I was having a conversation with a friend of mine on a long drive back from a business trip. We were talking about the problems with legislation and of course the topic of hate crimes came up.

His assertion was that hate crimes basically become a form of thought policing. I've read this argument before and wasn't persuaded. Though lengthy conversation I began to understand his point. While I personally cared less about policing thought, I was interested in policing action and words said during such actions influence any jury.

He contended that our society is in no way interested in treating people with decency and respect. We went into a long discussion about how children are talking back to their parents and saying horrible horrible things. Now the child didn't really mean it, but they were too immature to vocalize their true feelings.

I grant him this.

He too gave ground, acknowledging that in many cases what we think of hate crimes are under-investigated and under-prosecuted due to the personal biases of those involved.

Anyway... long story short, this is what I came up with...

Instead of having "hate crimes" would everyone support a crimes review board? Instead of punishing people who say stupid things, it would punish professionals for not doing their due diligence. Basically the obligation of the police is to fully investigate and the duty of the prosecutor is to fully prosecute. Failure to do so is tantamount to professional negligence.

This would allow a special review board to step in, aid with investigation, prosecution, and if necessary a change of venue...

This way we are prosecuting the crimes, and ensuring that all crimes are prosecuted instead of merely the crimes that impact people we like.

__________________

In theory that would be fine, just like in theory hate crime laws are fine. The devil is in the details of executing it in the real world.

__________________
_____________________________________________
Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -Friedrich Nietzsche, philosopher (1844-1900)
_____________________________________________

Just an old sweet song keeps Georgia on my mind

In our legal system, we have a LONG history of utilizing the motive in evaluating a sentencing length. Our historical precedent of using motive comes from the European standard which existed even longer before that.

"Hate Crimes" have a basic level of understanding that two crimes are not created equal.
A man kills his sick wife in the hospital. He tries to make it look "natural".
A) The man's motive is one based in a mercy killing. The wife has many months of painful suffering ahead of her, and the man wishes to spare her that.
B) The man's motive is one of greed. He wants the wife's insurance money, and is dissatisfied that she won't die sooner.

Crimes with different motives are not created equally.
Just look at the crime of "John ended Mark's life".
We have multiple levels of "Murder" and different types of "manslaughter" based on the THOUGHTS of John at the time of the crime.
I John were motivated based on a concern for protecting his own life, our judicial system has allowances for that motive to excuse his crime...

I find it interesting that people will complain about the motive of a "hate crime" being considered, but that is just a ridiculously small portion of the MUCH LARGER picture of how our judicial system considers motive during sentencing.

Furthermore, people don't complain about how the motive is brought up in a murder trial WITHOUT any hate crime, but they will complain about it being used as a "hate crime"...


In addition, the justification for hate crimes is not just ensuring the crime is prosecuted.
I think this article sums it up best, in describing a Supreme Court ruling on hate crimes (involving black assailants and a white victim).

Moreover, the Wisconsin statute singles out for enhancement bias-inspired conduct because this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm. For example, according to the State and its amici, bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest. The State's desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases. As Blackstone said long ago, "it is but reasonable that among crimes of different natures those should be most severely punished, which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness."

Wisconsin v Mitchell

When the purpose of a crime is to victimize not just the person that is assaulted, by to send a message of terror to all who share the characteristic in question, that terrorizing behavior should not be ignored during sentencing.

__________________
Republicans have a sweet racket because they run on "government is ineffective," and then when they **** things up, they go, "See." – Bill Maher

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint.
When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist."
--Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara

Absolutely NOT!...

Just the thought of this reminds me of a little red Mao book...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Well how else would you suggest ensuring enforcement of laws on the books? Victims often cannot speak for themselves, and if the state doesn't do it for them (as is their responsibility), then who will?

__________________

You don't give the judicial system enough credit...I think you just insulted every attorney general and state prosecutor who've spent the last 200+ years "speaking" for victims...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Well it was an if-then statement... There are times that the system fails. Prosecutors fail to put any heart into it because of their personal bias. Police do the same. For the most part, this happens rarely, but when it happens it generally happens in a case where a minority is involved. There must be an avenue for action at that point.

So if they fail, call X.

__________________

Yea sure we should charge officers of the law and of the court with all kinds of crimes. As if it is not already a tough and hazardous occupation already. Heck lets do the CIA and why not congress too?



Whether it was a "hate crime" or not is for the SENTENCING part of the trial for what the person did. After the conviction is when the "degree of guilt" comes into the process.

Another part of what is going wrong with our courts is that evidence is allowed to be excluded. First and foremost in a trial is determination of fact and TRUTH.

Finally the "insanity defense" is again what should not come in until the SENTENCING phase.

__________________
"Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively and without self delusion---In the long run these are the only people that count." ***** Robert Heinlein

why rethink hate crimes, there was never a need in the first place. OPPS, I forgot, it for all the group think people out there.

Hate Crimes = Political correctness run amok!

__________________
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.
Thomas Jefferson

* An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia regatur orbis?
o Translation: "Don't you know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?


VIVE LIBERTE'

The reason for hate crimes has been repeatedly explained to you.

Crimes that go above and beyond, targeting a group of society with a terroristic message, are more heinous crimes.

And "group think people"?
Give it a rest.
Even amongst just Republicans, there is a MAJORITY who support hate crime legislation.

__________________
Republicans have a sweet racket because they run on "government is ineffective," and then when they **** things up, they go, "See." – Bill Maher

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint.
When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist."
--Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara