[jdjtcagle]

I saw the president's recent speech to one of the major gay human rights organization.  I thought it was a powerful speech and he promised to do something about discrimination and hate crimes.  I'm glad he's finally taken action on at least this issue.  I believe we still have a long way to go though.

[Flipside]

why was this attached to a defense bill?

As far as I'm aware in the US, this is common, it's a way of adding sweeteners to less popular Bills, people are so busy talking about the hate-crime stuff that they don't notice the contents of the boring defence Bill.

Whilst I don't hold with the idea, as far as I'm aware, it's not a new one.

[Blue Lion]

Differences in murder sentences are based on "premeditated" or planned (includes when doing something else that could lead to intentional murder, such as hijacking something), and spur-of-the-moment stuff.  NOT on what the motivations or intent were.  Manslaughter is when killing was not intended.  There is absolutely no change in sentence based on WHY someone killed someone else.

Because sentencing allows for judges and juries a wide range of time served. Hate crime legislation is mostly aimed at sentence lengthening. That's why you really can't be charged with just a hate crime, there has to be an underlying charge to get added on to.

[Polpolion]

People get different charges and sentences for murder all the time based on intent. I mean you killed someone, why shouldn't matter, right? But it does, and no one bats an eye at that. People getting longer prison sentences for some murders isn't an issue, why should people getting longer prison time for some assaults?

But there's a difference between having a more malicious intent and committing a crime in a more malicious manner. Murder is murder, but I wouldn't be opposed to someone that murdered someone by gouging the person's eyes and brains out with a crayon having a longer prison sentence than someone that murdered them by injecting some kind of poison into them quickly.

And there's also a difference between a cause of a crime being a crime and a cause of a crime making the crime less forgivable. I'd be more willing to forgive someone for murdering my brother if my brother had been making fun of him every single day for the past year than if my brother didn't say "bless you" when the guy sneezed. But in the latter case would I charge the guy with "being lethally irritable" (or something to that effect) in addition to murder? No.

And if there were two instances where people commit the exact same crime for the exact same reason under the exact same circumstances and they got a different sentence, I would bat my eye. Several times. I'd probably even write an angry letter or two.

[Blue Lion]

why was this attached to a defense bill?

Because it was a rider?

[Polpolion]

why was this attached to a defense bill?

Because it was a rider?

Yup. No line item veto for the president. Either the president would have to reject all of the (supposedly) good and healthy defense stuff to reject this specific part of the bill, or he'd have to pass everything.

[Blue Lion]

People get different charges and sentences for murder all the time based on intent. I mean you killed someone, why shouldn't matter, right? But it does, and no one bats an eye at that. People getting longer prison sentences for some murders isn't an issue, why should people getting longer prison time for some assaults?

But there's a difference between having a more malicious intent and committing a crime in a more malicious manner. Murder is murder, but I wouldn't be opposed to someone that murdered someone by gouging the person's eyes and brains out with a crayon having a longer prison sentence than someone that murdered them by injecting some kind of poison into them quickly.

And there's also a difference between a cause of a crime being a crime and a cause of a crime making the crime less forgivable. I'd be more willing to forgive someone for murdering my brother if my brother had been making fun of him every single day for the past year than if my brother didn't say "bless you" when the guy sneezed. But in the latter case would I charge the guy with "being lethally irritable" (or something to that effect) in addition to murder? No.

And if there were two instances where people commit the exact same crime for the exact same reason under the exact same circumstances and they got a different sentence, I would bat my eye. Several times. I'd probably even write an angry letter or two.

So you agree that instances of assault based on solely on gender, race or whatnot deserve harsher sentences? I'm kinda lost on the post there.

A guy beats up another guy because he tried to hook up with his girl, another guy beats up a guy because he thought he looked gay. Same time served or different time served?

[General Battuta]

I'll say it now to save some trouble. (even though it won't)

Beating up a guy who is black/white/gay/whatever = assault

Beating up a guy BECAUSE he is black/white/gay/whatever = assault + hate crime

Beating up a guy is assault PERIOD.

Like it or not, hating someone for an irrational reason shouldn't be any more of a crime than not liking ice cream. People can do what they want as long as it's not inconveniencing other people. I'm sure plenty of people hate me, but I don't care, and I won't until they do something to me because of that hate. But it's not the hate that will make me sad, it's what they did as a result of that hate.

When you beat a guy up because of his race, for example, hate is the cause of the crime. Hate is the cause. In a different situation, someone might beat up a guy because he's mugging him and he needs money. Needing money caused him to beat up the guy. Needing money isn't a crime. Causes of crimes CANNOT be crimes themselves.

Also, just for clarification, what I said isn't what I think US law is, it's what I think it should be. I know what you said probably is in fact what the current actual law is, but myeh. Ignore my post if you think that it's stupid. EDIT: Or no, better yet, tell me why it's stupid.

