your attempt to level the playing field. A black man stealing a radio from you might qualify as a "hate" crime if the man in question were, say, Michael Jordan -- and he yelled "Up yours Whitey!" as he sailed out the door. We are not equal in the eyes of the culture. We do not have an equal amount of leverage."
Agreed. I don't believe hate crime laws will give you that leverage, and they may, in fact, bite you in the ass.
"The killers of Mark Shepherd have the advantage that someone in the judiciary may hate gays almost as much as they do, and let them off easy as a result. (Until shown otherwise, I am firmly convinced that they'll walk.)"
Agreed. Except, they won't walk. Hate crime laws will not stop whimsy.
"The lesbian couple whose house was trashed last week didn't go to the police because they knew, from previous encounters with the authorities, that these representatives of the state do not recognize them as full and equal citizens. Rather, they think they're sub-human, and are quite willing to say so to their face. Just as the policeman who hassled me felt about my being black."
Also agreed. Hate crime laws will not help them either if the apparatus refuses to stir.
"But let's get back to impeachment, and take this up in the "Gay" thread when it (soon I hope) resumes."
Hear, hear.
7850. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:01 AM PDT
Niner: out of curiousity, do you have the same distaste for federal prosecution of violations of individual civil rights? An example being the Rodney King beating trial.
I tend to view such laws as attempts to get around some of the inherent problems of a localized trial by jury system. If I can be convinced the laws are, or will be, frequently abused, I will consider opposing them. But otherwise, I think they have the potential to do a lot of good, even if their motivation for existing is primarily for politicians to appear to be "doing something" after a tragedy that would have been very difficult to legally prevent.
7855. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:05 AM PDT
I read an article the other day about attempts by the NYPD to recruit more gay cops. They are so desperate that they have sent recruiters into gay neighborhoods to stop people on the street and ask them to apply to become a police officer. The reason for this is that the NYPD has determined that gay crime victims are much less likely to report the crime than straights, because they think they'll be harassed by the police or that their claims won't be taken seriously.
If only all police departments were so progressive.
7856. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:07 AM PDT
Elliot
"No, mental state can either reduce or increase the severity of the crime. Our legal tradition holds that premeditation makes a murder a worse crime, even though the result may be identical to an unpremeditated murder. So again, for the third time, your "equal result = equally heinous" argument contradicts our accepted legal principles, doesn't it? So it doesn't make any sense to argue that a hate crime is no worse than an ordinary crime on the basis that the results are the same, does it?"
Unsurprisingly, we reach endgame on your insistence that premeditation and motive are synonymous. Premeditation suggests greater culpability because the actor had time to reflect. This has nothing to do with why the actor has chosen to act (for love, money, hate, or kicks). For example, if you string someone up by their thumbs and strip their skin off by plan, you are charged with first degree murder, much as if you gracefully poisoned them.
What you want is higher penalty for motive. Ten years for murder for money, 15 for murder for hate.
As for the rest of your post, see above. If you don't accept my premise (and you don't), then we remain at loggerheads.
Lunch.
7858. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:09 AM PDT
109109:
"Agreed. I don't believe hate crime laws will give you that leverage, and they may, in fact, bite you in the ass."
Well, they're on the books in 40 states, and none of the minority groups who benefit from them seem to feel they have been counterproductive. I think you're blowing smoke.
7859. CharlieL - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:09 AM PDT
elliott, I'll bet they just thought there was a vacancy in the Village People.
7860. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:11 AM PDT
Rask
Yes, I do. I don't like two bites at an apple, but that is the pesky civil libertarian in me. The Simpson verdict was valid, no matter what I think, as was the Simi Valley verdict, as is any verdict resulting from jury nullification. I don't like shortcuts and you live with what the jury hath rendered.
That said, I realize that we are in flux (obviously, the instransigence of southern courts in the 50s and 60s required federal intervenetion, and civil rights laws filled the bill).
7861. Ronski - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:12 AM PDT
Niner,
Re: 7751
I think this is one case (Wyoming) where a crime was motivated by anti-gay hatred and can indeed be shown to be reflective of an extreme (anti-gay) political agenda. I don't find most of the so-called gay agenda to be extreme in the least, even if I don't agree with all of it (being against big government, as I am).
I agree with you that there are problems inherent with hate crime legislation. I also agree with Elliot that motive is a legitimate factor in determining severity of punishment. The problem with hate crime laws is that it asks the government do to something it cannot do very well, which is to get into the psychological state of the perp. Authorities can often determine whether one intended to kill a robbery victim, but not always what feelings of antipathy one had toward the group an individual is from. In the Wyoming, case, however, the feelings seem clear. Just like the Texas dragging case.
