So where is the outrage against hate? (1 Viewer)

[Saint_Ward]

For consideration: state of mind does matter in criminal context.

Western criminal law recognizes in other applications that state of mind matters as to the degree of the crime. For example, planning and performing an execution of your boss because he fired you is a first-degree murder. Catching your boss with your wife and killing him in rage is second-degree murder. Getting drunk at the office party and killing your boss in a axe-throwing game gone wrong is some kind of manslaughter or negligent homicide.

In each instance your deliberate action resulted in the man's death. But they're quite different crimes based on your state of mind. If a person's state of mind is a determination to inflict harm on another based on that person's race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc., is that state of mind not relevant in criminal law? That doesn't strike me as unusual or divergent.

Hate Crimes: Laws and Penalties

Crimes committed because of the victim's race, gender, and other protected qualities are hate crimes. Anyone can be a victim of a hate crime.

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

Ignoring the "need to chat" pop up, this has good info.

For example, in 2012, a man set a fire in a mosque in Toledo, Ohio. He was convicted of a hate crime and the prosecutor presented evidence that he had previously made anti-Muslim statements and said that he wanted to burn down the mosque. In court, the defendant said that he believed that most Muslims are terrorists.

Note that much evidence of bias, such as statements that are hateful (or even violent) and belonging to groups that promote hate, are not crimes in and of themselves. Hate crimes laws punish acts motivated by animus, not thoughts or words. The defendant in Ohio was free to hate Muslims and even say hateful things; it was only when he committed arson that he committed a crime.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I thought the idea behind hate crimes is that there are more victims than the one directly affected. If a couple of white guys beat up a black man specifically because he’s black, The entire black community feels at risk.

 

[RazorOye]

I thought the idea behind hate crimes is that there are more victims than the one directly affected. If a couple of white guys beat up a black man specifically because he’s black, The entire black community feels at risk.

it's about the discriminatory messaging in a society that prides itself on just the opposite - it's a way of the dominant majority (at least through legislation) to recognize a crime against a marginalized, oppressed minority and give those already marginalized a clear sign that this is especially reprehensible - it's more than just the crime itself. They are specifically reserved for crimes against a protected class and a way to tell that class that they are protected. They serve a definite - and I'd argue necessary - distinction. That doesn't mean it's always easy. But neither does it mean it's purposeless.

To act like this qualifier doesn't exist or not to be aware of it is an indication of one type of privilege. A privilege that many in these protected groups don't have.

If you want to disagree with it, fine - but do so from a position of being informed. I'm not seeing much of that in this thread or more generally when these things are discussed.

 

[JimEverett]

I thought the idea behind hate crimes is that there are more victims than the one directly affected. If a couple of white guys beat up a black man specifically because he’s black, The entire black community feels at risk.

I think one distinction to be made is that there are "hate crimes" that stand alone and then there are hate crimes that are penalty enhancers.


Say a white guy has feud with his neighbor, he gets mad and takes a lot of brush and wood and throws it in his neighbor's yard and sets in on fire. He is guilty of trespass, destruction of property, arson, and maybe a few other crimes.

Now compare a white guy who takes a wood cross places it in the yard of a black family who just moved into the neighborhood and he lights it because he wants them to move and to let other black people know they are not welcome. His criminal intent was to intimidate or something like that - what is important is that he had a specific criminal intent (assuming one exists in the state's criminal code). SO basically the same set of facts as the 1st example except his actual intent was different. His motivation was different as well, but in neither case does the motivation matter.

I think such an example is different from enhancers. Penalty enhancers do seem to operate more like thought crimes imo. Although I am not sure I would go that far. Hate crime enhancers seem fairly unique, although maybe someone can come up with examples that show they are not.
But just off the top of my head enhancers are usually based on a specific act, not a motivation. So a penalty for murder might be enhanced because the victim was a police officer or a child under 12. Not enhnaced because the perpetrator hated or disliked cops, just that he killed a cop.