Beatdown of transgendered in Baltimore, MD McDonalds

[Reba]

This sounds like you don't believe in higher punishment for hate crimes BECAUSE it's hard to prove what the attacker is feeling, whereas you can show evidence of premonition. Not because it isn't "fair" to minority groups.

Premeditation, not premonition.

The fairness is in the equality of the law.

The unfairness is when crimes against minorities are ignored or not prosecuted to the fullest extent.

Is this a correct assumption? Are you saying that this law (hate crime = more jail time) is not fair because what if the victim just HAPPENS to be black and the white attacker gets more time (as an example)?

That's one scenario.

What if the victim just HAPPENS to be white and the attacker is black?

What if the victim and attacker are both black, or are both white?

 

[Daredevel7]

Premeditation, not premonition.

Thanks.

The fairness is in the equality of the law.

The unfairness is when crimes against minorities are ignored or not prosecuted to the fullest extent.

That's one scenario.

What if the victim just HAPPENS to be white and the attacker is black?

What if the victim and attacker are both black, or are both white?

I know. That's why I gave one example, there are too many to list. So are you saying that hate crimes are unfair because it's hard to prove "hate"?

 

[Reba]

I know. That's why I gave one example, there are too many to list. So are you saying that hate crimes are unfair because it's hard to prove "hate"?

I'm saying it's not necessary to prove that the perp hates a victim in order to be guilty of a crime, and the element of hate doesn't need to be present in order to show that a crime is heinous and prosecutable.

Suppose a victim belongs to an officially designated protected class and is physically attacked by someone who doesn't know that the victim is from that class. Should the attacker be charged with the assault only, or should he be charged with a hate crime?

 

[jillio]

I'm saying it's not necessary to prove that the perp hates a victim in order to be guilty of a crime, and the element of hate doesn't need to be present in order to show that a crime is heinous and prosecutable.

Suppose a victim belongs to an officially designated protected class and is physically attacked by someone who doesn't know that the victim is from that class. Should the attacker be charged with the assault only, or should he be charged with a hate crime?

So, Nazi war criminals should have just been charged with murder?

 

[Daredevel7]

I'm saying it's not necessary to prove that the perp hates a victim in order to be guilty of a crime, and the element of hate doesn't need to be present in order to show that a crime is heinous and prosecutable.

Suppose a victim belongs to an officially designated protected class and is physically attacked by someone who doesn't know that the victim is from that class. Should the attacker be charged with the assault only, or should he be charged with a hate crime?

Okay, what exactly do you think makes an assault a hate crime? The simple fact that they are from different races (or classes or whatever)?

 

[Reba]

So, Nazi war criminals should have just been charged with murder?

They were tried by international military tribunals in Germany. They were charged with crimes against humanity, not hate crimes. One can commit crimes against humanity without feeling or expressing hatred or any other emotion.

In fact, if they had been charged with hate crimes instead of crimes against humanity, they would have had a better chance of being found not guilty.

Crimes against humanity is a broader and more severe charge than murder. It can be used against those who were accused of neglect of duties (such as for the doctors and judges), torture, inhumane treatment, enslavement, and experimentation, even if it didn't result in death. Also, the evidential standard was a lot more lax.

So, the major Nazi criminals weren't tried for hate crimes or just murder.

 

[Reba]

Okay, what exactly do you think makes an assault a hate crime? The simple fact that they are from different races (or classes or whatever)?

It doesn't matter what I think constitutes a hate crime. No one is going to trial because of my opinion. How does the law of a particular jurisdiction define hate crime? That's what's important.

 

[jillio]

They were tried by international military tribunals in Germany. They were charged with crimes against humanity, not hate crimes. One can commit crimes against humanity without feeling or expressing hatred or any other emotion.

In fact, if they had been charged with hate crimes instead of crimes against humanity, they would have had a better chance of being found not guilty.

Crimes against humanity is a broader and more severe charge than murder. It can be used against those who were accused of neglect of duties (such as for the doctors and judges), torture, inhumane treatment, enslavement, and experimentation, even if it didn't result in death. Also, the evidential standard was a lot more lax.

So, the major Nazi criminals weren't tried for hate crimes or just murder.

So, you would not consider a crime against humanity to be a crime of hate?

 

[Daredevel7]

It doesn't matter what I think constitutes a hate crime. No one is going to trial because of my opinion. How does the law of a particular jurisdiction define hate crime? That's what's important.

I understand, but I'm trying to see what you KNOW about how a particular jurisdiction defines hate crime. Not to put words in your mouth but, honestly, based on how you responded to my questions, it seems that you feel that the jury deems an assault a hate crime simply because the attacker was a different race or group.

Now, if that was true, if a jury uses the difference in group/race it make it a hate crime as it's PRIMARY reason, my views would align more with yours.

However, if there was a lot more evidence that it was a hate crime, then I am all for the law.

I'll give you an example. I had this somewhat of an acquaintance in high school. He was a self proclaimed Neo Nazi. He was actually quite intelligent in terms of being well read and logical reasoning, but he really despised the Jewish, blacks, and Hispanics. During high school, he wasn't that bad, willing to talk and debate with me (I'm Hispanic), but ever since he went to college, he really started hating the groups. He joined a white supremacist forum. I stopped speaking to him altogether.

Now, if he did attack a Jewish person randomly, how does that fall under the premeditation classification? He didn't plan on attacking this Jewish person. The evidence of hate was there. Simply go on his laptop and you will see lots of posts from him spewing out hate for the Jewish.

Do you believe that he still should receive the same sentence as another person who attacked for no reason?

