Hate Crime and Hate Speech

Originally posted by Robtard
Said it before; I think "hate crimes" are generally silly.

A) I beat the crap out of someone and called them moron.

B) I beat the crap out of someone and call them ******, ******, spick, gook or rag-head.

Why should B) be considered more of a crime when both victims were beaten equally? Doesn't make sense.

I thinks it's more of 'why' you beat them up...

Why did you beat the guy up you called a moron? Did he grab your girlfriend's ass? Did he spit in your burger? You could call the guy any name you want in a fit of rage. That's what people do in fights. Hell, you could call him a Chink if you want, it's just to piss him off, right? That's called talking shit to a Chinese guy you beat up after he violated your girlfriend's private space. Not really a hate crime, just talking shit.

Now, let's say you beat the Chinese guy up for no reason, except for the fact that he's Chinese. He never touched your girl, he never threatened you, he didn't even look at you when he walked by. You beat him up simply because he's Chinese. Uh.... hate crime? Of course.

Sure, you beat both victims equally. However, one was in defense of your girlfriend, the other a hate crime. Makes sense to me.

Let's use the example of beating the crap out of someone to mug them for money. How is that crime less than beating the crap out of them because they are a different race?
I see no reason why greed, rage, and jealously are somehow more socially accepted reasons to beat the shit out of someone than racial reasons. They all make you dick. How you get to that point shouldn't matter.

Ok, you're all on the point I was trying to make.

Let us, for example take arson.

If you burn down a church/mosque/synagogue because you dislike any of the religions - is that a worse crime than setting a fire to church/mosque/synagogue because a priest/imam/rabbi paid you so they can, I don't know, stir controversy or collect on insurance?

They both dealt equal damage and noone was killed.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Ok, you're all on the point I was trying to make.

Let us, for example take arson.

If you burn down a church/mosque/synagogue because you dislike any of the religions - is that a worse crime than setting a fire to church/mosque/synagogue because a priest/imam/rabbi paid you so they can, I don't know, stir controversy or collect on insurance?

They both dealt equal damage and noone was killed.

Personally, if you have the intent of committing a crime based on hate - so, option A in your scenario, the arsonist's intention is so much worse. All right, so no one was hurt, but the action is intended to frighten the people who [used to] attend that religious institution. They now know, very certainly, that "someone" is "out to get them." And that that person crossed the line from biased thinking to biased doing, which [any crime show will tell you 😉 ] is a sign of escalation. What if, the next time, the guy doesn't wait until everyone leaves the building?

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Let's use the example of beating the crap out of someone to mug them for money. How is that crime less than beating the crap out of them because they are a different race?
I see no reason why greed, rage, and jealously are somehow more socially accepted reasons to beat the shit out of someone than racial reasons. They all make you dick. How you get to that point shouldn't matter.

If the motivation is robbery, then the victim can avoid being assaulted by relinquishing his property, or the assault will cease when the victim relinquishes his property.

If the motivation is race, the victim cannot avoid being assaulted, and the assault will not cease until the perpetrator is satisfied or fears that he will be discovered.

Then he does it for fun, or he does it because he's angry over something else. The reason why he's doing shouldn't change the severity of the action. If you break my nose, it's just as bad if it was you wanted my money, you were angry, or I'm a race you hate.

Originally posted by Tired-Hiker
I thinks it's more of 'why' you beat them up...

Why did you beat the guy up you called a moron? Did he grab your girlfriend's ass? Did he spit in your burger? You could call the guy any name you want in a fit of rage. That's what people do in fights. Hell, you could call him a Chink if you want, it's just to piss him off, right? That's called talking shit to a Chinese guy you beat up after he violated your girlfriend's private space. Not really a hate crime, just talking shit.

Now, let's say you beat the Chinese guy up for no reason, except for the fact that he's Chinese. He never touched your girl, he never threatened you, he didn't even look at you when he walked by. You beat him up simply because he's Chinese. Uh.... hate crime? Of course.

Sure, you beat both victims equally. However, one was in defense of your girlfriend, the other a hate crime. Makes sense to me.

