Thread: Hate Crime Legislation: An Experiment

Before we begin, let's include the legislation itself:

Hate crime is the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious, sexual orientation, or disability. The purveyors of hate use explosives, arson, weapons, vandalism, physical violence, and verbal threats of violence to instill fear in their victims, leaving them vulnerable to more attacks and feeling alienated, helpless, suspicious and fearful.
Source

Hate crime laws have a long history in the United States. The first hate crime laws were passed after the American Civil War. The modern era of hate-crime legislation was begun in 1968 with the passage of federal statute, 18 U.S. 245, part of the Civil Rights Act which made it illegal to "by force or by threat of force, injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone who is engaged in six specified protected activities, by reason of their race, color, religion, or national origin."
Source

Now, let's make it simple:


This is Bill


Bill works for a manufacturing company that produces portable electronic devices. He's married, with one child and has a record free of any criminal activity. One evening, Bill returns to his home to find his wife in bed with another man. In a sudden fit of rage due to the circumstance, Bill causes physical injury to both his wife and her companion (via fist fighting)... with intent to cause bodily harm. Some would call this a crime of passion, as his target range is narrowed to those that have caused him emotional harm.




This is Dave


Dave is a college student with some new friends that share racially extremists views. He's unmarried, no children, with an impressive GPA and a record free of any criminal activity. While in school, his attendance has slumped and he's decided to dedicate more time to racial-preservation seminars and groups, and associates begin to notice a change in his demeanor. One morning, Dave decides to target the nearest non-white man seen with a white woman... and finds what he's looking for. He begins to physically harm the individual with intent to cause injury. Some would call this active intolerance, as his target range is widened to anyone of any non-white race seen with a white woman.

Which man is more a danger to society? Explain your answer, please.

No takers?

Dave is more of a danger. Any black person is in danger from him because of Dave's racist views. Dave beat up the black man solely because he was black.

Bill beat up a man he caught with his wife. He didn't decide to beat up the man, it was likely a reaction due to anger. Bill is only a threat to anyone who sleeps with his wife, but Dave is a threat to any non white.

IMO.

You did a great job in creating imaginary scenarios where you will get the answer you want. Let's try reality a bit. Two men get in a fight in a bar and both are arrested. But, one called the other a honky moth@@@@@er so he is also charged with having committed a hate crime. Is that reasonable to you?

Please keep in mind that if someone is beat up because they're fat or because they crossing a picket line or because they eat meat and it offends a Vegan, those are not hate crimes. No, it's only a hate crime if you attack certain people.

In Hawaii they want to add a penalty for attacking tourists but the locals went berserk and some even had t-shirts made that said, "Rob me, I'm Hawaiian."

Hate crime laws are unreasonable and unworkable in other than hypothetical fantasies. Think for a moment of the New Black Panther Party and the racists in government.

I like how Dave is an intolerant white guy who is looking to harm innocent minorities instead of the much more realistic scenario of Dave being an angry minority who has been fed so much victimhood rhetoric that he feels a deep compulsion to "get back at" the white man.

Since you said in another thread yesterday that hate crimes laws protect everyone equally, I just find it interesting that you would opt to go with the less likely scenario.

Dave is premeditating a crime therefore more dangerous .

Originally Posted by Makedde

Dave is more of a danger. Any black person is in danger from him because of Dave's racist views. Dave beat up the black man solely because he was black.

Although you're correct, I didn't mention the victims race lol.

Originally Posted by PatrickT

You did a great job in creating imaginary scenarios where you will get the answer you want. Let's try reality a bit. Two men get in a fight in a bar and both are arrested. But, one called the other a honky moth@@@@@er so he is also charged with having committed a hate crime. Is that reasonable to you?

Racial slurs during an altercation shouldn't be means for a hate crime charge in my opinion. People are heated, and I don't expect civil discourse during a fist fight. However, if it's determined that race is the motivating factor behind an attack... absolutely, a hate crime charge is quite reasonable.

Originally Posted by PatrickT

Please keep in mind that if someone is beat up because they're fat or because they crossing a picket line or because they eat meat and it offends a Vegan, those are not hate crimes. No, it's only a hate crime if you attack certain people.

I actually think the spectrum should be extended to "any attack whereby said instance is evidenced to have initiated through bigotry or intolerance for immutable/habitual circumstances not exclusive to singular persons, whether it be set communal belief structures, racial superficialities, sexual orientation or preference, politics, voluntary/involuntary behavioral patterns, etc. shall be subject to penalty outlined within existing hate crime legislation". To me, arguing that it only protects some is only advocating that it should do more.

Originally Posted by PatrickT

In Hawaii they want to add a penalty for attacking tourists but the locals went berserk and some even had t-shirts made that said, "Rob me, I'm Hawaiian."

That's not a hate crime.

Originally Posted by Unifier

I like how Dave is an intolerant white guy who is looking to harm innocent minorities instead of the much more realistic scenario of Dave being an angry minority who has been fed so much victimhood rhetoric that he feels a deep compulsion to "get back at" the white man.

To pretend as if the scenario I provided isn't a realistic thing is only a fantasy, and I'd have to wonder why your impulse reaction was to come to the defense of a theoretical being.

Originally Posted by submarinepainter

Dave is premeditating a crime therefore more dangerous .

One of the reasons, yes. Would you also claim that someone who plans to harm a specific person for a specific personal reason is equally dangerous as someone who plans to harm the nearest _____?

Dave, bigotry and racial intolerance are sociopathetic behaviors that beget of reduced mental capacity and difficulty in reasoning. Not only that, his crimes are premeditated.

I think I know where you're trying to go with this, and I'm going to stick with the same argument against it I've always had. When we start getting into the business of punishing people for their thoughts, it's starting down a slippery slope that I'm not interested in. A premeditated crime should always be punished more harshly regardless of who or what is being targeted.

Why are neither of the guys Pro Masculine (Gay) Minor Attracted NAMBLA Machers ?

Originally Posted by Anikdote

Dave, bigotry and racial intolerance are sociopathetic behaviors that beget of reduced mental capacity and difficulty in reasoning. Not only that, his crimes are premeditated.

I think I know where you're trying to go with this, and I'm going to stick with the same argument against it I've always had. When we start getting into the business of punishing people for their thoughts, it's starting down a slippery slope that I'm not interested in. A premeditated crime should always be punished more harshly regardless of who or what is being targeted.

a man planning to kill his wife because she's unfaithful is of no danger to you if he lives nearby. A man planning to kill a woman because he despised them is a danger to every couple on the block. Therein lies the difference.