Mark, I think it's a question of the criminal's hatred of the group being a motive for, and preceding, the crime. The white guy who kills another white guy is driven by hatred of a specific individual.

Now, I can see how, in some cases, that group hatred can be hard to prove. But the purpose is to discourage others from attacks based solely on such hatred...in addition to the punishment for the individual crime itself.

Thoughtcrime.

You asked for it. You got it.

I think it is very dangerous that the government has taken this step.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:

quote:

Originally posted by Beacon Chris:
Am I missing something?

This is probably the most important part:

The U.S. Justice Department will have expanded authority to prosecute such crimes when local authorities don't.

There are plenty of municipalities in this country still where local authorities can not be trusted to do anything about a hate crime.

Exactly.

Chris, Mark, anyone else, with all due respect, this law was passed in 1968. The lynching of black people was and is a crime based on racial bias. This is important civil rights legislation for just the reason Steve gives- these crimes were not prosecuted by local authorities. Now the government has (rightly) expanded this law to other crimes based on bias in order to be able to prosecute them. It's really not any more complicated than that.

The hate is not limited to the criminal, it extends to the police and prosecutors who want to ignore the crime.

You're saying that the feds will now prosecute the police and prosecutors who "ignore" the crime? Yeah right.

I fail to see any civil rights issues here. Why? Because there aren't any!

Someone assaults another human. I don't care what they were thinking it was assault pure and simple. Prosecute for them assault.

Someone commits premeditated murder. Again, what they were thinking is wholly irrelevant. The fact is they killed someone with malice and forethought. Prosecute them for murder. Not for what they were thinking.

Someone defaces a building (any building!) prosecute them for vandalism.

There are plenty of laws on the books to handle any crime that is committed against another human being and their property. We do not need to and should not prosecute people for how they think.

It's dangerous to give government this much power.

quote:

Originally posted by markj:

Someone commits premeditated murder. Again, what they were thinking is wholly irrelevant. The fact is they killed someone with malice and forethought. Prosecute them for murder. Not for what they were thinking.

The malice and forethought was what they were thinking. What they were thinking is not irrelevant to the charge of first degree murder.

True but to make the punishment worse just because they hate this group or that is not right.

quote:

The U.S. Justice Department will have expanded authority to prosecute such crimes when local authorities don't.

This, I'm fine with. The rest, not so much.

quote:

The malice and forethought was what they were thinking. What they were thinking is not irrelevant to the charge of first degree murder.

Actually, what they were thinking is, in a sense, irrelevant to the charge of first degree murder. Motive, thought, whatever, is not an element of first degree murder. I suppose thought could be used to help prove malice.

What "hate crime" does is introduce motive as an element of a crime. In all other cases (to my knowledge), motive is not an element of the crime. Obviously, it can be difficult to prosecute a crime, particularly murder, without a motive. However, one does not technically need to prove motive to prove murder.

Murder laws already exist. They just need to be enforced without regard to law enforcement's personal feelings about the perpetrator and the victim.

We could also look at it another way: Children aren't a protected class under the hate crimes law (correct?). A child killer should be treated under the law more leniently than a murderer who killed someone based on foreign nationality?

Stay out of thought processes except to determine either a basis for an insanity defense or to use as a possible motive to prove that the defendant committed the crime with malice.

quote:

Originally posted by markb:

quote:

The U.S. Justice Department will have expanded authority to prosecute such crimes when local authorities don't.

This, I'm fine with. The rest, not so much.

quote:

The malice and forethought was what they were thinking. What they were thinking is not irrelevant to the charge of first degree murder.

Actually, what they were thinking is, in a sense, irrelevant to the charge of first degree murder. Motive, thought, whatever, is not an element of first degree murder. I suppose thought could be used to help prove malice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

"Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter)."

or malice aforethought =

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_aforethought

"Specifically in the criminal law, malice aforethought (or malice prepense) is the element of mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") which must accompany the actus reus of death, in order to secure a conviction for murder under the common law. In other words, knowledge that through an action or omission, the result will be some one's death."

You wrote, "... what they were thinking is, in a sense, irrelevant to the charge of first degree murder. Motive, thought, whatever, is not an element of first degree murder."

Intent (or malice aforethought- before) is an element of first degree murder. You wrote, "I suppose thought could be used to help prove malice". On the contrary, intent (or malice) must be present or it is not first degree murder.

Regardless, I think you guys are over-thinking what you seem to see as people being "punished for their thoughts".

People are prosecuted under this legislation because of criminal acts. People are not being prosecuted because they happened to be sitting around thinking 'politically incorrect' thoughts. The groups that are covered give federal authorities the ability to prosecute. This is necessary because these are crimes that, as Steve said, are sometimes not prosecuted by local authorities. The same forces in society, as Chas noted, can cause certain groups to be targeted, and the same prejudice can lead to local authorities not being able or willing to prosecute.

Those of you who are not members of the GLBT community might not be aware of what it is like to be a member of a group individual members of which are routinely targeted for assault and murder. I'm glad. It's not something I would wish on you. But the reality of it is that it will be helpful for the federal government to have the authority to prosecute these crimes.

My explanation was somewhat awkward (I edited it a few times to clarify but was unsuccessful), but I believe the general premise is still correct.

It is a fact that the "why" somebody committed murder is not an element of the crime. You don't need to prove motive as an element, but it sure helps to secure a conviction. According to the Wiki definition of malice aforethought, "In other words, knowledge that through an action or omission, the result will be some one's death." It's the doing something or not doing something that implies intent. Pointing a loaded gun at somebody's head an pulling the trigger is likely to result in someone's death. As long as there isn't some organic brain disease or other impairment of judgment, there's your intent.