What If I beat person A) up because I thought he he looked stupid and I beat person B) up because I thought he was too black.

Why is the B) crime more severe?

Originally posted by Robtard
What If I beat person A) up because I thought he he looked stupid and I beat person B) up because I thought he was too black.

Why is the B) crime more severe?

Those are both hate crimes in my opinion. My main point is that someone beating people up just because they don't like them... that person is a larger threat to a broader scope of people than the guy who jumps someone in a back alley in the middle of the night and robs them for money.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Ok, you're all on the point I was trying to make.

Let us, for example take arson.

If you burn down a church/mosque/synagogue because you dislike any of the religions - is that a worse crime than setting a fire to church/mosque/synagogue because a priest/imam/rabbi paid you so they can, I don't know, stir controversy or collect on insurance?

They both dealt equal damage and noone was killed.

I think at the risk of actually killing someone, both are equal crimes. Now I know what some people are going to say... so howcome hate crimes should be different. In my opinion, if it can be proved in court that violence was bestowed on someone purely out of hate, that person committing the crime is a larger threat to a greater amount of people rather than some dude jumping someone for cash.

It's all such a gray area though, so yes, I feel even my opinion has some flaws. For one thing, even if there's no evidence of a situation being a hate crime, how would anyone ever actually know that it truly was or wasn't. The guy mugging someone for cash maybe is a racist and racism was his true motive, but he made it just look like he commited the crime out of desperation.

So, here's my evolved opinion: Hate crime or not, they should be punished the same, but the punishment should be on the side of the hate crime severity, not the lesser severity of a non-hate crime. Although, I still think hate crimes warrant a further investigation as to what parties or gangs the criminal is affiliated with in order to curb hate crimes as a whole.

Originally posted by Robtard
What If I beat person A) up because I thought he he looked stupid and I beat person B) up because I thought he was too black.

Why is the B) crime more severe?

This is why:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If the motivation is robbery, then the victim can avoid being assaulted by relinquishing his property, or the assault will cease when the victim relinquishes his property.

If the motivation is race, the victim cannot avoid being assaulted, and the assault will not cease until the perpetrator is satisfied or fears that he will be discovered.

(Do you honestly not see the difference, or are you just being difficult?)

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
This is why:

(Do you honestly not see the difference, or are you just being difficult?)

Doesn't logically explain why the crime is more severe when the outcome is the same, now does it. My beating on someone for my perception of them 'looking stupid' (or other non-racial slight) is no more in the control of that victim as say their skin color.

Look at it from another angle:

-If you got into an argument with a non-Hispanic custumer over work you preformed on his car and he ended up calling you a "spick" and walked out after paying his bill, that wouldn't be a crime, at least not one the police would pursue.

-If you got into that same argument, but instead of venting his anger with a racial slur, he cracked you over the head repeatedlt. That would be a crime, assualt; the police would pursue it.

-Now combine both scenarios, the customer both calls you a spick and then proceeds to beat on you while calling you a spick.

Explain to me why that (#3) crime is more severe when one of the qualifiers wasn't a crime to begin with? BTW, the outcome of 2 & 3 are the same in the end, you were assualted. The assailent would technically face more time in jail for what amounted to name calling.

Originally posted by Robtard
Doesn't logically explain why the crime is more severe when the outcome is the same, now does it. My beating on someone for my perception of them 'looking stupid' (or other non-racial slight) is no more in the control of that victim as say their skin color.

Look at it from another angle:

-If you got into an argument with a non-Hispanic custumer over work you preformed on his car and he ended up calling you a "spick" and walked out after paying his bill, that wouldn't be a crime, at least not one the police would pursue.

-If you got into that same argument, but instead of venting his anger with a racial slur, he cracked you over the head repeatedlt. That would be a crime, assualt; the police would pursue it.

-Now combine both scenarios, the customer both calls you a spick and then proceeds to beat on you while calling you a spick.

