Equal justice for all is out the window...

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by August

If you kill someone you hate them by definition. Attempting to make motive a crime will result in uneven and unfair application of the law.

Yeah, I agree and cannot see how anyone can label one murder a hate crime and another murder...a non-hate crime?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by August

If you kill someone you hate them by definition. Attempting to make motive a crime will result in uneven and unfair application of the law.

That's not technically true. After all, look at the difference between second and first degree murder. The penalty is usually less for 2nd degree.
The justice system now focuses upon criminal intent, not just criminal acts.

That being said, it would be hard to build a case for the murder of a white male as a "hate crime" in most circumstances. I was joking (not much of a joke) when Max responded with this

Originally Posted by Max2147

Where does the law say that crimes against WASPs can't be hate crimes? If somebody kills me for no reason other than the fact that I'm white, then it's a hate crime under this law.

Even though he has a valid point, there are certain nuances of criminal intent that are not taken into consideration.
If, for instance, a white male is killed and robbed, but he was chosen as a target because he was white (possibly percieved as being wealthy, or perhaps as an oppressor, or both), how would a jury treat that case?
It's pretty easy to construct a defense where this would be treated as 2nd-degree murder. After all, armed robberies occur all the time, and sometimes go wrong.
However, if a white male kills a minority, the defense first has to overcome the jury's prediliction towards considering it as a hate crime. In such a case, there is a societal mentality that considers the white person as the oppressor. The defendant would, for all intents and purposes, have to prove that he does not have a hate-based motive. Examples are difficult to find in criminal law, but easy to find in civil law. Just look at the number of civil lawsuits involving race as a proportion of the whole. (anyone can call me on that "fact" because I'm not going to delve back into tort law texts to find that damn graph and my first 3 google searches yielded the wrong stuff. If you disagree with that assesment, I'll probably yield the point, depending on the source)
The main concern, imo, amongst opponents of this kind of legislation is that the justice system will be twisted into providing more justice for minorities. One only has to look at the extreme measures that private and public interests go to to avoid percieved racial offences to see that that this could indeed be a valid concern. I doubt anyone would disagree with that.

Personally, I'm concerned for two reasons. Firstly, I don't particularly like the system of using criminal intent to effect variances in judgement. While such a system has its' merits, the fact of the matter is that it leaves too much up to the legal representation. Everyone hates lawyers because they are percieved as being dishonest, almost more than any other profession (except politician, in some cases). Basically, you can commit a capital offense, and if you leave enough wiggle room in the evidence department, you can get off with a lighter sentence. Perhaps criminal intent should not be a factor? I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the issue, because my legal education is not extensive enough to decide one way or the other.
Secondly, I think this is a political move to court minority favor. Much like favoring amnesty for illegal immigrants, I think it is aimed solely at garnering votes. While I don't think that most politicians who favor this type of legislation have some evil agenda, I do believe that they are catering to their constituencies at the expense of equality under the law.
Such a phenomenon is certainly not without precedent.

As Max points out, hate crime laws are already in place, but I do not think that this makes their exsistence or expansion any more valid.

Personally, I would favor an infraction-based system of punishment for crimes rather than one that so heavily factors criminal intent, at least at the local and state levels. This whole country is based upon the idea of taking responsibility for one's own actions, and reaping the harvest of the same. Intent-based justice like this has a lot of potential to upset and imbalance that system, and it has before. Imo, the justice system, and the legal professionals that drive it, need to be as limited and strictly defined in scope as possible. Otherwise, they use it for personal gain at the expense of others.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Yeah, I agree and cannot see how anyone can label one murder a hate crime and another murder...a non-hate crime?

To paraphrase and repeat my last post, even though you couldn't possibly have read it by now; Lawyers can do that. Special interests and voting blocks can do that. And you can rest assured that they will use it to their advantage where it suits them in many cases.

Hardly the case Tribesman - all you have to do as a victim is say 'hate crime'

Don't be silly , you have to prove in a court of law that it was indeed a hate crime

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by August

If you kill someone you hate them by definition.