7863. BobaFett - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:15 AM PDT
Elliot:
109 is correct that motive and premeditation are two different concepts. Premeditation represents intent-plus, intent plus the malice aforethought.
Motive is an *evidentiary* matter, not an element of any crime. You show motive simply to demonstrate that their was intent or premeditation.
No murder statute requires proof of "motive" per se.
Although some require *knowlege* that the victim was a cop or officer of the court, e.g., First Degree Murder in NY.
Now, NY's Murder statute *does say* that killing a cop or court officer is worse than killing an ordinary person. That's why you can get the death penalty for Murder one but not for murder two.
(BTW, Law and Order fans: That's why they're always charging somebody with Murder two instead of murder one; unless you kill a cop, etc., murder two is the highest murder charge in NY.)
But, Elliot, that's precisely why I'm against hate-crime statutes: They implicitly say that a gay's life is more important that a straight's life, or a black's life is more important to the white's.
You get very angry when you think the State is treating your life as if it's not as important as a straight's; well, Elliot, that *precisely* why I don't like statutes which would make it a greater crime to assault a gay or black then to assault *me*.
7864. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:15 AM PDT
niner: In fairness to elliot, I also equated your statement of "motive doesn't matter" in layman's terms, and assumed that intent and motive mean the same thing, as they do in non-legalese.
I also don't think it is much of stretch to penalize differently for different motives, just like we penalize differently for different intents. I would like to know the logic behind why one is specified by law, and the other is left to the judges.
7865. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:16 AM PDT
109109:
"Unsurprisingly, we reach endgame on your insistence that premeditation and motive are synonymous."
I didn't even say that, much less insist it.
"What you want is higher penalty for motive."
That's right. Hate crime laws provide for enhanced penalties for crimes motivated by certain forms of hatred. And?
"As for the rest of your post, see above. If you don't accept my premise (and you don't), then we remain at loggerheads."
No, I don't accept your premise that "equal result = equally heinous," and more importantly, that premise runs counter to our entire legal tradition, as I have explained at some length with respect to laws against various kinds of murder.
7866. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:20 AM PDT
boba: I don't see how the laws place a black man's life as more valuable than a white mans (or gay vs. straight). If a white man is killed for visiting a black neighborhood, and evidence exists that the crime was racially motivated, wouldn't they be just as succeptible to prosecution for the hate crime law?
7867. jexster - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:21 AM PDT
Boobie,
Those statutes that make assault motivated by gay hatred *do* protect you. The operative words "sexual orientation"
You do have a *sexual orientation* along with those snazzy book awards and that FLP, no?
7868. CharlieL - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:22 AM PDT
"They implicitly say that a gay's life is more important tha[n] a straight's life, or a black's life is more important to the white's."
They do nothing of the sort. They say that the crime is worse, not that the victim's life is more important.
Do you go along with the NY law saying that a policeman's life is more important than anyone else's? Why? It's just a chosen profession, after all.
I get angry when the State says that killing someone out of hate is OK if the State has a history of hating those people, too.
7871. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:25 AM PDT
BobaFett:
"But, Elliot, that's precisely why I'm against hate-crime statutes: They implicitly say that a gay's life is more important that a straight's life, or a black's life is more important to the white's."
This is nonsense. It doesn't matter whether the victim is gay or straight. All that matters is MOTIVE. If the victim is a straight man wrongly perceived as being gay by his murderer, and the murder was motivated by hatred of gays, then the murder is just as much a hate crime as it would have been if the victim actually had been gay. Ditto for the case where a murder was motivated by hatred of heterosexuals. Ditto for the case where a murder is motivated by racial hatred, regardless of the actual race of the victim.
"You get very angry when you think the State is treating your life as if it's not as important as a straight's; well, Elliot, that *precisely* why I don't like statutes which would make it a greater crime to assault a gay or black then to assault *me*."
Again, this is nonsense. Hate crime laws don't even address the identity of the victim. They're about MOTIVE, not the characteristics of the victim.
And the initial part of your post is entirely irrelevant to all this.
7872. spudboy - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:25 AM PDT
109s: WRT Message 7808: "And if the two thugs who killed the poor kid in Wyoming intended to strike terror into the hearts of homosexuals nationwide, I'll be shocked."
