On the way back to the gym, I wondered if a black guy shot a white guy because he was white, would it count as a hate crime?
I've asked my friends, and the general consensus is no. But they're white, and so am I, so I wondered what you guys thought.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I would say yes it is a hate crime. But proving it could be extremely difficult. It is even in a lot of white on black violence. Only rare cases like where they lynched the gay guy is it blatantly obvious.
AJ
Posted by Lara (Member # 132) on :
I think it would depend on if the black guy hated the white guy for being white, or for something else, like having a blue hanky in his pocket.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
"Hate Crime."
Bah. There is no such thing. There is only crime. What makes you say you can read other peoples' intent?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It depends on the motives of the killer. A white guy shooting a black guy isn't necessarily a hate crime either.
Most murder victims are killed by people of their own race. So any mixed-race killing has a chance of being a hate crime.
Dagonee
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
If the only reason was the victim's race, then yes it would be a hate crime.
Posted by Lara (Member # 132) on :
I changed my mind, I agree with Phanto in principle. But use of the term "hate crime" is useful like using "child molestation" or something. Specify the crime, profile the people that commit it, study the pattern, figure out ways to prevent it
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
by the logic that you can't ever read someone's intent [motive may be the more precise word for what I mean], then you could never prove pre-meditated murder ever
AJ
[ April 21, 2004, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
AJ - exactly.
And there are situations where intent and motivation are clear. Take the crimes in Bosnia: Bosnian serbs were raped and enslaved by Bosnian muslims precisely because of their ethnicity. (And vice versa).
Posted by Lara (Member # 132) on :
Are the words "intent" and "motive" interchangeable?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I don't think the problem is so much reading people's actions (not that it isn't a problem, but it's not a fundemental flaw, just an implementation issue) so much as why is hate crime worse? If two crimes are identical but one occured because someone wanted money and the other because someone didn't like that someone else was black... well the person involved may be a "worse person" (whatever that means) but I really don't see why the crime should entail higher punishment.
Hobbes Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
You make an interesting arguement. I'll have to think about it.
The way I look at it -- replace the "hate" in "hate crime" to thought.
1984, anyone?
Hobbes: Exactly! Thanks for reminding me of my original thought
[ April 20, 2004, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: Phanto ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote: Are the words "intent" and "motive" interchangeable?
Nope.
Intent:
"I decided to kill him."
Motive:
"I killed him because..."
Both:
"I decided to kill him because..."
[ April 20, 2004, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
I was really just wondering.
But I guess the real question is, would it be perceived as a hate crime in a court of law?
Posted by Lara (Member # 132) on :
So Book is wondering about the motive. I bet the court of law would look at more than just the color of people's skin to figure it out.
Now, to derail the thread. Do heightened testosterone levels caused by working out/anticipating working out prompt males to think about violence? Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
It would be a hate crime if the black guy only did it because the white one was white. It would be an example of counter racism.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: If two crimes are identical but one occured because someone wanted money and the other because someone didn't like that someone else was black... well the person involved may be a "worse person" (whatever that means) but I really don't see why the crime should entail higher punishment.
I guess the answer is that punishment is, in some part, based on the judgement of the 'validity' of a person's motive.
For example - someone who commits murder with a more understandable or 'valid' motivation (ie revenge on the rapist of their child) will most likely be given a lesser sentance than someone who committs murder for a standard reason - drugs, money etc. On the other side are those people whose motives are considered not only invalid but abhorrent - the people who kill someone solely because they are gay/chinese/muslim etc.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
If a Black man killed a White man for racially motivated reasons then it would be a "hate" crime. In fact one of the first cases of "hate" crime out of Winsconsin involved a Black man charged with a "hate" crime after urging on a group of teenagers to kill and rob a White man because of White "oppression."
