Time to give Martinus an aneurysm

[garbon]

My objection ot ahte crimes is much more mundane.

What's the point?

Why do we need to punish the people who killed some agy guy any differently than simply charging them with murder? Is killing someone for a reason as stupid as "I hate gay people fudamentally different from the stupidest reasons someone might kill someone that isn't covered by some "special" rule?

Are there people out there who would beat up gay people, except that the existence of hate crime laws are deterring them when regular laws dealing with assault do not?

I thought it was to make sure that people got punished severely...as historically, people got lighter sentences when attacking now protected groups.

[The Minsky Moment]

  There are specific crimes that one is charged with when committing an act in furtherance of terrorism.

Yes but there is no difference technically from defining a set of "hate crimes" and creating parallel statutory punishments.

I am also not commenting on the public policy rationale here - just addressing the notion that the concept is unheard of as a legal principle.

[Berkut]

My objection ot ahte crimes is much more mundane.

What's the point?

Why do we need to punish the people who killed some agy guy any differently than simply charging them with murder? Is killing someone for a reason as stupid as "I hate gay people fudamentally different from the stupidest reasons someone might kill someone that isn't covered by some "special" rule?

Are there people out there who would beat up gay people, except that the existence of hate crime laws are deterring them when regular laws dealing with assault do not?

I thought it was to make sure that people got punished severely...as historically, people got lighter sentences when attacking now protected groups.

They did?

I would contend that if the "history" has adjusted enough that we are passing legislation to make hate crimes more severely punished, then we are probably beyond the point at which judges are giving lynchers a slap on the wrist as well.

The argument that we need to legislate that judges give stiffer penalties, so that they will stop giving less than normal penalties strikes me as rather bizarre. If a judge is going to give someone a lighter penalty than average, why not pass a law saying he cannot, rather than pass a law saying he has to give a stronger penalty than average?

[garbon]

They did?

I would contend that if the "history" has adjusted enough that we are passing legislation to make hate crimes more severely punished, then we are probably beyond the point at which judges are giving lynchers a slap on the wrist as well.

The argument that we need to legislate that judges give stiffer penalties, so that they will stop giving less than normal penalties strikes me as rather bizarre. If a judge is going to give someone a lighter penalty than average, why not pass a law saying he cannot, rather than pass a law saying he has to give a stronger penalty than average?

:shrugs:

[Faeelin]

Why do we need to punish the people who killed some agy guy any differently than simply charging them with murder? Is killing someone for a reason as stupid as "I hate gay people fudamentally different from the stupidest reasons someone might kill someone that isn't covered by some "special" rule?

Are there people out there who would beat up gay people, except that the existence of hate crime laws are deterring them when regular laws dealing with assault do not?

I don't think this is entirely right. I think tihs is partly an issue of deterrence, and partly an issue of punishment.

People aren't beating up gay people just for the sake of beating  gay people; it's often part of an intent to errorize a community. In a certain sense, beating up a person for being black, Jewish, etc. isn't just harming him, but an entire minority group.

Do we as society view that as a worse crime than beating up a random person on the street?

[Scipio]

Why do we need to punish the people who killed some agy guy any differently than simply charging them with murder? Is killing someone for a reason as stupid as "I hate gay people fudamentally different from the stupidest reasons someone might kill someone that isn't covered by some "special" rule?

Are there people out there who would beat up gay people, except that the existence of hate crime laws are deterring them when regular laws dealing with assault do not?

I don't think this is entirely right. I think tihs is partly an issue of deterrence, and partly an issue of punishment.

People aren't beating up gay people just for the sake of beating  gay people; it's often part of an intent to errorize a community. In a certain sense, beating up a person for being black, Jewish, etc. isn't just harming him, but an entire minority group.

Do we as society view that as a worse crime than beating up a random person on the street?

We shouldn't, if we support the notion of a color-blind (etc.) society.  What if I really hate the individual, and that's why I kill him?  Shouldn't there be an enhancement for that?  What if I really hate the guys family, and I killed him specifically because his father broke my leg with a baseball bat?  Isn't that worth an enhancement?

[garbon]

We shouldn't, if we support the notion of a color-blind (etc.) society.

Isn't that idea dead? We aren't post-racial (etc.) no matter how much we'd like to be.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The killings that always upset me most are the ones that don't really involve hate. Someone is murdered so that the killer can have their £130, mobile phone or whatever. It seems remarkably odd to say something like, "not only is he a murderer but he also...........*gasp*.............really hates women/black people/homosexuals/rich people" 

[MadImmortalMan]

Why is hating blacks or Jews or gays worse than, say, wanting to make helmet out of somebody's skull? As a motive for murder, I mean.

[garbon]

Why is hating blacks or Jews or gays worse than, say, wanting to make helmet out of somebody's skull? As a motive for murder, I mean.

L2R

[grumbler]

This thread depresses me.

I thought this was all understood as a standard "it is even more evil to oppress minorities than to prey on majorities, because of the psychological damage of being targeted as a minority" issue, and then find that it is not. 

Well, my students will not find this a mystery, though apparently many students do.

[Neil]

This thread depresses me.

I thought this was all understood as a standard "it is even more evil to oppress minorities than to prey on majorities, because of the psychological damage of being targeted as a minority" issue, and then find that it is not. 

Well, my students will not find this a mystery, though apparently many students do.

Your students are ill-served by your Manichean worldview.  I pity your students, especially if they are Hortlund's kids.

[Martinus]

My objection ot ahte crimes is much more mundane.

What's the point?

Why do we need to punish the people who killed some agy guy any differently than simply charging them with murder? Is killing someone for a reason as stupid as "I hate gay people fudamentally different from the stupidest reasons someone might kill someone that isn't covered by some "special" rule?

Are there people out there who would beat up gay people, except that the existence of hate crime laws are deterring them when regular laws dealing with assault do not?

Well I posted what I think the point is. Feel free to address that rather than asking rhetorical questions.

[Martinus]

Why do we need to punish the people who killed some agy guy any differently than simply charging them with murder? Is killing someone for a reason as stupid as "I hate gay people fudamentally different from the stupidest reasons someone might kill someone that isn't covered by some "special" rule?

Are there people out there who would beat up gay people, except that the existence of hate crime laws are deterring them when regular laws dealing with assault do not?

I don't think this is entirely right. I think tihs is partly an issue of deterrence, and partly an issue of punishment.

People aren't beating up gay people just for the sake of beating  gay people; it's often part of an intent to errorize a community. In a certain sense, beating up a person for being black, Jewish, etc. isn't just harming him, but an entire minority group.

Do we as society view that as a worse crime than beating up a random person on the street?

Indeed. This is the same reason why we have harsher penalties for terrorist attacks and do not view them as simple cases of murder, assault or vandalism. The difference is that, obviously, in a terrorist attack the social harm of a crime is much broader than the life and limb of the victims and/or the destroyed property.

Now, one could retort that this does not make a difference, because if someone commits murder, this terrorizes the society even if the cause for the murder was more "mundane". This may be true, but again the difference is that the terrorist not only envisages this kind of social harm, but actually seeks it, which makes him different from an ordinary perp.

The same kind of reasoning applies to hate crimes - the goal of a perpetrator is not just to assault or murder that particular victim - it is to send the message that those of his or her kind are not welcome and will eventually meet with the same fate. The social harm of such action thus goes far beyond that of a "simple" assault or murder - and since that social harm is sought by the perpetrator, it is only fair that he or she is punished for that as well.

[The Brain]

With random crime a lot more people are terrorized.