Hate crime brings motive into the equation. Why did someone vandalize a synagogue or beat up a gay man? Does it really matter? The building was intentionally vandalized and the man was intentionally battered. The punishment should be based on those facts, not on the fact that the criminals don't like Jews or gays. That's irrelevant in a criminal justice sense.
It is relevant in a criminological or sociological sense in order to see what, if anything, can be done to change hurtful attitudes that lead to such crimes.

Under hate crimes, people are being punished for their thoughts in addition to their actions. I don't believe hate was ever brought up in the "sniper" shootings 'round these parts in 2002. Muhammed murdered 10 random victims and injured several more. He's being rightly punished for what he did--not why he did it. I don't see how it would be different if he hated his victims.

Making certain classes protected just seems ridiculous and irrelevant. The murder of an individual who is not protected is less egregious than one who is protected? Everyone should be equally protected under the law. I also question what practical good is served by having hate crimes. Do they actually reduce crimes against protected classes?

And since you brought it up, I am a member of a group that, historically, has been routinely targeted for assault and murder. I don't see how assaulting or killing me because I'm Jewish is worse than killing or assaulting me because I'm blocking someone's view at the movie theater, nor would I want the trial of my killer to be bogged down in trying to determine whether the killer hated me, disliked me, or was neutral because of my religion.

Further complicating the issue is the fact that someone could hate a protected class but commit a crime against a protected person for other reasons. More thought processes to sort out.

I'm not certain you're right about the intent point, Mark.

The difference between third degree murder (manslaughter), second degree murder, and first degree murder is as follows, if I remember the criminal law that I've never practiced:

Third degree murder -- no intention to kill. The defendant intended the act that resulted in death, but did not intend the death.

Second degree murder -- an intention to kill. The defendant intended to kill the victim (or engaged in an act that he should have known would result in death, like beating the victim in the head with a baseball bat), but didn't plan it in advance.

First degree murder -- killing someone with premeditated intent. State of mind is crucial here ... it has to be something that the defendant planned, in advance, and didn't happen on the spur of the moment. Now, that planning can be demonstrated in several ways. If you buy a gun, and immediately go looking for the victim with it, it can be inferred that you bought it with the intention of shooting him. Premeditation can also be proven by words, though ... if you tell someone "I'm going to buy a gun and kill Mark", and then you do it, that's evidence that you had a premeditated intent.

Now, you could split hairs and argue that the talking was an action, too. However, in the end, you are trying to ascertain the defendant's intent.

This is a concept you should be familiar with. In the securities law context, it comes up as scienter.

I understand that state of mind is crucial, but it seems to be relevant to intent (an element of first degree murder) as opposed to motive (not an element). I don't disagree with anything you wrote. I'd add that saying, "I'm going to buy a gun and kill Mark because he's Jewish" doesn't alter the nature or "degree" of crime. It helps to establish a motive and possibly ease obtaining a conviction or maybe further establishing intent (can motive be used to establish intent?), but that's where it should end. First degree murder does not include hate or motive as an element.

What I'm trying to get at, and apparently doing a very poor job of it, is that establishing a category of hate crimes is really adding a bad attitude as an element. Thinking really horrible things about a person or people isn't a crime. I don't see why it should be a consideration, other than as a way to prove intent (possibly), when classifying a crime for purposes other than criminological/sociological.

My academic dealings with criminal law (BA and MA in criminal justice, although the MA was much more white-collar crime related) occurred way long ago, and very little of it has been relevant to my career. Thus, my interpretations could be inaccurate. X-degree murder is x-degree murder. Whether I killed the person because of they way they dress or smell or owed me money or because I hate their religious beliefs or sexual preferences should not matter.

The intent of the law is to discourage criminal actions motivated by hate. I am all for that.

Intent and "hate" are two completely different concepts.

State of mind in pre-meditated murder is just that. It matters not if the victim was of any particular "special interest group". You killed another human being with premeditated intent with pre-planning. Again, hate does not enter into the picture here. hate is a given in pre-meditated first degree murder.

Same on down the line to third degree and manslaughter etc.

Self defense is another story and hear is where this "hate crime" BS could do more harm than good if you think about it.

quote:

Originally posted by markb:
I understand that state of mind is crucial, but it seems to be relevant to intent (an element of first degree murder) as opposed to motive (not an element). I don't disagree with anything you wrote. I'd add that saying, "I'm going to buy a gun and kill Mark because he's Jewish" doesn't alter the nature or "degree" of crime. It helps to establish a motive and possibly ease obtaining a conviction or maybe further establishing intent (can motive be used to establish intent?), but that's where it should end. First degree murder does not include hate or motive as an element.

What I'm trying to get at, and apparently doing a very poor job of it, is that establishing a category of hate crimes is really adding a bad attitude as an element. Thinking really horrible things about a person or people isn't a crime. I don't see why it should be a consideration, other than as a way to prove intent (possibly), when classifying a crime for purposes other than criminological/sociological.

My academic dealings with criminal law (BA and MA in criminal justice, although the MA was much more white-collar crime related) occurred way long ago, and very little of it has been relevant to my career. Thus, my interpretations could be inaccurate. X-degree murder is x-degree murder. Whether I killed the person because of they way they dress or smell or owed me money or because I hate their religious beliefs or sexual preferences should not matter.

I agree with you about hate crimes. I don't think that an evaluation of the degree of malice, or what is causing that malice, should be an element of the crime.

Hate crimes laws make me very uncomfortable.