Hate crimes are not separate crimes -- they are sentence enhancements on other underlying crimes, based on a different mental state.
The underlying crime -- assault, harassment, stalking, threatening, battery, murder, whatever -- still has to happen.
Then, if the prosecutors can prove that the victim was attacked (targeted) solely based on their membership in some protected class -- race, religion, whatever -- then they can tack on the enhancment for the hate crime.
The argument that "all crimes are because of hate" misses the point entirely -- just as an intentional homicide or battery can be punished more severely than a negligent (careless) or reckless action -- based on the more culpable mental state -- in the same way, the desire to attack an ENTIRE GROUP and doing it by attacking the most accessible member of that group is more severe than just wanting to attack and harm a single individual.
That's the point of the enhancement -- in a "normal" crime, the victim is targeted as an individual -- in a hate crime, the victim is targetted solely because they are a member of a particular group, and the real intent of the criminals is to do the same thing to every other member of the group.
There's nothing to be "corrected" -- the sentence enhancement is appropriate for those who really do want to attack every member of a particular group, but have only so far attacked one or a few 'representatives' of that group -- just as sentences for those who intentionally cause harm are worse than for those who do it by accident or carelessness.
2007-10-19 12:16:25
·
answer #1
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
A hate crime is defined as a crime committed against a person because of race, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, etc. It is not a crime itself, it is a penalty enhancer for the crime committed.
The part I have difficulty with is two bullies beat up two persons... one bully because he's jewish, the other because he is wearing braces. The bully beating the jewish person is charged with a hate crime, and gets more jail than the bully who beat the guy with braces. Hardly seems fair to the guy with braces, does it?
I personally think assaulting someone is illegal, regardless of who or what they are. I don't understand why the goverment makes more laws, when they should just enforce the laws already on the books.
The correcting part is beyond the control of goverment. Hate is learned, not inherited. That falls back on the parents.
2007-10-19 12:07:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by trooper3316 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
A "hate crime" is a crime that is committed with a certain bias - against their sex, age, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, race, or nationality. To attach the "hate crime" statute to it, the prosecution has to be able to prove that the crime was motivated by hatered of the victim beyond a reasonable doubt as defined in the statute.
I don't know what you mean by how I think they can be corrected. I basically think that if someone violates another's civil rights solely due to their individual "biases" that they are allowed to have, then they deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the laws of this nation. I think the way to prevent or reduce hate crimes is to reduce the teaching of hate to children. Hate is a learned emotion - not one that someone is born with. One isn't born with the hatered of homosexuals - it is taught by parents, families, friends, or society.
2007-10-19 12:11:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The previous answers defined hate crimes sufficiently. I have two problems with them. One, they punish for what one thinks, ones motivation not for the actual crime and two, they seem to be applied much more to one set or group of people than another.
2007-10-19 12:27:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by 000 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
lib horseshit,taking political correctness to the extreme...
2007-10-19 12:34:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