No, they likely intended to strike fear into the hearts of every gay and lesbian person living in Casper, or any who might make the mistake of passing through there.
You call the distinction "parsing." Ask a Jew whose synagogue has been vandalized with swastikas, or a black who's had a cross burned on his lawn, if this is mere "parsing." Everyone on the victim side of things knows quite well that these crimes are directed at groups, not individuals.
7874. BobaFett - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:29 AM PDT
Charlie:
I said they "implicitly" say one life is more important to another. It's a matter of interpretation. I interpret them as saying that it matters less if I am beaten by black guys than if a black guy is beaten by white guys.
Re: Why are cops' lives more precious?
Well, the justification is that that is an assualt on the State as well as on a person. Yes, I know that a similar justification is used to justify hate-crime statutes; Spudboy just said this.
But it's one thing to say that it's a bigger crime to kill the Governor, a cop, or a judge than to kill me. I can live with that. It's another thing to tell me that it's worse to kil a black guy or a gay than me.
To paraphrase the Clinton argument: Whites aren't above the law, but neither should we be beneath it.
(And yes, once again, all these laws are written so that they're theoretically two-way streets, but in practice I don't think they're applied that way.)
7875. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:32 AM PDT
BobaFett:
"Yes, theoretically, these laws are a two-way street. In practice, they only are applied to protect minorities."
Nonsense. Show me evidence that hate crime laws have been applied in a way that is unfair to non-minorities.
You're such a typical angry white straight male, constantly bellyaching about how minorities get preferential treatment, and constantly failing to provide a shred of evidence to support your malicious accusations.
7876. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:40 AM PDT
Spud
"No, they likely intended to strike fear into the hearts of every gay and lesbian person living in Casper, or any who might make the mistake of passing through there."
Time will tell. My guess, they are animals without thought to why they do anything from the last synapse.
"You call the distinction "parsing." Ask a Jew whose synagogue has been vandalized with swastikas, or a black who's had a cross burned on his lawn, if this is mere "parsing." Everyone on the victim side of things knows quite well that these crimes are directed at groups, not individuals."
Why would I ask the most emotionally involved? We are talking about law and presumably, justice, which is blind. If the feeling of the victimized is worse, that justifies greater penalties? I feel poorly for the person in the crime-ravaged inner-city who has become numb to the realities of crime.
Again, you want greater penalties for what you perceive to be different, more insidious crimes. Why can't we meet in the middle and just agree on greater penalties, no matter the motive?
Common ground.
7877. BobaFett - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:41 AM PDT
Elliot:
I know we've tangled before, but I'm being completely civil in this discussion. If I've made a "malicious accusation," point it out to me.
Just because somebody disagrees with you, Elliot, doesn't mean that they hate you or are being malicious.
Re: "These laws only protect minorities"
I actually didn't mean that (although I do think it's true). I meant something that's a bit longer to say and has been said before. What I mean is this:
If I am assaulted or murded by somebody who isn't white, I'd expect the reason would probably be economic. But whether they bash my head in because I'm white or because they want money, I'd like to see them punished.
If a gay guy's head is bashed in because he's gay, well, my head is just as bashed in as his. But the state will (under these laws) punish the gay-bashers worse, and punish my attackers less. My attackers just wanted money; the gay-bashers wanted to bash a gay.
In both cases, the actual harm is that we've had our heads bashed in.
And yet one will be treated as less serious because the attack was inspired by economic motives.
Re: "Prove these laws are only applied against whites and straights"
No, you prove the opposite; you're contending the opposite point, you prove the opposite point.
This "prove it" nonesense is such a bullshit argument. I'm not going to footnote all my posts; they're just what I think. You don't footnote yours either, and I don't call you on it. SO shut up with the "prove it" crap already.
7878. CharlieL - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:44 AM PDT
Aren't all laws just "theories" until they are applied? I don't think the misapplication of a law negates the reason why the law was enacted in the first place.
7879. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:47 AM PDT
FYI
The charges against the charming Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney: fisrt-degree murder, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping with intent to inflict bodily injury or to terrorize.
The murder count carries a possible death sentence.
The girls have been charged with accessory after the fact of a first-degree murder (they buried bloody clothes).
Two Hispanic, non-gays have reported to the police that they were attacked by the perpetrators that same night.
On a related note, Fred Phelps' group plans to demonstrate at the funeral.
7880. CharlieL - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:50 AM PDT
"Just because somebody disagrees with you, Elliot, doesn't mean that they hate you or are being malicious."
