Hate Crime

[The Johnny]

Child molestors are not a minority.

In the colloquial sense of the word i see what you mean, but its the "minority group" definition i mean.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

Since badbeast brought it up:

At what point do hate crime laws become hate speech laws?
If we decided that 'hate' within itself is something that must be punished would it not logically follow that 'hate' speech would be banned?

[BadBeast]

Since badbeast brought it up:

At what point do hate crime laws become hate speech laws?
If we decided that 'hate' within itself is something that must be punished would it not logically follow that 'hate' speech would be banned?

That's what I was getting at in the original post! Legislation that decrees something as a "Hatecrime" isn't Legislating against our right not to be hated. It's Legislating against people's right to hate. And that is unrealistic, unfeasable, and confusing. There's lots of things that I hate. Should I be punished for this alone? No. Only on my actions. So any crime I commit, that is motivated by hatred, should be dealt with on it's severity as a crime, not on whether or not I was motivated by hate. Or any other fucking reason for that matter. Each crime is legislated for already. Motivation doesn't legally justify any crime.

[Iason Ouabache]

I see hate crimes in the same category as terrorism. (I know, just hear me out though.) The purpose of a hate crime isn't just to assault a particular person. It is meant to send a message to everyone else in the victim's group that they are not welcome. It's not just an ordinary crime, it is a political act meant to intimidate a minority whether it be burning a cross or picking up someone at a gay bar and beating him to death. It is a crime against a group, not an individual.

Killing up a child molester would not count under this model since (I'm assuming) he doesn't hang around other child molester.

[BadBeast]

I see hate crimes in the same category as terrorism. (I know, just hear me out though.) The purpose of a hate crime isn't just to assault a particular person. It is meant to send a message to everyone else in the victim's group that they are not welcome. It's not just an ordinary crime, it is a political act meant to intimidate a minority whether it be burning a cross or picking up someone at a gay bar and beating him to death. It is a crime against a group, not an individual.

Killing up a child molester would not count under this model since (I'm assuming) he doesn't hang around other child molester.

Excellent points, and the only ones ITT that are making me think more about the nature of hatecrimes.

[slothrop23]

reading from your original point. i think you would have to decide if those two lads would have left a white person alone and only instigated a  fight because of race. if that is the case then it would consitute a hate crime, which i think is entirely different to just a fight because you are pissed.   

[BadBeast]

reading from your original point. i think you would have to decide if those two lads would have left a white person alone and only instigated a  fight because of race. if that is the case then it would consitute a hate crime, which i think is entirely different to just a fight because you are pissed.   

I did actually make the distinction between an assault such as the one you are describing, and the same assault, but where the black man was called a nigger during the attack. The point being, that in the latter scenario, the attack would be seen as a hatecrime. 

[Golden Applesauce]

I see hate crimes in the same category as terrorism. (I know, just hear me out though.) The purpose of a hate crime isn't just to assault a particular person. It is meant to send a message to everyone else in the victim's group that they are not welcome. It's not just an ordinary crime, it is a political act meant to intimidate a minority whether it be burning a cross or picking up someone at a gay bar and beating him to death. It is a crime against a group, not an individual.

Killing up a child molester would not count under this model since (I'm assuming) he doesn't hang around other child molester.

I generally agree with this post, but I don't think "hate crime" is the right name.  Trying to intimidate someone with violence or threats of violence is it's own crime (I think, IANAL.)  So rather than saying "Hate Crime," I'd rather see the charge of "Intimidation" thrown in.  So instead of the charge being "Assault" with a "Hate Crime" modifier, I'd rather see "Assault with intent to intimidate" or whatever. 

I just think it's a little thoughtcrime-ish to have a criminal stand trial for not just the crime he committed but for also being a racist.  The courtroom isn't the place to tease out whether a defendant hates a certain group, fears them, dislikes them, or just likes using words like "nigger" or "fag" when he beats someone up.

re: the child molester question, what if the victim is not known to be a child molester, but just a member of NAMBLA?  Assaulting a NAMBLA member because you believe that being a NAMBLA member means you molest children seems like it should fall under the category of assaulting a homosexual because you believe that homosexuals all molest children.

[Phox]

I see hate crimes in the same category as terrorism. (I know, just hear me out though.) The purpose of a hate crime isn't just to assault a particular person. It is meant to send a message to everyone else in the victim's group that they are not welcome. It's not just an ordinary crime, it is a political act meant to intimidate a minority whether it be burning a cross or picking up someone at a gay bar and beating him to death. It is a crime against a group, not an individual.

Killing up a child molester would not count under this model since (I'm assuming) he doesn't hang around other child molester.

I generally agree with this post, but I don't think "hate crime" is the right name.  Trying to intimidate someone with violence or threats of violence is it's own crime (I think, IANAL.)  So rather than saying "Hate Crime," I'd rather see the charge of "Intimidation" thrown in.  So instead of the charge being "Assault" with a "Hate Crime" modifier, I'd rather see "Assault with intent to intimidate" or whatever. 

I just think it's a little thoughtcrime-ish to have a criminal stand trial for not just the crime he committed but for also being a racist.  The courtroom isn't the place to tease out whether a defendant hates a certain group, fears them, dislikes them, or just likes using words like "nigger" or "fag" when he beats someone up.

re: the child molester question, what if the victim is not known to be a child molester, but just a member of NAMBLA?  Assaulting a NAMBLA member because you believe that being a NAMBLA member means you molest children seems like it should fall under the category of assaulting a homosexual because you believe that homosexuals all molest children.

This I agree with.

And sorry for knocking out early last night and not commenting today. I've been busy. But back to the my theoretical place. BB, I was assuming that all other things being equal, motivation differentiates it. Though to be perfectly honest, on average, "hatecrime" assaults tend to be more severe than random acts of violence.

[Doktor Howl]

I just took a big hate crime.   

[Freeky]

I just took a big hate crime.   

Do you mean EPIC POOMP?

[Doktor Howl]

I just took a big hate crime.   

Do you mean EPIC POOMP?

I savagely assaulted the toilet bowl, and then wrote all over it with a sharpie.

[Freeky]

I just took a big hate crime.   

Do you mean EPIC POOMP?

I savagely assaulted the toilet bowl, and then wrote all over it with a sharpie.

You're a bad person, why do you gotta hate on toilets like that? THEY'RE PEOPLE TOO!

[BadBeast]

I just took a big hate crime.  

Do you mean EPIC POOMP?

I savagely assaulted the toilet bowl, and then wrote all over it with a sharpie.

You're a bad person, why do you gotta hate on toilets like that? THEY'RE PEOPLE TOO!

He does it because he resents the bowl taking his babies away.
It makes him go nice.

[BadBeast]

"Oh beloved child of my bowel, why? why float away? Don't you love Daddy Dok?"
was reportedly written on one toilet bowl in Tuscon, in dayglo sharpie markers.