Knockout game...can someone explain why this one is a 'hate crime'?

• Mohican00

  

  O-Trap;1558818 wrote:What is the logical defense for tacking on the "hate crime" consideration? I'm genuinely curious, as I've never looked into it.

  apparently only Eric Holder and Obama knows.
• iclfan2

  

  pmoney25;1558815 wrote:Why you do a crime shouldn't matter? So self defense murder is equal to premeditated murder?

  Self defense murder isn't a thing. What I meant is murder is murder. If I murdered you because you're black, or I murdered you because I don't like you, there shouldn't be a difference in punishment.
  
  I didn't mean a difference in pre-meditated, self defense, homicide, etc.
• O-Trap

  

  iclfan2;1558845 wrote:Self defense murder isn't a thing. What I meant is murder is murder. If I murdered you because you're black, or I murdered you because I don't like you, there shouldn't be a difference in punishment.
  
  I didn't mean a difference in pre-meditated, self defense, homicide, etc.

  This is kind of where I see it.
  
  If Joe sees a guy across the street and Joe doesn't like his face, so Joe stabs him to death, why is that so different from the same scenario with Joe instead not liking his skin tone under the law?
• pmoney25

  

  iclfan2;1558845 wrote:Self defense murder isn't a thing. What I meant is murder is murder. If I murdered you because you're black, or I murdered you because I don't like you, there shouldn't be a difference in punishment.
  
  I didn't mean a difference in pre-meditated, self defense, homicide, etc.

  Well then I agree with you.
• Captain Cavalier

  

  So called hate crimes keep the tensions going between cultures...black-white, heteralsexual-homosexual for example.
  
  Like "African American"...what's wrong with black or for that matter, negro? I never thought using either one was derogatory. African American always throws that "slavery" thing in your face.
  
  I have a problem with say, a white person committing a crime against my child or spouse and getting an easier sentence than a white person doing the same crime to a black and some lawyer labels it a hate crime.
  
  So my family is not "equal" to the black family? :huh:
• gut

  "Hate crime" is about fear and intimidation...Whether or not such feelings are rational doesn't change the fact that perception is reality.
• Captain Cavalier

  

  Then rape could be classified as a hate crime.
  
  Being robbed at gunpoint induces fear and intimidation. Hate crime?
  
  Etc, etc. Where does it end?
• gut

  Captain Cavalier;1559480 wrote:Then rape could be classified as a hate crime.
  
  Being robbed at gunpoint induces fear and intimidation. Hate crime?
  
  Etc, etc. Where does it end?

  There's really no need to distinguish rape and murder with a hate crime. The intent was mainly to impose more severe penalties on lesser crimes such as vandalism and simple assault.
• Captain Cavalier

  

  Point being that there should be no distinction between the same crime because of race, sexual orientation etc.
• gut

  Captain Cavalier;1560140 wrote:Point being that there should be no distinction between the same crime because of race, sexual orientation etc.

  I disagree....unless you don't consider spray painting a penis on someone's garage the same crime as spray painting "DIE f*gg*t n****r". The latter is also fear and intimidation and should carry a stiffer penalty.
  
  Are you really going to suggest a drunk that starts a fight is the same as someone who targets and beats a guy because he's black? Both crimes should be punished equally?!?
• O-Trap

  

  gut;1560229 wrote:I disagree....unless you don't consider spray painting a penis on someone's garage the same crime as spray painting "DIE f*gg*t n****r". The latter is also fear and intimidation and should carry a stiffer penalty.
  
  Are you really going to suggest a drunk that starts a fight is the same as someone who targets and beats a guy because he's black? Both crimes should be punished equally?!?

  On the former, I could see an additional charge of intimidation (or maybe threatening) for the former.
  
  On the latter, the action is the same, so I really don't see why they "should" be tried differently, particularly since motivation can be difficult to prove, keeping in mind that calling someone an epithet during an attack doesn't necessarily mean that a racist view is the motivation for the attack. I could think all people with blond hair are assholes, and I could have my own slur for them, and I may attack one because he cut me off in traffic, but I could use the slur while assailing him.
  
  Because of this, while we're trying to draw a distinction between crimes and crimes with motivations rooted in discrimination against protected classes, all we're actually doing, necessarily, is administering stiffer penalties for racists/chauvinists/ageists/etc. for the same crime, potentially motivated the same way.
• gut

  O-Trap;1560633 wrote:... all we're actually doing, necessarily, is administering stiffer penalties for racists/chauvinists/ageists/etc. for the same crime, potentially motivated the same way.