Simple answer to your question.

A crime targeted against a member of a minority group does greater harm than a simple assault.

Non-selective assault (assault that isn't a 'hate crime') does harm to the target individual by physical and mental distress.

Selective assault does harm to the target individual and places all those who share the selection criteria in a state of fear.

Thus, a hate crime is morally more objectionable. It's the same reason why genocide is a greater crime than mass murder.

[Blue Lion]

why was this attached to a defense bill?

Because it was a rider?

Yup. No line item veto for the president. Either the president would have to reject all of the (supposedly) good and healthy defense stuff to reject this specific part of the bill, or he'd have to pass everything.

He's announced he wants to sign it anyways, so it's a moot point on if it was a rider or not in relation to the President.

[Polpolion]

So you agree that instances of assault based on solely on gender, race or whatnot deserve harsher sentences? I'm kinda lost on the post there.

A guy beats up another guy because he tried to hook up with his girl, another guy beats up a guy because he thought he looked gay. Same time served or different time served?

I don't recall saying anything of the sort. Please don't put words in my mouth. Harshness of sentence should be dependent on the severity of the crime.

As for your hypothetical situation, I'd personally give them the same sentence as they both beat people up in what I can only assume to be the same way. Maybe if the second guy ended up breaking all of his target's ribs and putting him into a coma and the first guy only gave his target a nose bleed, I'd be inclined to give the second guy a harsher punishment, but you didn't state any such circumstances. But I'm neither a judge nor a jury, so take that with a grain of salt.

Simple answer to your question.

A crime targeted against a member of a minority group does greater harm than a simple assault.

Non-selective assault (assault that isn't a 'hate crime') does harm to the target individual by physical and mental distress.

Selective assault does harm to the target individual and places all those who share the selection criteria in a state of fear.

Thus, a hate crime is morally more objectionable. It's the same reason why genocide is a greater crime than mass murder.

That sorta makes sense, but I'd imagine that most of the fear of those that fit the selection criteria is caused by the charge of a hate crime itself, or they're just paranoid. Otherwise (I'd imagine, I could be wrong), you can't exactly tell what's a hate crime and what's not. I could go mug the first person I see and confess that I targeted them specifically because of their hair color, but that would be total nonsense. How do people judge something like that?

[Nuclear1]

Differences in murder sentences are based on "premeditated" or planned (includes when doing something else that could lead to intentional murder, such as hijacking something), and spur-of-the-moment stuff.  NOT on what the motivations or intent were.  Manslaughter is when killing was not intended.  There is absolutely no change in sentence based on WHY someone killed someone else

Murdering an officer of the law because of his occupation carries a higher penalty in most states, capital in some.  Murdering a witness to a crime, same deal.  Just depends on what society has established in its hierarchy of evil.

[General Battuta]

That sorta makes sense, but I'd imagine that most of the fear of those that fit the selection criteria is caused by the charge of a hate crime itself, or they're just paranoid.

No, it's not based on paranoia. How did you feel after 9/11? Scared, I imagine. Angry. Americans had been targeted for being Americans, by an outside group who hated us. That's why we were all so frightened. It didn't matter that our odds of being killed by terrorists were smaller than our odds of being hit by lightning. We were afraid because we'd been selectively targeted.

Similarly, Jews after the Holocaust were terrified of a repeat of the Holocaust because they had been selectively targeted for being Jews. They weren't worried about another World War, even though the war had in total killed a great many people at random.

Otherwise (I'd imagine, I could be wrong), you can't exactly tell what's a hate crime and what's not. I could go mug the first person I see and confess that I targeted them specifically because of their hair color, but that would be total nonsense. How do people judge something like that?

...dude, if you're a member of a targeted minority group, you know it. You're a white guy, right? Try walking through a bad neighborhood in Chicago at night. You'll be targeted because of your race.

Now imagine that feeling all the time.

A hate crime has to be proven to be a hate crime. They tend to be obvious. When a gay guy gets hitched to a trailer by a bunch of men and dragged to death, that's probably going to be easy to prove. When eyewitnesses and acquaintances report homophobic behavior, that makes it easier.

The hair color supposition is an example of a common misunderstanding in the field of rights. The reason killing on the basis of hair color probably wouldn't be called a hate crime (more of a bizarre psychosis) is because, historically, people of a certain hair color have not been oppressed or endangered by a majority group.

This is not true for immigrants, Black Americans, GLBT individuals, women, or many other minority groups.

[iamzack]

People who commit hate crimes usually aren't remorseful, either. They think the person they attacked *deserved* to be punished. That's why they committed the crime in the first place.

[Blue Lion]

I don't recall saying anything of the sort. Please don't put words in my mouth. Harshness of sentence should be dependent on the severity of the crime.

That would be why I said I was confused. You even quoted it.