Boba, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are a jerk or an idiot. That street runs both ways, also.
7881. spudboy - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:50 AM PDT
Boba: You say in Message #7874, regarding hate crimes, that while "all these laws are written so that they're theoretically two-way streets, … in practice I don't think they're applied that way."
This is a baseless concern.
Actually, one of the consistent criticisms of hate-crime enforcement in the U.S. comes from black civil-rights groups who note that black-on-white hate crimes seem to be enforced more vigorously than others. Recent evidence suggests that offending members of racial minorities are more likely to receive stiffer sentences under hate-crime statutes.
Here are the actual statistics for hate crimes in 1996. As you can see, black-on-white crimes are the second-busiest category.
7882. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:50 AM PDT
BobaFett:
"I know we've tangled before, but I'm being completely civil in this discussion. If I've made a "malicious accusation," point it out to me."
The claim that hate crime laws make it a worse crime to kill a black person than a white person. This is sheer nonsense, and inflammatory to boot.
"Just because somebody disagrees with you, Elliot, doesn't mean that they hate you or are being malicious."
I understand that. You're being malicious anyway, for the reasons I have already explained.
"I actually didn't mean that (although I do think it's true [that hate crime laws only protect minorities])."
There you go again.
"If a gay guy's head is bashed in because he's gay, well, my head is just as bashed in as his. But the state will (under these laws) punish the gay-bashers worse, and punish my attackers less. My attackers just wanted money; the gay-bashers wanted to bash a gay."
That's right. And the reason the attackers of the gay victim would be punished more is that they were motivated by hatred of their victim on the basis of his sexual orientation. If your attackers had been motivated in that way, the law provides for enhanced penalties for them also. I've explained this repeatedly, yet you consistently misrepresent the laws as making certain crimes worse on the basis of the identity of the victim. They do no such thing.
7883. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:53 AM PDT
BobaFett:
You quote me as saying "Prove these laws are only applied against whites and straights." I never said that. However, if you do claim that the laws are being unfairly applied, you assume the burden of showing that.
7884. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:54 AM PDT
boba:"If I am assaulted or murded by somebody who isn't white, I'd expect the reason would probably be economic. But whether they bash my head in because I'm white or because they want money, I'd like to see them punished."
My point, and I believe it's elliot's as well, is that we already make this distinction if your head was bashed in by accident, vs. on purpose. Why not differentiate based on motivation as well? This seems to me purely a matter of social choice. As a society, we say (through our laws) that your head getting bashed in (assuming you recover) isn't as bad as a woman getting raped or someone else in possession of over 6 oz of heroin (these differences are hypothetical - insert real punishment differences here if you know them).
Further punishing someone for committing a hate crime as opposed to a similar crime not motivated by racial or sexual orientation prejudices is just a continuation of this.
7885. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:57 AM PDT
109109 to spudboy:
"If the feeling of the victimized is worse, that justifies greater penalties?"
No, and he didn't say or imply that.
"Again, you want greater penalties for what you perceive to be different, more insidious crimes. Why can't we meet in the middle and just agree on greater penalties, no matter the motive?"
Because the motive affects the severity of the crime. That's the moral principle behind hate crime laws.
7886. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:58 AM PDT
109 Re #7876 -- If we're going to keep emotion out of things, why bother with laws at all?
You've just argued yourself out of a job.
7887. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:02 PM PDT
"Why not differentiate based on motivation as well?"
A few reasons:
1) Motivation is rarely exclusive-most crimes are mixed-motive;
2) You may imperil a prosecution by mere confusion using such a yardstick;
3) You will certainly increase the risk of politicized criminal prosecutions;
4) Is the rationale faulty? I assume the motivation debate stems from a feeling that racist or homophobic or protected category crimes are somehow "worse" than crimes for mere cash or out of anger. Why? The scars of the latter in everyday life are clearly deeper than the former. For every one person killed for being black or white or gay or straight, there are probably 1000 killed for bland, unfocused anger or every-day greed. Shouldn't we be tougher on the bland and greedy, considering the greater damage they to us as a society.
A question. Is killing a man for $1 million better or worse than killing him for $50?
7888. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:03 PM PDT
spudboy:
Thanks for the link to those statistics. They utterly refute BobaFett's claim that hate crime laws only protect minorities.
7889. BobaFett - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:04 PM PDT
Spudboy:
Thanks for the table, but, far as I can tell, that is a tally of "hate crimes," not "hate crime prosecutions." Those stats seem to just point out the number of suspected hate crimes; the table doesn't say actual prosectutions were made. (I know Fed Law doesn't have a hate crime law; but you could provide numbers from states who do.)
