Can we get rid of 'hate crime'? (Baltimore: violent crime, law)

[justtitans]

This is by far one of the dumbest concoctions known to man. We are essentially trying to read the minds of individuals and determine if their actions were caused by hate. Newsflash, when someone is beating the bloody pulp out of someone, they aren't doing it out of love. And what gets me is law enforcement believe the criminals using prejudice words is evidence of hate. What if they don't say anything, does that mean it wasn't hate? There have been two recent cases that have come out that deal with this issue in Maryland:


Transgender Victim of Baltimore McDonald's Beating Speaks - YouTube


Baltimore's top cop says videotaped beating of white tourist not hate crime - YouTube

What if the person in the first situation wasn't transgender? What if she was just a natural born woman, would we be having this conversation? Or with the second situation what if the victim was a black man, would we be having this conversation? My point is, violence doesn't come from a place of love, it is a place of hatred. If someone is willing to do something like these things, then you can argue that hate crime happens every time violence happens, so what's the point of it? Seems very politically charged if you ask me and completely unnecessary.

[badchad]

Because sometimes, the motivation for committing a crime matters.

These laws have decided (perhaps arbitrarily) that "hate crimes" and violence are more severe than other types.

[HandsUpThumbsDown]

In the McDonald's case, the women's sexual identity was central to the incident. It was the reason she was beaten, by all accounts.

I think these types of classifications serve a purpose. Let the jury decide if the motivation was there.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown

In the McDonald's case, the women's sexual identity was central to the incident. It was the reason she was beaten, by all accounts.

I think these types of classifications serve a purpose. Let the jury decide if the motivation was there.

That wasn't very clear because according to the story, the confrontation started from one of the girls thinking the transgender person was talking to her boyfriend. How do we know that wasn't a contributing factor to what initiated the situation? Could her sexuality have contributed to the level of violence? Sure, but I just don't believe it is that easy to know what someone is thinking.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by badchad

Because sometimes, the motivation for committing a crime matters.

These laws have decided (perhaps arbitrarily) that "hate crimes" and violence are more severe than other types.

That is true, but should it always be a factor especially when there is a confrontation. Me and you don't have to know each other, but if we argue about something silly like who was in line first and they find out that we have some differences like race, religion, or gender, then couldn't they use one of those factors as a reason for the confrontation especially if one of us becomes the aggressor? I think there are just times when the motivation of a crime doesn't necessarily have to do with those factors and it could just stem from a disagreement but this type of law tells us that it could be more.

[ToneGrail]

I agree. A violent crime is a violent crime. It's motivation doesn't change the fact of what happened.

Furthermore, "hate crimes" are only applied using a double standard where the victim is a minority and the perpertrators aren't. Such is a formula ripe for abuse.

They should be done away with.

People should be judged based on their actions, not their thoughts.

[HandsUpThumbsDown]

Originally Posted by ToneGrail

.

Furthermore, "hate crimes" are only applied using a double standard where the victim is a minority and the perpertrators aren't. Such is a formula ripe for abuse..

Teens set kid on fire for being 'white boy' - New York Daily News

[bowian]

Originally Posted by ToneGrail

I agree. A violent crime is a violent crime. It's motivation doesn't change the fact of what happened.

Furthermore, "hate crimes" are only applied using a double standard where the victim is a minority and the perpertrators aren't. Such is a formula ripe for abuse.

They should be done away with.

People should be judged based on their actions, not their thoughts.

"Thoughts," or in other words, "intent," is a central element in many crimes. In fact, intent or lack thereof distinguishes many types of crimes by degrees. No one is going to do away with intent.

With regard to "hate" crimes, the so-called hate is the motivation for committing the crime. Just because a person of one race harms a person of another race, that doesn't automatically lead to a hate crime. Certain facts have to be there that would show the hate, such as racist language during an attach.

In my opinion, it is possible for someone to commit a violent crime against another and not feel hate (or anything else) against the victim.

[mozahsuf]

I'm just thinking out loud here, but perhaps another angle we can consider is hate as a classification serves to not only classify the crime itself but also as a socio-legal tool that protects the victim's sexual/religious/ideological/etc beliefs by "smuggling" persecution of those identity-markers into the broader criminalizatiion of the violent act. So perhaps what we have in "hate crimes" is the parallel process of bringing the perpetrator to justice for his/her physical crime, and the implicit condemnation of the unique intent that prompted the crime in the first place that serves to protect/reinforce the victim's individual right to hold particular beliefs or to dress in particular ways.

Not saying I agree with "hate crimes" as a classification since I do think the OP brought up a good point.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by bowian

"Thoughts," or in other words, "intent," is a central element in many crimes. In fact, intent or lack thereof distinguishes many types of crimes by degrees. No one is going to do away with intent.

With regard to "hate" crimes, the so-called hate is the motivation for committing the crime. Just because a person of one race harms a person of another race, that doesn't automatically lead to a hate crime. Certain facts have to be there that would show the hate, such as racist language during an attach.

In my opinion, it is possible for someone to commit a violent crime against another and not feel hate (or anything else) against the victim.

Here's my point and why I think using that is flawed. Let's say you have someone that is racist and they never say a word while committing their violent act, does that mean that their actions are not out of hate? I know that's a very broad and generalized view of it, but I guess I'm saying is, if they don't use words, then what are some ways that they can prove that these actions are hate crimes?