As for your hypothetical situation, I'd personally give them the same sentence as they both beat people up in what I can only assume to be the same way. Maybe if the second guy ended up breaking all of his target's ribs and putting him into a coma and the first guy only gave his target a nose bleed, I'd be inclined to give the second guy a harsher punishment, but you didn't state any such circumstances. But I'm neither a judge nor a jury, so take that with a grain of salt.

So a guy who shoots someone accidentally and a guy who shoots someone for, I dunno, looking at him funny, get the same time? Same severity of crime. Fatal gunshot wound.

A guy drives over someone on the road because he was on his cell phone, another guy runs over a guy because he was sleeping with his girl. Same crime right? Running a guy over. The guy who meant to do it didn't do it any worse?

Of course these people would get wildly different charges in court. Just because the acts themselves are the same doesn't mean they are the same case.

A guy who punches a guy in the face cause he kicked his kid is probably going to get a different sentence than a guy who punches a guy in the face for wearing a pink shirt.

[Scotty]

So a guy who shoots someone accidentally and a guy who shoots someone for, I dunno, looking at him funny, get the same time? Same severity of crime. Fatal gunshot wound.

A guy drives over someone on the road because he was on his cell phone, another guy runs over a guy because he was sleeping with his girl. Same crime right? Running a guy over. The guy who meant to do it didn't do it any worse?

Touched on this earlier.  Motivation is irrelevant, intent is the issue.  The accidental shooting will probably be charged with manslaughter, the guy who shot for being looked at funny would get charged for murder.  The cell phone guy would get charged with negligence, reckless endagerment, possibly manslaughter if the guy dies, and a ****tonne of traffic/automotive violations.  The guy who intentionally ran him over would get charged with attempted murder, murder (again, if the guy died) and a ****tonne of other violations.

To sum up, motivations are irrelevent in the eye of the law (or should be).  Intent is the issue.

[General Battuta]

Sure, and the intent in a hate crime is to harm the target and every member of the group they belong to.

Hate crimes are designed to intimidate and repress.

Thus, the intent is why they are more harshly punished.

[Scotty]

I wasn't arguing against the intent of the hate crime (even if I do disagree), rather clarifying the differences in punishment based on type of crime.

[General Battuta]

I would very much like to engage with your disagreement, because I believe it is a dangerous thing to disagree with.

I'm honestly not sure how you could disagree with such a fundamental tenet of morality and law.

[Blue Lion]

Touched on this earlier.  Motivation is irrelevant, intent is the issue.  The accidental shooting will probably be charged with manslaughter, the guy who shot for being looked at funny would get charged for murder.  The cell phone guy would get charged with negligence, reckless endagerment, possibly manslaughter if the guy dies, and a ****tonne of traffic/automotive violations.  The guy who intentionally ran him over would get charged with attempted murder, murder (again, if the guy died) and a ****tonne of other violations.

To sum up, motivations are irrelevent in the eye of the law (or should be).  Intent is the issue.

Motivation is brought up all the time. Murder for hire for one. Sometimes motivation isn't always known, but when it is, it's certainly brought up and certainly used as a factor in sentencing.

Juries and judges will give harsher or lighter sentences based on the motivation of criminals all the time.

[Polpolion]

That would be why I said I was confused. You even quoted it.

What? I quoted you saying that I think gender/race based crimes should be punished more harshly with a question mark at the end. I apologize, but it looked more like a strawman than an honest question.

So a guy who shoots someone accidentally and a guy who shoots someone for, I dunno, looking at him funny, get the same time? Same severity of crime. Fatal gunshot wound.

A guy drives over someone on the road because he was on his cell phone, another guy runs over a guy because he was sleeping with his girl. Same crime right? Running a guy over. The guy who meant to do it didn't do it any worse?

Of course these people would get wildly different charges in court. Just because the acts themselves are the same doesn't mean they are the same case.

A guy who punches a guy in the face cause he kicked his kid is probably going to get a different sentence than a guy who punches a guy in the face for wearing a pink shirt.

From what I can tell, the only example you gave me where the crimes are actually the same is the last one. And in that last one, they should get the same sentence unless the first guy realized that he was a douche for kicking the kid and decides not to press charges.

And about intent, there's no blanket "ignore intent" tenant in our law system. Killing can be and accident and that's manslaughter. You didn't intend to kill him. But then there's things like "I intended to only hurt him a little," and those things are ignored. Then there are the things GB was talking about which is true.

Wait actually, that's not treated as an intent, that's what he did. People don't explicitly beat people up, but people in effect threaten to beat people up, which is a crime. It also happens to be what he's intending to do, but whatever. Murders also intend to commit murder, but you charge them for committing murder, not intending to commit murder. And so I'm guessing that with motivation and intent, a lot of the crimes that are commit by those things are implicit crimes, with intent completely aside. Also, it's very difficult to discuss this while writing two essays for a debate class.