[WeatherOp]

Ok, now why? If a person kills someone, shouldn't it be just as bad, or are you saying there is a high and low? So if someone gets guilty of murder and gets 20 years, yet someone does a "hate crime" and does the exact same thing but gets life? So, the family of the first case has to deal with their loss being less important and the killer getting out much earlier? That makes no sense at all.

Intent does not make a difference. If you have the guts to kill someone, you would likely have at least some justification, like they cheated with your wife. Once again no difference.

We have differing levels of murder you know. Someone who kills someone in a drunk driving accident doesn't get the same sentence even though the family has to deal with the same loss.

Yes, that is true, not very right or fair though. But, at least in their defense, even though they were idiots of the highest degree, they still weren't out to kill anyone, thus had no intent.

[Blue Lion]

Yea and the intent is to hurt someone because they are different (age/race/sex/whatever)

They wouldn't have committed the crime if the person wasn't _________ .

That's what makes it a hate crime. Not just that the person happens to be black, but BECAUSE they are black.

[WeatherOp]

Yea and the intent is to hurt someone because they are different (age/race/sex/whatever)

They wouldn't have committed the crime if the person wasn't _________ .

That's what makes it a hate crime. Not just that the person happens to be black, but BECAUSE they are black.

But see that doesn't work. If I kill a person because he was black, it was because I hated his skin color. But, if I killed a person because he was rich, and because I despised him and didn't think he deserved his money, is that not a "hate crime" as well? What if like I said earlier, I killed a person because he was cheating with my wife? Wouldn't that make all of these hate crimes? But, why is only one called a hate crime?

[Blue Lion]

But see that doesn't work. If I kill a person because he was black, it was because I hated his skin color. But, if I killed a person because he was rich, and because I despised him and didn't think he deserved his money, is that not a "hate crime" as well? What if like I said earlier, I killed a person because he was cheating with my wife? Wouldn't that make all of these hate crimes? But, why is only one called a hate crime?

Hate crime legislation has specifics. Right now they are only certain things.

And for the reason you gave, that doesn't meet hate crime statute because that person diddling your wife (or husband) wasn't killed because of their age, race, gender, sexual preference, skin color, religion etc.

Even in your argument, killing someone like that is usually not the highest murder charge. "Caught up in the moment" murders don't usually carry the same weight.

The intent of the person committing the crime is indeed relevant and it gets no more intent-y than hate crime.

[StarSlayer]

What? As opposed to an "I really, really like you" crime?

Jokes aside though, race, gender, sexual orientation are intrinsic to your person.  Your born that way.  Wealth, infidelity, actions are not.  Thats what establishes it as a hate crime.   Like Blue Lion has mentioned, its not about making one victim's life more worthy then another its about trying to prevent it from happening.  From the legislators point of view if the punishment is high enough it might cause a few more synapses to fire in the brain stems of those who would commit the crime.  

[Sushi]

I gotta side with Weather here. I don't mind having some layers of intent in different murder charges ("crime of passion" vs "premeditated" etc), but I fail to see why some types of hate-based murders are worse than others. If you killed someone because you hate them, I don't think it should matter WHY you hate them.

[WeatherOp]

But see that doesn't work. If I kill a person because he was black, it was because I hated his skin color. But, if I killed a person because he was rich, and because I despised him and didn't think he deserved his money, is that not a "hate crime" as well? What if like I said earlier, I killed a person because he was cheating with my wife? Wouldn't that make all of these hate crimes? But, why is only one called a hate crime?

Hate crime legislation has specifics. Right now they are only certain things.

And for the reason you gave, that doesn't meet hate crime statute because that person diddling your wife (or husband) wasn't killed because of their age, race, gender, sexual preference, skin color, religion etc.

Even in your argument, killing someone like that is usually not the highest murder charge. "Caught up in the moment" murders don't usually carry the same weight.

The intent of the person committing the crime is indeed relevant and it gets no more intent-y than hate crime.

Why? It still doesn't make sense is the point I'm alluding too. If I shoot a person because of his skin, or if I shoot a person because I don't like that he's rich, he's still just as dead either way. But, yet if I kill him cause he's rich, it's possible I get off easier than if I kill because he's black, when in essence, the thing I've done is just as horrible in both cases.

And no, in my argument, I'm talking about premeditated murder, not "caught up in the moment", as in I know this guy is cheating with my wife, so I plan it and go kill him.

Now, I am very interested in the bold part. I can hate a person just as much if not more for reasons besides his race or sexual orientation.

[WeatherOp]

What? As opposed to an "I really, really like you" crime?