People need to stop challenging the idea of a "hate" crime on the basis that there is no such thing as a "love" crime because that's simply not what a "hate" crime refers to. A hate crime is one motivated by the hate of person's, I'll use "situation" for lack of a better word. These situations include color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation. Also sometimes added are age and appearance. You can argue that hate crime legislation shouldn't exist because its wrong for government to regulate people's thoughts, but if you argue hate crime legislation shouldn't exist because every crime is a hate crime you're simply avoiding the issue.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Southpark said it best.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:by the logic that you can't ever read someone's intent, then you could never prove pre-meditated murder ever
I disagree. You can show premeditation through circumstantial evidence, or witnesses. Intent is different from motive.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
clarified my post above... or made it muddier I'm not sure Icky, though isn't imogene a lawyer?
I need sleep.
good night
AJ
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I am a 5th year law student. Mind you, I haven't done any criminal law since 2nd year... but I still am almost qualified.
quote:You can show premeditation through circumstantial evidence, or witnesses. Intent is different from motive.
True. And intent is what transforms manslaughter to second degree to first degree murder. As long as you *intend* to kill someone, that is murder. The motive is, in that part, irrelevant.
However phanto asked
quote:What makes you say you can read other peoples' intent?
which is what I think both AJ and I were responding to.
Motive can also be shown - it is certainly *harder* to show, and in some cases it won't be able to be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. But in other cases - well, defendants are often dumb. They brag about why they killed 'the faggot'. Some defendants even confess to the court that this was why they did it.
In other situations witnesses can testify to what the defendant did before the crime - whether they made comments, threats etc based on the other person's gender/race/ethnicity.
If the victim is entirely unknown to the perpetrator and if the perpetrator has a history of hate-speech, or race/gender/ethnic-targetted violence, this may be used as evidence. A hypothetical (and extreme) example: person A kills person B who is catholic. Person A had never previously met person B before, but followed them home from an evening mass. In person's A house, various anti-Catholic materials are found, including a journal that expresses a sentiment wanting to "wipe out all Catholic scum". Would it be unreasonable for a jury to find a motivation based purely on person B's religion?
I'd say no.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Going back to Hobbes' post. I just had another idea why Hate Crimes are punished separately, and more severely to murder.
I think part of the justification is the social effect. Hate speech, and hatred of another group because of their 'difference' spread quickly. Very quickly. It happens in all countries, and in some it leads to extreme situations. Genocides in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Bosnia are examples of extreme hate speech and extreme hate crimes.
Even on a less extreme level, hate crimes are 'catching' - or at least, they have the potential to be so. When one person is killed because they are black/asian/gay and that killing is publicised, it has the potential of triggering more similar crimes.
And so it is punished differently - to try and send a message to the rest of society that such actions are not justifiable.
I don't know if that made sense to anyone else - it did in my brain though.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
quote: It would be an example of counter racism.
No. It would be racism. There is no direction in it.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
No, I'm not talking about intent, I'm asking what everyone would think the intent was (which is all that matters, I think). Would the press make it out as a hate crime? Would it work in court? Can it be a hate crime at all? How would it be perceived? I'm not sure how a hate crime works legally, and I'm not certain where exactly a crime is declared a hate crime, but would such a crime be declared a hate crime?
Btw, I am far from loaded with testosterone after the gym. I'm more... totally exhausted and thirsty, and maybe a little achy. I want to lie down, not pick a fight.
EDIT: Also, how DOES a hate crime work?
[ April 21, 2004, 01:49 AM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I think that if the circumstances where clear and the only motivation was that the victim was white then yes, the Courts would construe it as a hate crime.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
My understanding of it is that anyone who kills, attacks, etc another person because of their race, genders, purple spots, etc can be charged with a hate crime.
[ April 21, 2004, 05:45 AM: Message edited by: luthe ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
" "Hate Crime." Bah. There is no such thing. There is only crime."
By that standard, 9/11 is a case of simple murder and vandalism. Hate crime is terrorism: ie less intended to harm the direct victim(s) than to intimidate the group which self-identifies with the victim(s).
By case law, that the perpetrator(s) used racial/religious/gender/sexual perjoritives while attacking the victim(s) is insufficient as proof of a hate crime. The crime must be shown to be the culmination of acts which indicate the perpetrator's hatred toward and desire to intimidate/suppress an identifiable group, of which the victim just happens to be a member.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)