We have serious deep racial problems in this country. But two wrongs don't make a right. Punish actual crimes. Laws that punish thoughts are worse than the thoughts they seek to end.

Its not that hate crimes aren't worse than "greed crimes" or "carelessness crimes." They certainly are. The ill effects of hate crimes radiate through society in a different and more destructive way than other crimes, but we must approach this particular problem through mature adult solutions, not simple revenge. By "getting tough on hate crime", the state not only fails to solve the problem, it actually becomes a hate criminal itself.

By augmenting a punishment because of the thought that accompanied the crime, you are essentially singling out certain thoughts for punishment. This is patently unconstitutional, ineffective, and extremely stupid. In fact it's worse. By enacting hate crimes laws, the tyranny of the majority is using the state to perpetrate hate crimes against thought-minorities.

We have a right as a society to outlaw certain destructive actions. We don't have a right to outlaw thoughts or speech.

The state should punish actions and nothing else. Thoughts and speech, no matter how abhorrent and damaging, are protected by the 1st amendment. As citizens of a constitutional democracy, we are duty-bound to end all hate crimes laws immediately. They're just absolute nonsense.

I agree. To put it simply, these actions are already crimes, usually with some leeway in sentencing, so there is no positive reason for having these distinctions either. We don't need a special class of "hate crimes", but to punish these crimes within the framework we already have. The judge can put the punishment at the harsher end of the spectrum if they see fit.

One quibble: there ARE crimes brought about by "lesser" vices (such as greed) that are worse than some hate crimes. If a robber (or hitman) kills people for money but another person vadalizes property as a "hate crime", I think there is no question that the killing is worse. This whole thing is stupid. Punish the crime according to its severity.

I really hate it when nimrods call hate crime additions to a crime "thought crimes". Many crimes on the books are colored by the mental process going on in the criminal's mind. Was it "premeditated" or was it just "negligence". How about "reckless"? And don't forget "knowingly". Those are all different states of mind that go into making up elements of certain crimes.

It's sad that you people don't know this. Maybe you're ignorant and never have studied laws, but watch a few episodes of Law & Order and you'd know these things (you don't have to be a cop or go to law school).

Yes, thoughts and speech are protected - up to a point. "I want to kill you" isn't protected speech - and neither is "I want to kill you because you are a ..." <fill in the blank>

I'd tell you to THINK, PEOPLE - but you've proven yourselves incapable of rational thought, so I'll just put this down here for the smart people to read.

If you shoot someone on purpose you must not like them to begin with. Obviously you already hate them for some reason.

I think what throws people off is the use of the word "hate." These should instead be called "group" crimes, or terrorism. Like ard_vrk said, the criminal is stating "I want to kill you because you are a ..." Because they are a member of a group. That individual did nothing to upset them, but they are targeting the group in order to intimidate all members of that group. That is clearly a different crime than a straightforward murder of one person by another.

Saying "I hate Yemenis" is constitutionally protected speech. Horrible, destructive, but protected. Punching a Yemeni gets you an assault conviction. Punching a Yemeni while saying "I hate Yemenis" gets you hate crime conviction, more severe than just assault.

This is a clear cut case of the attempt to criminalize constitutionally protected speech. The difference in the two punishments is a punishment for the THE THOUGHT ALONE. These are not fighting words... If they had been uttered without violence, they would not have posed a clear and present danger congress has a right to prevent. And you've already been punished for the "fighting" part of it. So further re-casting of the hate speech as "fighting words" is tantamount to double jeapordy, even without the 1st amendment problem.

Hate crimes laws are an unconstitutional overreach of a tyrannical unthoughtful majority.

And while we're at it... I'm quite aware that there are other times when we routinely take into account the criminal's state of mind. I just think thats really a logical dead end. Punish the action. Our justice system needs to protect the rest of us (though confinement, deterrence, and rehabilitation) and THATS IT. We should not be trying to make the state into the arbiter of absolute moral justice. Our courts are not built for than nor ever could be. All we should be doing in assessing guilt is: what are the results of the action?, what are the chances they'll do it again?, and how might we best protect society from the person?