If you're going to prove your point, you have to give me a table of the number of hate crime PROSECUTIONS, and what fraction that represents out of the total number of hate crimes which MIGHT HAVE BEEN prosecuted.
Considering the fact that DA's and the Justice Department walk on eggshells whenever there's a high-profile prosecution of a minority, I doubt we'd see these law applied with equal vigor to black or gay defendants.
7890. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:04 PM PDT
cllrdr
"You've just argued yourself out of a job."
Oh, how I hope you are right.
7891. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:10 PM PDT
Niner:"1) Motivation is rarely exclusive-most crimes are mixed-motive;"
I don't see why this matters. You just need a decent definition of "hate crime" . The feds use " a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."
2) You may imperil a prosecution by mere confusion using such a yardstick;
I'd have to see an example of this. I can't see where confusion comes in any more than in any other legal matter.
3) You will certainly increase the risk of politicized criminal prosecutions;
How? and why more than we now have?
4) Is the rationale faulty?
This is a valid point, but I see it as little different than debating whether rape is worse than aggravating assault, or whether possession of heroin with intent to sell is worse than manslaughter. It is a matter of social choice.
7892. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:10 PM PDT
109109:
"I assume the motivation debate stems from a feeling that racist or homophobic or protected category crimes are somehow "worse" than crimes for mere cash or out of anger."
Yes.
"Why?"
For the reasons spudboy has already explained at length.
"The scars of the latter in everyday life are clearly deeper than the former. For every one person killed for being black or white or gay or straight, there are probably 1000 killed for bland, unfocused anger or every-day greed. Shouldn't we be tougher on the bland and greedy, considering the greater damage they to us as a society."
No. It makes no sense to establish a penalty for a crime on the basis of its frequency. Property crimes are much more common than assaults, but we don't punish them more harshly. The punishment should reflect the SEVERITY of the crime. Our society has judged that crimes motivated by hatred on the basis of race, sexual orientation, etc. are more severe a crime with the same result motivated by money.
"A question. Is killing a man for $1 million better or worse than killing him for $50?"
I don't know. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't really care.
7893. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:11 PM PDT
"It must be emphasized that state and local law enforcement agencies would continue to play the principal role in the investigation and prosecution of all types of hate crimes following the enactment of H.R. 3081. From 1992 through 1997, the Department of Justice brought a total of only 33 federal hate crimes prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. 245 -- an average of fewer than six per year."
Bill Lann Lee
7894. davidtudor - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:12 PM PDT
a discussion of hate crimes in the Impeachment Thread. Good Gravy - what has the man done now?
(g, sickly, but still a g)
109109 - the rationale of your point 4 in your 7887 doesn't hold up under scrutiny. We *all* run the risk of being victimized in what you characterize bland or greedy attacks. Gays, blacks, etc. run a further risk simply because of what they are. That extra motivation that causes them to be singled out merits extra punishment.
7895. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:18 PM PDT
Rask
"I don't see why this matters. You just need a decent definition of "hate crime" . The feds use " a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."
The feds rarely prosecute them. I'm talking more on the order of the states who pass such laws. But use the Fed definition. If I kick your ass because you are white and I want your money, have I committed a hate crime? My answer - yes, for both reasons. Under the Fed definition, who knows? Is it exclusive?
"I'd have to see an example of this. I can't see where confusion comes in any more than in any other legal matter."
I'll try and oblige, but intuitively, by the above definition, you are requiring a different standard of proof.
"How? and why more than we now have?"
Tack ons.
"This is a valid point, but I see it as little different than debating whether rape is worse than aggravating assault, or whether possession of heroin with intent to sell is worse than manslaughter. It is a matter of social choice."
Understood. Which is, I think, what we are debating. It gets us back to square. As choices go, I can live with it, but all crimes strike me as hate - or, dislike - crimes.
7897. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:21 PM PDT
tudor
"109109 - the rationale of your point 4 in your 7887 doesn't hold up under scrutiny. We *all* run the risk of being victimized in what you characterize bland or greedy attacks. Gays, blacks, etc. run a further risk simply because of what they are. That extra motivation that causes them to be singled out merits extra punishment."
Read Rask's definition of the federal hate crime definition to understand why your post fails. It is not exclusive to blacks or gays, and if that is your motivation - that somehow, killing someone because they are black or gay is worse - and merits more punishment than killing someone because they have $5 - then codify it for just blacks and gays.