Baloney. You're saying that if a thief attempting to burglarize a house runs into its owner and kills him in the ensuing struggle, he must hate the owner? Even if he didn't even know him, and would have vastly preferred never meeting him in the first place?

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by August

If you kill someone you hate them by definition.

that is not strictly true. Several murders lack any kind of emotional motivation. Killing soneone for money is the first things that comes to mind.

[August]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

that is not strictly true. Several murders lack any kind of emotional motivation. Killing soneone for money is the first things that comes to mind.

That's debatable. I like money but I don't hate people enough to be willing to kill them for it.

[antikristuseke]

I don't see why you would need to hate someone to kill them, simply your love for money would have to overcome your respect for the life of another human being while your feelings towards that individual could be completely neutral or nonexistant.

But true ennough, this is all debatable and difficult to view objectively.

[mookiemookie]

It's actually kind of cute to see you all get in such a tizzy about things. It really is. All the hand wringing and proclamations of doom.

To understand what hate crimes legislation is about, you first have to understand the idea of mens rea, or "guilty mind". Mens rea considers the mindset of the person commiting the actus reus, or the actual act. Our legal system has done this forever, so quit whining about the downfall of American society.

Take a concrete example. Situation 1: A husband suffocates his wife with a pillow while she slept in order to collect insurance money. Situation 2: A husband suffocates his wife with a pillow while she slept out of mercy to end her life because she was dying of cancer. Which one is more guilty? Which one deserves the harsher sentance?

Which is worse? A tagger's name spraypainted on a bus stop or swastikas on a synagogue wall? Which one does more to disrupt society as a whole?

The law doesn't make it any more of a crime to mug a black person, a gay person or a muslim than it does to rob a white male. What it does do is make it more of a crime to mug a black person, a gay person or a muslim BECAUSE they're black, gay or muslim. The mens rea in that case is different and therefore deserves a different sentancing.

Look at the FBI's hate crime statistics for 07: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_05.htm

You'll see "anti-white" listed as a hate crime category. Shocking, right? It's because hate crime legislation is designed to give everyone equal protection under the law, as everyone has a race, creed, color, etc. You're all hung up on the idea that this kind of law establishes protected classes. It doesn't. It's about taking into account MOTIVES, not protecting classes.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

It's actually kind of cute to see you all get in such a tizzy about things. It really is. All the hand wringing and proclamations of doom.

Who are you talking to, and is this type of comment really necessary?

The law doesn't make it any more of a crime to mug a black person, a gay person or a muslim than it does to rob a white male. What it does do is make it more of a crime to mug a black person, a gay person or a muslim BECAUSE they're black, gay or muslim. The mens rea in that case is different and therefore deserves a different sentancing.

Semantics. The main crime is the murder or the mugging etc. That's what the criminal should be tried for. Hate crime legislation is just a feel good sideshow that has enormous potential for abuse.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by August

Semantics. The main crime is the murder or the mugging etc. That's what the criminal should be tried for. Hate crime legislation is just a feel good sideshow that has enormous potential for abuse.

I second this.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Semantics. The main crime is the murder or the mugging etc. That's what the criminal should be tried for. Hate crime legislation is just a feel good sideshow that has enormous potential for abuse.

A feel good sideshow? Hate crimes go further than an attack on a single victim. They're an attack on a community, be it racial or religious, or what have you and do damage to the overall community as a whole. Look at Jasper, TX.

Hate crimes are by definition a worse form of crime than the underlying actus reus and should be treated as such.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

A feel good sideshow? Hate crimes go further than an attack on a single victim. They're an attack on a community, be it racial or religious, or what have you and do damage to the overall community as a whole. Look at Jasper, TX.

Hate crimes are by definition a worse form of crime than the underlying actus reus and should be treated as such.

Hate is worse than murder? Sorry, I disagree.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Hate is worse than murder? Sorry, I disagree.

Not at all what I said. A murder motivated by hatred towards a humanistic trait is worse than a murder at random.

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by August

Hate is worse than murder? Sorry, I disagree.

Hate + Murder is worse than either hate or murder.