 

[Reba]

So, you would not consider a crime against humanity to be a crime of hate?

Did you not read my explanation of the difference?

 

[Reba]

I understand, but I'm trying to see what you KNOW about how a particular jurisdiction defines hate crime.

In that case, no, I don't KNOW about the law in every jursidiction.

You asked for my opinion and I gave it.

Not to put words in your mouth but, honestly, based on how you responded to my questions, it seems that you feel that the jury deems an assault a hate crime simply because the attacker was a different race or group.

I never said that.

Now, if that was true, if a jury uses the difference in group/race it make it a hate crime as it's PRIMARY reason, my views would align more with yours.

Juries are charged to find guilt or innocence for a particular crime under a particular law or laws. The judge tells under which penal code someone is being charged, and the judge explains the definition of that law.

However, if there was a lot more evidence that it was a hate crime, then I am all for the law.

I'll give you an example. I had this somewhat of an acquaintance in high school. He was a self proclaimed Neo Nazi. He was actually quite intelligent in terms of being well read and logical reasoning, but he really despised the Jewish, blacks, and Hispanics. During high school, he wasn't that bad, willing to talk and debate with me (I'm Hispanic), but ever since he went to college, he really started hating the groups. He joined a white supremacist forum. I stopped speaking to him altogether.

Now, if he did attack a Jewish person randomly, how does that fall under the premeditation classification? He didn't plan on killing this Jewish person. The evidence of hate was there. Simply go on his laptop and you will see lots of posts from him spewing out hate for the Jewish.

Do you believe that he still should receive the same sentence as another person who attacked for no reason?

There's always a reason, even if it isn't evident to us. It's not always a logical reason, such as for profit, but even insanity is a reason.

Are you saying in your hypothetical event that your classmate beat up a Jewish person specifically because he was Jewish? Even if the attacker didn't start out his morning planning to beat up a Jewish person, that could still be charged as premeditation. Premeditation doesn't need to include formal planning. It could happen almost instantly. (Look it up.) That is, your classmate is walking down the street. Across the street, he sees a guy wearing a yarmulke. He decides right then and there to cross the street and start punching the guy. That's premeditation.

 

[jillio]

Did you not read my explanation of the difference?

Yeah, I read it. And I am asking you if you think that a crime against humanity does not contain hate.

 

[Reba]

Yeah, I read it. And I am asking you if you think that a crime against humanity does not contain hate.

Not all people who commit a crime against humanity do it out of hatred. That's why I would prefer to prosecute for the action, not the feeling. There will be more guilty judgments had that way.

Some people commit heinous crimes because they lack feelings. I want them prosecuted to the full extent just like the ones who are hot with hatred.

 

[Glenn]

Okay, what exactly do you think makes an assault a hate crime? The simple fact that they are from different races (or classes or whatever)?

Because a class of people that have been historically targeted make it so.

 

[jillio]

Not all people who commit a crime against humanity do it out of hatred. That's why I would prefer to prosecute for the action, not the feeling. There will be more guilty judgments had that way.

Some people commit heinous crimes because they lack feelings. I want them prosecuted to the full extent just like the ones who are hot with hatred.

I disagree. There will be many more acts going without proper justice.

Those who commit heineous crimes are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, you are referring to a different class of crime altogether. Once a crime passes a certain level, it is redundant to be concerned about adding the additional penalty of hate. But in the case of a simple assualt that can be shown to occur as a result of nothing more than prejudice and hate, it is most appropriate.

 

[Reba]

I disagree. There will be many more acts going without proper justice.

Those who commit heineous crimes are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, you are referring to a different class of crime altogether. Once a crime passes a certain level, it is redundant to be concerned about adding the additional penalty of hate. But in the case of a simple assualt that can be shown to occur as a result of nothing more than prejudice and hate, it is most appropriate.

So you find legal penalties for people's emotions and thoughts appropriate? Interesting.

 

[jillio]

So you find legal penalties for people's emotions and thoughts appropriate? Interesting.

Nope. I find it appropriate to punish when individuals use their emotion as justification to cause harm to an individual simply because that individual does not fit into their neat little definition of who is okay and who isn't. The additional punishment for hate crimes does not punish the hate...if it did, one would not have to commit an additional crime based on that hate to be charged.

 

[Glenn]

So you find legal penalties for people's emotions and thoughts appropriate? Interesting.

Everyone has emotions and thoughts. And sometimes these emotions and thoughts, when carried out, can be inappropriate, harmful, and even illegal.

In a civilized society, people learn to channel their emotions and thoughts appropriately. When people can't or won't do this, they are penalized.

Using emotions and feelings as justification for doing wrong is not a person civilized society wants because it demonstrates a lack of restraint necessary for the good of everyone.

 

[Reba]

Everyone has emotions and thoughts. And sometimes these emotions and thoughts, when carried out, can be inappropriate, harmful, and even illegal.

In a civilized society, people learn to channel their emotions and thoughts appropriately. When people can't or won't do this, they are penalized.

Yes, people should be penalized when they don't learn to channel their emotions and thoughts in a lawful and non-violent way.

Using emotions and feelings as justification for doing wrong is not a person civilized society wants because it demonstrates a lack of restraint necessary for the good of everyone.

That's why we arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate people who let their emotions and feelings manifest themselves thru violent actions. There is no justification for their violent crimes.

 

[jillio]

Yes, people should be penalized when they don't learn to channel their emotions and thoughts in a lawful and non-violent way.


That's why we arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate people who let their emotions and feelings manifest themselves thru violent actions. There is no justification for their violent crimes.

Yup. Like hate crimes.