  No, it's stiffer penalties due to the added element of fear/intimidation...which actually aren't crimes. Like I said, it might be irrational for people to feel extra threatened with hate crimes, and the "hate crime" escalator may be mostly a placebo effect...but if people feel safer as a result and it promotes order then so what? Why do we care if ultra scumbags get harsher sentences for such deplorable acts?
  
  Doesn't matter if motivation is difficult to prove - that's why we have juries to decide and a high burden of proof. Seems to me that people feeling safe from being targeted because of their race, religion or whatever is a pretty fundamental concept of our founding.
• O-Trap

  

  gut;1560635 wrote:No, it's stiffer penalties due to the added element of fear/intimidation...which actually aren't crimes. Like I said, it might be irrational for people to feel extra threatened with hate crimes, and the "hate crime" escalator may be mostly a placebo effect...but if people feel safer as a result and it promotes order then so what? Why do we care if ultra scumbags get harsher sentences for such deplorable acts?

  Because, right or wrong, we maintain that people are meant to be treated equally under the law, even if they hold views we consider ignorant, counter-cultural, and indicative of assholery (patent pending).
  
  And though we both agree with the "scumbag" title in my examples, that notion is still subjective.
  

  gut;1560635 wrote:Doesn't matter if motivation is difficult to prove - that's why we have juries to decide and a high burden of proof. Seems to me that people feeling safe from being targeted because of their race, religion or whatever is a pretty fundamental concept of our founding.

  I don't think "feeling" anything is fundamental. "Feeling" is a fleeting, arbitrary, and unstable notion. How one "feels" is often in opposition to what the facts support. So I don't think "FSKW" (I learned that acronym from a student in our local youth center ... it means "feeling some kinda way") is really fundamental to our founding in any way. BEING safe ... or at least equally protected ... is the fundamental. And I don't think associating certain crimes with "hate" without proof of motive does anything to further that.
  
  And I think juries are given false dichotomies when presented with a hate crime case a lot of times. The notion is that, if you think the person is guilty, you find them guilty, regardless of whether or not the "hate" description fits the crime any more than an alternative.
  
  It might not be a popular thing, but I don't think we ought to charge assholes more harshly under the law just because they're assholes. In the moment, a drunk white guy beating the shit out of a black guy is showing no less hate than a racist doing the same, regardless of if either is motivated by race.
• gut

  O-Trap;1560643 wrote:And I don't think associating certain crimes with "hate" without proof of motive does anything to further that.

  You've made this circular argument at least twice now. If there's a problem with how the law is prosecuted that's a different story, but normally DA's don't charge crimes they can't prove. You keep making the argument it can't be proven and therefore shouldn't be a crime - wrong and wrong.
• gut

  O-Trap;1560643 wrote:beating the shit out of a black guy is showing no less hate than a racist doing the same, regardless of if either is motivated by race.

  Except being beaten solely because you are black is also an assault on your freedom, which is, again, a direct affront to this country's founding principles.
• O-Trap

  

  gut;1560904 wrote:You've made this circular argument at least twice now. If there's a problem with how the law is prosecuted that's a different story, but normally DA's don't charge crimes they can't prove. You keep making the argument it can't be proven and therefore shouldn't be a crime - wrong and wrong.

  Nowhere have I said that the commissions shouldn't be crimes. I said that proving a distinction between the following is nearly impossible:
  
  (a) A man commits a crime motivated by racism.
  (b) A racist commits a crime that isn't motivated by racism.
  
  The two are going to be difficult to distinguish, no?
  
  I'm not saying it's impossible to determine if something is racially motivated. There will always be the occasional case where the defendant is overheard saying something akin to, "Hey, let's kill that guy because he's Jewish."
  
  I'm suggesting that such an example is not akin to a man being attacked for cutting an already racist person off in traffic, and being called a slur during the beating.
  
  How is that circular? Perhaps I've not articulated well enough, as I don't see anything circular.
  

  gut;1560907 wrote:Except being beaten solely because you are black is also an assault on your freedom, which is, again, a direct affront to this country's founding principles.

  Being attacked based on that, yes. Potentially hard to prove, but yes.
  
  FEELING safe from such, however, is not the same thing. Feelings are not, as I stated before, something that is foundational to our principles, because feelings are subjective, and largely individual. They may have nothing, or little, to do with reality, and merely be based on a person's perception of reality. A person's perception is not something that can, or should, be legislated.