Jokes aside though, race, gender, sexual orientation are intrinsic to your person.  Your born that way.  Wealth, infidelity, actions are not.  Thats what establishes it as a hate crime.   Like Blue Lion has mentioned, its not about making one victim's life more worthy then another its about trying to prevent it from happening.  From the legislators point of view if the punishment is high enough it might cause a few more synapses to fire in the brain stems of those who would commit the crime.  

Maybe I'm wrong here, but what do you think is more likely, more stiff punishment would stop the crime( like life in prison or the death penalty isn't enough) or that the increased media attention due to it being a "hate crime" would give the killers much more limelight and thus a greater reason to commit it?

[Blue Lion]

Why? It still doesn't make sense is the point I'm alluding too. If I shoot a person because of his skin, or if I shoot a person because I don't like that he's rich, he's still just as dead either way. But, yet if I kill him cause he's rich, it's possible I get off easier than if I kill because he's black, when in essence, the thing I've done is just as horrible in both cases.

They are both hate crimes. Just the one you listed isn't enforced.

There are guidelines for federal crimes and for state crimes. It is not even across the country.

"Social class" is not viewed as a protected group. Just like "Guys named Phil" "People wearing yellow" and "Guys who stick their elbows out of the car window as they drive" aren't either.

[Blue Lion]

What? As opposed to an "I really, really like you" crime?

Jokes aside though, race, gender, sexual orientation are intrinsic to your person.  Your born that way.  Wealth, infidelity, actions are not.  Thats what establishes it as a hate crime.   Like Blue Lion has mentioned, its not about making one victim's life more worthy then another its about trying to prevent it from happening.  From the legislators point of view if the punishment is high enough it might cause a few more synapses to fire in the brain stems of those who would commit the crime.  

Maybe I'm wrong here, but what do you think is more likely, more stiff punishment would stop the crime( like life in prison or the death penalty isn't enough) or that the increased media attention due to it being a "hate crime" would give the killers much more limelight and thus a greater reason to commit it?

You think people commit hate crimes because it's on TV?

[Rhymes]

Some probably do.  Most probably do it because they, you know, hate something about someone.

[Scotty]

So... lemme get this straight.  If someone who is black is murdered because he is black (for example), it confers with it more of a punishment that if someone were killed for any other possible conceivable reason?  Does that mean that the black person's life was worth more?  If so, that is all kinds of f*cked up.  If the murder was premeditated, the specific intent does not matter.  What matters is that the intent was present before the actual murder was committed.

[WeatherOp]

Why? It still doesn't make sense is the point I'm alluding too. If I shoot a person because of his skin, or if I shoot a person because I don't like that he's rich, he's still just as dead either way. But, yet if I kill him cause he's rich, it's possible I get off easier than if I kill because he's black, when in essence, the thing I've done is just as horrible in both cases.

They are both hate crimes. Just the one you listed isn't enforced.

There are guidelines for federal crimes and for state crimes. It is not even across the country.

"Social class" is not viewed as a protected group. Just like "Guys named Phil" "People wearing yellow" and "Guys who stick their elbows out of the car window as they drive" aren't either.

Now we are getting somewhere, so now why do we need hate crimes at all? Because I'd say nearly all premeditated murders are caused by some sort of under lying hate. Thus just punish the crap out of all of the people who kill others for any reason whatsoever.

What? As opposed to an "I really, really like you" crime?

Jokes aside though, race, gender, sexual orientation are intrinsic to your person.  Your born that way.  Wealth, infidelity, actions are not.  Thats what establishes it as a hate crime.   Like Blue Lion has mentioned, its not about making one victim's life more worthy then another its about trying to prevent it from happening.  From the legislators point of view if the punishment is high enough it might cause a few more synapses to fire in the brain stems of those who would commit the crime.  

Maybe I'm wrong here, but what do you think is more likely, more stiff punishment would stop the crime( like life in prison or the death penalty isn't enough) or that the increased media attention due to it being a "hate crime" would give the killers much more limelight and thus a greater reason to commit it?

You think people commit hate crimes because it's on TV?

No, I did not say that anywhere. I said it may increase the numbers because it would be published much more. Of course, what I said and meant was obvious.

[Blue Lion]

Now we are getting somewhere, so now why do we need hate crimes at all? Because I'd say nearly all premeditated murders are caused by some sort of under lying hate. Thus just punish the crap out of all of the people who kill others for any reason whatsoever.

The guy who poisons his wife to get the insurance money and the guy who beats a guy to death cause he has a lisp are two different cases.

