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.
I agree, hate crime is a crime against thought. Thoughts don't kill, actions do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jencam
I believe hate crime legislation passed after the brutal beating to death of a gay boy.
Beating someone to death is bad enough. The person who did the crime should be punished regardless of the reason. The act was wrong, not the thought. I think about doing things all the time, yet until I act, it doesn't matter. Murder is the crime, not the hate. Actions have consequences, words just push around air. I have bad thoughts often, only God and I know about them, until I act. When I act, then it becomes relevant to the rest of the world.
The FBI have investigated what are now called hate crimes as far back as World War I. Our role increased following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Before then, the federal government took the position that protection of civil rights was a local function, not a federal one. However, the murders of civil rights workers Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney, near Philadelphia, Mississippi, in June 1964 provided the impetus for a visible and sustained federal effort to protect and foster civil rights for African Americans. MIBURN, as the case was called (it stood for Mississippi Burning), became the largest federal investigation ever conducted in Mississippi. On October 20, 1967, seven men were convicted of conspiring to violate the constitutional rights of the slain civil rights workers. All seven were sentenced to prison terms ranging from three to ten years.
Think about this:
Hate crimes are the highest priority of the FBI’s Civil Rights program, not only because of the devastating impact they have on families and communities, but also because groups that preach hatred and intolerance can plant the seed of terrorism here in our country. The Bureau investigates hundreds of these cases every year and works to detect and deter further incidents through law enforcement training, public outreach, and partnerships with a myriad of community groups.
Traditionally, FBI investigations of hate crimes were limited to crimes in which the perpetrators acted based on a bias against the victim’s race, color, religion, or national origin. In addition, investigations were restricted to those wherein the victim was engaged in a federally protected activity. With the passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, the Bureau became authorized to investigate these crimes without this prohibition. This landmark legislation also expanded the role of the FBI to allow for the investigation of hate crimes committed against those based on biases of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or gender.
What is a hate crime?
A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.
The FBI have investigated what are now called hate crimes as far back as World War I. Our role increased following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Before then, the federal government took the position that protection of civil rights was a local function, not a federal one. However, the murders of civil rights workers Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney, near Philadelphia, Mississippi, in June 1964 provided the impetus for a visible and sustained federal effort to protect and foster civil rights for African Americans. MIBURN, as the case was called (it stood for Mississippi Burning), became the largest federal investigation ever conducted in Mississippi. On October 20, 1967, seven men were convicted of conspiring to violate the constitutional rights of the slain civil rights workers. All seven were sentenced to prison terms ranging from three to ten years.
Think about this:
Hate crimes are the highest priority of the FBI’s Civil Rights program, not only because of the devastating impact they have on families and communities, but also because groups that preach hatred and intolerance can plant the seed of terrorism here in our country. The Bureau investigates hundreds of these cases every year and works to detect and deter further incidents through law enforcement training, public outreach, and partnerships with a myriad of community groups.
Traditionally, FBI investigations of hate crimes were limited to crimes in which the perpetrators acted based on a bias against the victim’s race, color, religion, or national origin. In addition, investigations were restricted to those wherein the victim was engaged in a federally protected activity. With the passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, the Bureau became authorized to investigate these crimes without this prohibition. This landmark legislation also expanded the role of the FBI to allow for the investigation of hate crimes committed against those based on biases of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or gender.
What is a hate crime?
A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.†Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.
That is interesting, and I thank you for posting. And while I kinda get it, I must say, the part you bolded has me confused. I get that "groups that preach hatred and intolerance can plant the seed of terrorism here in our country." But that "preaching" is completely legal and protected. It is only the assault or the murder, that is the crime. So how can legally protected hatred get wrapped up in the "crime" part?
There was a recent attack on two Latinos here in Utah recently, by a man shouting "I hate Mexicans" and "I'm here to kill a Mexican." I've read articles in our paper about how horrible it is that the attacker can't be prosecuted for a "hate crime" under Utah law. He'll be charged with aggravated assault and some other weapons and drug charges.
This got me wondering why "hate crimes" are sometimes treated differently. If the attacker was angry about something else, something other than them being Mexican, why would that matter? Should the reason for the attack make a difference in what the charges are?
This got me wondering why "hate crimes" are sometimes treated differently. If the attacker was angry about something else, something other than them being Mexican, why would that matter?
If the intent is to not just hurt the immediate victim, but to intimidate and harrass a larger group of people, then the number of intended victims is higher and society punishes more harshly.
Quote:
Should the reason for the attack make a difference in what the charges are?
The intent behind a criminal act has always been a huge factor in law. Intent and mental state of the perpetrator can be the difference between a justified killing in self defense and murder in the first degree.
It is only the assault or the murder, that is the crime. So how can legally protected hatred get wrapped up in the "crime" part?
It's a matter of intent. And yes, we have always - seriously, always - taken intent into account when writing laws. This idea that crimes are merely acts and that intent is irrelevant is based on a complete misunderstanding of how law works and have worked since, oh, the 1300s or thereabouts. We have a specific legal concept - mens rea - dealing with it. The act of busting a window to gain access to a car can be a very serious crime, or it can be an emergency measure to rescue a child forgotten on a hot day. It depends on your intent - did you have your eye on a wallet or a child in a car seat?
Lynchings weren't just carried out to exact revenge on the black guy who was unfortunate enough to be around when a crime occurred - they had a broader scope, that of making clear to an entire group that they had better not insist on equal treatment. In that respect, they had a larger number of victims than a simple vengeance murder.
Burning a synagogue or a mosque or a church with the intent of sending a message - that is a more serious crime than burning, I dunno, a warehouse. Again, because of the larger scope of the damage done.
We can always find examples that do not support the idea - hard cases make for bad law and all that - but the concept is sound.
I would like to think that if I get killed by someone, that my race is not considered when charging the criminal. Or that anyone's race would be considered. A crime is a crime.
Agree completely as far as violent crimes are concerned, the violence is what should be punished regardless of racism or bigotry.
What I think should possibly be deemed a hate crime are crimes like flag burning - an example is what happened in Albany, NY over the weekend. A criminal (or criminals) trespassed on 3 different private properties, removed the flag & set it on fire. One home was flying the Canadian flag; one was flying the Korean flag; the third home was flying a gay pride rainbow flag. That is deliberate hate, and my worry is that if they get away with it, will it embolden them to commit a violent crime next? How far will they go?
My personal opinion is that the punishment for almost all crimes should be stiffer, or at least enforced.
If the intent is to not just hurt the immediate victim, but to intimidate and harrass a larger group of people, then the number of intended victims is higher and society punishes more harshly.
The intent behind a criminal act has always been a huge factor in law. Intent and mental state of the perpetrator can be the difference between a justified killing in self defense and murder in the first degree.
I appreciate your posts, thank you. I realize that intent is important in crime and sentencing. But would you agree that there is a difference between the "reason" for a crime and the "intent" behind a crime?
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.
