Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Spraying painting a nazi symbol is as much a hate crime as a someone spraying the N-word
Slavery/ Jim crow was and is a holocaust.
Not by the numbers.
The Nazi holocaust of the Jews was not only much greater in the number of deaths but also a greater evil in regards of intent.
Sure, slavery was/is evil, but it's not as evil as extermination.
Additionally, there are actually some survivors of the Nazi death camps living today; whereas, you can't find a single person who was a southern slave.
If we are basing hate crimes on psychological effect, hate crimes against Jews should carry more wait.
The Nazi holocaust of the Jews was not only much greater in the number of deaths but also a greater evil in regards of intent.
Sure, slavery was/is evil, but it's not as evil as extermination.
Additionally, there are actually some survivors of the Nazi death camps living today; whereas, you can't find a single person who was a southern slave.
If we are basing hate crimes on psychological effect, hate crimes against Jews should carry more wait.
I'd say a few CENTURIES of legal enslavement, followed by a good amount of illegal enslavement, followed by a few decades of lynchings and horrific discrimination is pretty bad.
Not at all. The perpetrator's mental state and intent can indict him further as well.
It speaks only to the state of mind of the shooter. And of course, if we move to "I shot him because I have wanted him dead for a long time and I bought the gun for that exact purpose", we suddenly go into premeditation (state of mind) and move into a more severe crime.
Actually - "I shot him because he was <specific race>" tends to come with a big heaping spoonful of "and I wanted to send a message to other people like him". Like spray painting a swastika on a synagogue shows a different intent than spray painting a slogan on a bus stop.
Behavior is only part of a crime, it has always been necessary for a mental intent to be there as well, and there has always been a distinction (on the part of the justice system) depending on what the intent was. Mens rea to accompany the actus reus. This goes back to Roman times, in fact.
The problem isn't with the legal degree of a given charge (e.g. 1st degree murder, 2nd degree manslaughter, etc.). The problem lies with assessing differing penalties for the exact same charge: person no. 1 commits premeditated murder because they want the victim's money--person no. 2 commits premeditated murder because they have an irrational bias against a demographic group to which the victim belongs. In this example, both perpetrators have committed murder in the 1st degree. Again, there is no logical reason for person no. 2 to receive a more severe sentence than person no. 1.
The ultimate problem that comes into play when we use emotional responses to manipulate sentencing is that the ability of the justice system to function "blindly" is removed. We create a hierarchy of victims and another hierarchy of victimizers. Most frighteningly, these hierarchies are fungible--based upon cultural, political, and social trends. Note a couple of earlier responses in this thread which brought into question whether or not anti-semitism was a greater transgression than racism against African Americans.
Going beyond that, is painting a swastika in a largely Jewish city or neighborhood more egregious than doing so in a city or neighborhood with fewer Jewish residents? Is the murder of a prominent and beloved member of the community more deplorable than the murder of a homeless person? What about sexual assault--is the rape of a nun more devastating than the rape of a prostitute?
Asking these kinds of moral questions is perfectly appropriate in the realms of philosophy, sociology, or theology. However, such matters have no place in the legal system. One individual committing a specific crime of the same degree should not face a more (or less) severe sentence than another person committing the same crime of the same degree.
The problem isn't with the legal degree of a given charge (e.g. 1st degree murder, 2nd degree manslaughter, etc.). The problem lies with assessing differing penalties for the exact same charge: person no. 1 commits premeditated murder because they want the victim's money--person no. 2 commits premeditated murder because they have an irrational bias against a demographic group to which the victim belongs.
By using the term "premeditated", you are already letting the perpetrators thoughts and motives for the criminal act influence the sentencing. You're looking at intent.
Quote:
In this example, both perpetrators have committed murder in the 1st degree. Again, there is no logical reason for person no. 2 to receive a more severe sentence than person no. 1.
Unless person number 2 intended to victimize a larger group. Lynch mobs didn't just intend to kill their actual victims, they were also very much used to keep minorities in check.
Quote:
Most frighteningly, these hierarchies are fungible--based upon cultural, political, and social trends.
All law move with cultural, political and social trends. Spousal rape wasn't even a thing until the 1970s, for instance.
Quote:
One individual committing a specific crime of the same degree should not face a more (or less) severe sentence than another person committing the same crime of the same degree.
And as mental state at the time of the crime's commission has always been part of law, there is nothing to stop us stating that crimes committed with the intent to intimidate more than just their victims should be judged harsher. That is not a more severe sentence for the same crime - it is, in fact, a different crime.
You seem to wish to establish that here's a specific "emotional" side to hate crime legislation - I am not sure how you arrived at that conclusion?
The problem isn't with the legal degree of a given charge (e.g. 1st degree murder, 2nd degree manslaughter, etc.). The problem lies with assessing differing penalties for the exact same charge: person no. 1 commits premeditated murder because they want the victim's money--person no. 2 commits premeditated murder because they have an irrational bias against a demographic group to which the victim belongs. In this example, both perpetrators have committed murder in the 1st degree. Again, there is no logical reason for person no. 2 to receive a more severe sentence than person no. 1.
The ultimate problem that comes into play when we use emotional responses to manipulate sentencing is that the ability of the justice system to function "blindly" is removed. We create a hierarchy of victims and another hierarchy of victimizers. Most frighteningly, these hierarchies are fungible--based upon cultural, political, and social trends. Note a couple of earlier responses in this thread which brought into question whether or not anti-semitism was a greater transgression than racism against African Americans.
Going beyond that, is painting a swastika in a largely Jewish city or neighborhood more egregious than doing so in a city or neighborhood with fewer Jewish residents? Is the murder of a prominent and beloved member of the community more deplorable than the murder of a homeless person? What about sexual assault--is the rape of a nun more devastating than the rape of a prostitute?
Asking these kinds of moral questions is perfectly appropriate in the realms of philosophy, sociology, or theology. However, such matters have no place in the legal system. One individual committing a specific crime of the same degree should not face a more (or less) severe sentence than another person committing the same crime of the same degree.
This makes a lot of sense to me and I consider myself to be pretty liberal. I think the entire hate crime thing is a slippery slope. Let's take an example of vandalism - say someone spray paints a swastika on a wall. Legally, this could be a hate crime. But what if someone has a swastika tattoo, or a shirt or jacket? What if some white supremacist group like the KKK gets a legal permit to hold a rally? Or a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans has a bumper sticker naming him as such on his car? Or someone has a Confederate flag on their truck (imagine, Bo and Luke Duke)? The only real difference here - is that with the spray paint the crime of vandalism was committed. Many of the same people would be offended and/or intimidated by a Neo Nazi's tattoos as by the spray painted swastika. You could very easily get into violating the right to expression, assembly and freedom of speech.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
