If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Make fun of an goth, punk, or emo? That's a hate crime   ( mobile.bbc.co.uk) divider line
    More: Stupid, social cohesion, table reservation, Greater Manchester, Greater Manchester Police  
•       •       •

1944 clicks; posted to Geek » on 04 Apr 2013 at 8:11 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-04-04 08:13:00 AM  
3 votes:
How do you go from a story about a beating to "make fun of"?  Idiot.
2013-04-04 09:34:02 AM  
2 votes:

doglover: Zeno-25: it's punishment for a predisposed prejudice the offender already had against the victim which contributed to the offender's motivation to commit the crime

Exactly, a thought crime.

If it's illegal to hate blacks, go break up the KKK and toss Rush Limbaugh in jail.

If it's illegal to hate whites, go break up the Black Panthers and toss Spike Lee in jail.

It it's illegal to hate latins, go break up the AZ militia and toss Adam Carolla in jail.

If it's illegal to hate (group here), go break up (their enemies's group) and toss (outspoken bigot) in jail.

But you can't because it's constitutionally protected to have the right to an opinion and express that opinion. Even, and this is important, if that opinion is horrifically amoral. It's not a crime to be a hater.

But with hate crime legislation, it is. If you are a hater and you commit a crime, hate crime laws basically say "Your opinions are illegal, too." Assault is assault. I don't care about the reasons, the law's job should be to stop it from happening again, not to make some assaults less assaulty because the assaulter wasn't racist enough. Being murdered by and equal opportunity killer doesn't make you any less dead than if they hated your social group. A crushed orbital socket doesn't magically heal faster if the guy who crushed it is the same color as you.

Hate crime is thought crime.

The thing you're missing is that, for example, if you assault a (black/Latino/gays/whatever) just because you hate (blacks/Latinos/gays/whatever), it's not just an assault.  It's also an explicit threat against every single person who shares that trait.  Same difference between writing "KILROY WAS HERE" on a wall and writing "DIE HOMO DIE" on it.  When you commit a hate crime, you're trying to "send a message".  So hate crime laws punish you for sending that message on top of the punishment for the other crime.
2013-04-04 08:03:46 AM  
2 votes:
What about if I make fun of headline submitters who don't understand how to use "a" and "an" correctly? Is that a crime, too?
2013-04-04 02:09:32 PM  
1 vote:

HeartBurnKid: I'm confused. First you complain that it's not a separate crime, then you complain that it is. Make up your mind.

I said if ti was intimidation, then prosecute it as a seperate crime, you said ti was a seperate crime.  Then you said it was a special circumstance.  You are the one who is confused.

HeartBurnKid: No. There is no requirement in hate crime legislation that you have to prove they are "sending a message".

Ummm... yes, you do. You have to prove that the victim was targeted specifically because of their membership in a certain class; otherwise, it's not a hate crime. It's just a crime.

So you fail to see the difference between the underlined? Or are you being dishonest?

HeartBurnKid: Maybe the problem is that there are more racist white shiatbags committing crimes to prove a point than racist black shiatbags committing crimes to prove a point? Just a thought

Mayeb.  but I highly doubt there are 27X as many, which makes me question how evenly the law is being applied.

Dissociater: You don't have to prove they're 'sending a message' but you do have to prove that the crime was racially motivated in order for the hate crime legislation to come into effect in the specific instance. There is no crime called 'hate crime'. A hate crime is a crime that, irrespective of whether it is racially or religiously motivated, is still a crime. You're not found innocent of all charges if the crime in question wasn't racially or religiously motivated. The 'hate' aspect of the crime only affects the seriousness of the crime, which in turn affects sentencing.

This is the same with every other aggravating factor in crime. I don't know why it's an issue at all. Crimes are more serious when aggravating factors are present. Some of these factors are apparent, such as violent crimes against the vulnerable. If the victim is a child, you don't need to prove he's vulnerable. He's a child

I think it is stupid to single out certain forms of "hate".

If you are randomly choosing people to hurt based off of nothing they did to you, but because you dislike something about the group they are in, I don't think the group you are in matters.
2013-04-04 09:55:33 AM  
1 vote:

Zeno-25: doglover: It's the mens rea or some shiat like that in lawyerese. But I do agree hate crimes are just thought crime. If you decide to beat someone up because they're alone and look weak, that's a crime and you will go to jail. But if you decide to do the same thing to someone and they belong to a different social group, you're going to jail for even longer.

The point of hate crimes isn't to punish you more for attacking someone different than you, it's punishment for a predisposed prejudice the offender already had against the victim which contributed to the offender's motivation to commit the crime. Basically, the record/testimony shows that the offender is a racist/homophobe/sexist/whatever and this contributed to the crime happening in the first place, so they deserve to be put away for longer as an example.

This is where I don't quite understand the idea of hate crimes.   If I rob a store for money to buy drugs vs. money to buy an xbox vs. money to buy food for my children, should the sentence/punishment be different in all of those cases?  The punishment to rob a store should be harsh enough to deter the act no matter the motivation.  If the punishments given for robbery are not a good enough deterrent for every reason to commit the robbery, then the punishments need to be re-examined.

I understand you are trying to assess the threat of the individual.  Did he kill the black man because he was black (then he was a threat to every black man) or did he kill the black man because he slept with his wife (then he was only a threat to the 1988 denver broncos offensive line...she was a bit of a whore).  In each case he only killed one person, but with the idea of hate crime punishments, he is being punished for the potential to murder all black men.

If the motivation behind a crime is important in how punishment is decided, then mandatory sentencing should be a glaring contradiction, since it takes into account NO motivation on the crime.  Was he selling crack in the black neighborhoods because he hates blacks or because he needed money for his kids.  Doesn't matter, he was selling crack - mandatory sentence.

I understand the difference with crimes vs. accidents (murder vs. manslaughter), but we are talking about crime vs. crime

Could we not make "human being" a protected class, then every crime becomes a hate crime and the issue goes away?
2013-04-04 08:51:10 AM  
1 vote:

doglover: Hate crime is thought crime.

Exactly. That's why the law makes no distinction whatsoever between the man who plans to murder someone and then carries out that murder and the man who murders someone in a fit of rage or as the result of an accident. The motivation and thought behind the crime never matters at all, only the final act.
2013-04-04 08:24:54 AM  
1 vote:

machoprogrammer: Hate crimes in general are stupid. If you intentionally commit a crime against someone, why should the motivation of it make for different punishment?

It's a good measure of the malice held by the offender.
Displayed 7 of 7 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.