The community decided if you kill someone simply because of how they look or are, you get special punishment. This only works in certain areas like race or age, but still.

No, I did not say that anywhere. I said it may increase the numbers because it would be published much more. Of course, what I said and meant was obvious.

It may increase or it does increase?

It may go down because it's on tv. Anything to back up this conjecture?

[NGTM-1R]

So... lemme get this straight.  If someone who is black is murdered because he is black (for example), it confers with it more of a punishment that if someone were killed for any other possible conceivable reason?  Does that mean that the black person's life was worth more?  If so, that is all kinds of f*cked up.  If the murder was premeditated, the specific intent does not matter.  What matters is that the intent was present before the actual murder was committed.

No, because that fails to graduate levels of intent. Premeditated murder because somebody is (percieved as or actually is) responsible for the death of a family member is a different level of unacceptable from premeditated murder of someone because you don't like their sexual orientation or race, which is a different level from premeditated murder because you don't like their haircut. If you don't believe me, ask a jury.

[esarai]

I would like to take a moment and introduce something here that has been so far neglected.
Hate crimes are a special category of crime because they have the effect of terrorizing people similar to the victim of the crime. These crimes' punishments are more severe because they impact an entire group of people, not just individuals. Hate crimes legislation does not value the hated victims more than the accidental/unintended victims. The crime's punishment is more severe because of how many people it affects, not how different the victim was.

May I remind everyone of the Ku Klux Klan?  This legislation is aimed at actions on that level--the ones meant to suppress and intimidate, like lynching. What happened to Shepard is no different from lynching.

[WeatherOp]

Now we are getting somewhere, so now why do we need hate crimes at all? Because I'd say nearly all premeditated murders are caused by some sort of under lying hate. Thus just punish the crap out of all of the people who kill others for any reason whatsoever.

The guy who poisons his wife to get the insurance money and the guy who beats a guy to death cause he has a lisp are two different cases.

The community decided if you kill someone simply because of how they look or are, you get special punishment. This only works in certain areas like race or age, but still.

Then we will never see eye to eye then. From my point of view, killing someone intently for one reason is just as bad as killing someone intently for any other reason.

It may increase or it does increase?

It may go down because it's on tv. Anything to back up this conjecture?

Maybe I'm wrong here, but what do you think is more likely, more stiff punishment would stop the crime( like life in prison or the death penalty isn't enough) or that the increased media attention due to it being a "hate crime" would give the killers much more limelight and thus a greater reason to commit it?

I never said maybe or it will, totally un-related point I was making here.

[Sushi]

I would like to take a moment and introduce something here that has been so far neglected.
Hate crimes are a special category of crime because they have the effect of terrorizing people similar to the victim of the crime. These crimes' punishments are more severe because they impact an entire group of people, not just individuals. Hate crimes legislation does not value the hated victims more than the accidental/unintended victims. The crime's punishment is more severe because of how many people it affects, not how different the victim was.

May I remind everyone of the Ku Klux Klan?  This legislation is aimed at actions on that level--the ones meant to suppress and intimidate, like lynching. What happened to Shepard is no different from lynching.

Ah, there we go. That makes more sense in terms of defending the idea of Why Have Hate Crimes. Thanks!

I'm still not sure I buy that having a separate class of "hate crimes" is a good idea, but at least you've given a rationale that makes sense to me.

[Blue Lion]

Then we will never see eye to eye then. From my point of view, killing someone intently for one reason is just as bad as killing someone intently for any other reason.

If you can't see the difference between a guy hanging a black man from a tree and a guy shooting someone breaking into his house, we have problems.

It's the same reason killing a cop gets a tougher sentence.

I never said maybe or it will, totally un-related point I was making here.

Why even bring it up then? What on earth does TV have to do with hate crime? It was pretty clear you thought  its exposure to everyone did something.

[General Battuta]

I would like to take a moment and introduce something here that has been so far neglected.
Hate crimes are a special category of crime because they have the effect of terrorizing people similar to the victim of the crime. These crimes' punishments are more severe because they impact an entire group of people, not just individuals. Hate crimes legislation does not value the hated victims more than the accidental/unintended victims. The crime's punishment is more severe because of how many people it affects, not how different the victim was.

May I remind everyone of the Ku Klux Klan?  This legislation is aimed at actions on that level--the ones meant to suppress and intimidate, like lynching. What happened to Shepard is no different from lynching.

Scotty, WeatherOp, Esarai has it right - this is why hate crimes are worse.

Also, I totally edited Esarai's post in an attempt to quote it. Changes undone.