Explain to me why that (#3) crime is more severe when one of the qualifiers wasn't a crime to begin with? BTW, the outcome of 2 & 3 are the same in the end, you were assualted. The assailent would technically face more time in jail for what amounted to name calling.

The use of insults or verbal abuse does not automatically qualify a crime as bias-motivated.

In the third scenario, the responding officers will investigate whether the assault is bias-motivated or a crime of passion.

Originally posted by Robtard

-If you got into an argument with a non-Hispanic custumer over work you preformed on his car and he ended up calling you a "spick" and walked out after paying his bill, that wouldn't be a crime, at least not one the police would pursue.

Not illegal.

Originally posted by Robtard

-If you got into that same argument, but instead of venting his anger with a racial slur, he cracked you over the head repeatedlt. That would be a crime, assualt; the police would pursue it.

Aggravated assualt.

Originally posted by Robtard

-Now combine both scenarios, the customer both calls you a spick and then proceeds to beat on you while calling you a spick.

Explain to me why that (#3) crime is more severe when one of the qualifiers wasn't a crime to begin with? BTW, the outcome of 2 & 3 are the same in the end, you were assualted. The assailent would technically face more time in jail for what amounted to name calling.

Actually, in this scenario, I don't think the perp would face more time: the prosecutor would focus on assault with money as the motive. The "name calling" (which is constitutionally protected) is just extra ammo for the prosecution to make him look bad in front of a jury. (Like Mark Furhman in the OJ case. Saying the N-word isn't illegal, it just helps the other side.)

^That aint a hate crime, this is: a group of white guys are in a car driving around at midnight and they're on a "hunt" or "night ride" (looking for a minority to kill). They find a Cambodian walking home from work, beat him to death, carve a swastika into his chest, and then pose his body in the middle of the street. That is a hate crime, whether his wallet is taken or not is irrelevant.

Motive, motive, motive.

^
&
^

Alright then, guess I was confused on what could be labeled a hate crime.

So we're arguing now that federal protecion of minorities based on self-identity is now some horrible over-reach of governmnet?

Its about motivation. People get all pissed about genocide, ethnic clensing (and ignore the cleansing of groups they dont like, ie gays in the holocaust) but when it happens on a 1-to-1 basis, suddenly its not a big deal?

Americans are woried that a brown skinned family living in their neighbrohood is going to destroy its character, but if you take out that family because they're brown...meh it was just like any other crime.

Hate crimes are a severe form of pre-meditation and are not only violent against an individual, but are designed to terrorize a specific community as a whole.

"The same crime has a higher price to pay."

Okay - if prejudice is part of the intent/motive, then the crime is worse.
the motive leads to the method - and if the motive has such a personal hatred in it, the crime is very likely to be a much more violent thing. Also, a personal motive leads to a more likely increase in violence even during the crime.

I don't care if there's a disclamer saying the end result "is the same," because that's not possible. A motive of hate leads to terror even after the crime. Post all the hypotheticals you want - hate crime v. "regular" crime - hate crime is worse. Period.

I know you guys are mostly from the USA, so can you tell us how that works in the states.

Those who are not from USA, tell us what the law actually is in your country.

Those who are from USA, are crimes, in fact, punished more severely, nor not, if they are found to be a hate crime?

It depends on the state, the crime commited, the damage done, and who the parties are. Even then you can throw in the personal discretion of the judge.

If you are found guilty of a hate crime you are eligable for additional or alterneate penalties.

Law proper is not a sentance or a paragraph that can just be posted here. Its different everwhere. There are multiple federal regulations, then variable state and local laws too. If you want to know how it works in general, I'm sure there are some great books you can check out at your local university library.

Originally posted by LLLLLink
Hate Speech is one of the most foolish things I've ever heard of.
In America, we have freedom of speech. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and they can voice it if they so choose. There is nothing wrong with disliking or loathing something. It only becomes wrong when physical action is taken upon that feeling, i.e. murder, slavery, etc.

This is a very short sighted view. If freedom of speech doesn't include shouting fire in a crowded theater, it shouldn't include incitement to violence either seems to be one of the main reasons hate speech is criminalized.