7899. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:23 PM PDT
tudor
Moreover, we all do not run such risks. Poor people run a greater risk of criminal victimization because they are poor, defenseless and in closer proximity to criminals.
Should they not be covered under hate crime laws under your rationale?
7901. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:25 PM PDT
Niner:"If I kick your ass because you are white and I want your money, have I committed a hate crime? My answer - yes, for both reasons. Under the Fed definition, who knows? Is it exclusive?"
seems clear to me that under the Fed definition, it would qualify. Regardless, it wouldn't be tough to clarify.
"I'll try and oblige, but intuitively, by the above definition, you are requiring a different standard of proof."
I guess I have faith in the quality of our lawyers. Seriously, prosecuting under hate crimes is an option. Prosecuters don;t need to do it if they don't feel competent to do so, and if they try and fail to prove that it was hate crime, but still prove the crime itself, I don't see how the perp is any more likely to get off.
7903. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:27 PM PDT
"I guess I have faith in the quality of our lawyers."
Here, you lose me.
7904. jexster - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:28 PM PDT
Right on, DT! Good to have you back. Niner needs to brush up on the obvious.
7906. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:30 PM PDT
Jex
I am aware of your schoolyard penchant for crowd scenes. Tudor, he shall be of no help to your clique.
7907. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:31 PM PDT
109: I was saying that I think lawyers are skilled enough to handle having the option of pursuing greater punishment for hate crimes without reducing prosecutorial success.
7908. jexster - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:34 PM PDT
REALITY CHECK
In Weimar Germany, Nazi SA beat Jews because they were Jews; gays because they were "sick"; Communists and Socialists because they were, well, pinko preverts.
Those were hate crimes no different than KKK lynchings in Mississippi, no different than what happened in Jaspar TX or in Laramie Wyoming.
Maybe one small difference, our ancestors in hate couldn't match the cowardly duplicity of the Christian Coalition. They called a spade a spade and acted bravely in accordance with their beliefs.
Yes indeed, hate crimes do occur. Hate crimes should be punished for what they are.
If, that is, one has the courage of her convictions.
7909. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:35 PM PDT
109109:
"It is not exclusive to blacks or gays, and if that is your motivation - that somehow, killing someone because they are black or gay is worse - and merits more punishment than killing someone because they have $5 - then codify it for just blacks and gays."
No, that would be a violation of the 14th Amendment. That's why the laws refer to race, sexual orientation, etc., and not blacks, gays, etc. Just like any other civil rights law.
7910. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:36 PM PDT
Rask
I know what you were saying. I am saying back that entering a different proof scheme in a criminal trial makes a prosecution less-seemless and more confusing, even with the best and brightest of the bar.
7911. davidtudor - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:37 PM PDT
109109 - come again? My reference to gays/blacks etc. being subject to greater risk of crime than the rest of us at random sorts fits rather snugly into the definition that Rask used. Intentional selection based on one or more factors (race, gender, ethnicicity, etc.) other than, presumably, looks or presumed wealth or street address. The emphasis is on the words intentional selection. And, yes, if someone was to be singled out for a crime because he or she was white (even if by another white, I would argue) that fits. It is this extra motivation called hate, however loosely defined that word has to be.
7912. jexster - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:37 PM PDT
Sorry Niner, the sudden, and not altogether unwelcome appearance of BobaFet has tweaked long dormant synapses.
I'll try to rein in my school yard instincts!
7913. jexster - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:40 PM PDT
Lively morning around here. Not much talk of impeachment, try as I might.
Eloquent testament to how moribund the subject has become.
7914. JaDeGoLd - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:40 PM PDT
Jex: "Yes indeed, hate crimes do occur. Hate crimes should be punished for what they are.
If, that is, one has the courage of her convictions."
Aye, there's the rub.
IMO, the reason that "Where's the Outrage?" is so vociferous in his stance against hate crime statutes is that this is an issue that exposes the hypocrisy of the Repug party. This entire rant started with an examination of the Matthew Shepard murder and its association to the efforts of the FRC and Xtian Coalition.
7915. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:41 PM PDT
david
Saying something twice does not make it any more intelligible. I'm reminded of lawyers who hop up and say "I vociferously object." Oh, well . . . if you vociferously object, then, sustained. (g)
If greater risk is your rationale for a hate crime law, why not include poor people, the greatest and most disproportionate risk in the country?