I had a friend in college who was Jewish. He thought it would be funny to steal baby Jesuses from manger scenes around town. It wasn't that funny. They caught him and used the hate crimes law to get a more severe sentence when he plea bargained. Bunch of community service.

Obviously he didn't hate Christians. Sure it was a dumb and criminal thing to do... But it would be absurd to call it a "hate crime". So he's suffering more because of his race, ethnicity, and faith... The state essentially perpetrated a "hate crime" right back at him. And of course the state wasn't prosecuted.

These laws do not solve the problems they claim to be built for. They're just another lever for the majority to use abuse the state's resources to terrorize people who are in the minority because of their thoughts, or even in some cases their racial/ethnic/religious status.

Mental states have do have to be determined in some circumstances to enforce the law but I believe such inherently messy determinations should be avoided when possible. Generally, people should be judged by their behavior.

Your First Amendment example is inaccurate - whether hate speech is protected depends on, among other things, the danger it is deemed to pose.

"I'd tell you to THINK, PEOPLE - but you've proven yourselves incapable of rational thought, so I'll just put this down here for the smart people to read."

Treating your own viewpoint as being so superior to those of the other well-reasoned posts on this thread is an act of arrogance not intelligence. A little humility would do you a lot of good.

Actually, ard_vrk, I think that you are the one who is in fact confusing two different things. When you are talking about the difference between a killing being "premeditated" versus being "accidental", you are talking about intent. Intent is an important distinction that legal statutes for murder in almost every state make because it establishes the fundamental difference between murder (an intentional, premeditated act of killing) versus manslaughter (an accidental, or unintentional killing). Note however, that there is a subtle but distinct difference between "intent" and "motive". "Intent", in legal terms, defines what the accused meant, or did not mean, to have happen. If you a go and shoot someone, you intended to kill them (murder), whereas if you accidentally run someone over with your car, it's unintentional (manslaughter).

"Motive" seeks to answer the question "why?" Why did you pick up a gun and start shooting people? THIS is the area where hate crimes come into play, not in considering intent. The reason why many people (including many legal experts) have a problem with it, is because considerations of the motive behind a crime are traditionally left to the sentencing phase of a trial, not the prosecutory phase. To become convicted of a felony murder, the prosecution merely has to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that you did in fact commit the crime; they don't necessarily have to prove WHY you did it (indeed, in many cases its not even clear what the motivation was, so if that was a necessary criteria for a conviction, it would severely hinder prosecution to the point of being an undue burden). So during the sentencing phase, the judge ALREADY has discretion to add a harsher sentence in light of evidence that the defendent committed the act for any reason deemed particularly heinous. What hate crime laws do (and again, what many people including legal experts have a problem with) is the fact that it imposes a requirement upon the judge and/or the district attorney to either seek out (the DA) or impose (the judge) a harsher sentence on the basis of the accused MOTIVES, which incidentally the prosecution is not really required to prove in the first place to get a murder conviction.

What this means, in real non-legal terms, is that a defendent (as other people on this forum have stated) can get unfairly penalized for even having the thought of a racist/bigotted/whatever act. And while, on the surface, it may seem desirable to do everything we can to prevent people from having racist of bigotted thoughts, in actuality it is clearly a violation of that person's First Ammendment rights to have any racist or bigotted thoughts that they darn well please.

The original poster is right. Adding additional penalties for what was going through a person's mind when they killed or hurt someone is not right or helpful in solving the problem. "premedit[ing] actions," "negligence," and being "reckless" are not against the law. The content into which you put these words has to do with intent. In other words, "meaning to" or "not meaning to" and everything in between. You’re correct. Saying "I want to kill you" and "I want to kill you because you're [homosexual]." are not protected forms of speech, but the intent of both is the same: to take a life.

In promoting hate crime law, you are stating that the life that has been purposely taken matters more for a white man killed because his color was not liked by a black man, than it does for John Doe killed by a robber at 7 eleven. In addition, the root of the problem in this case- racism- is not addressed by hate crime laws. In this case, it is obvious that the intent of the defendant was to take the life of those with Liberal religious views, but how do you go about proving it was motivated by such reasons if the suspect does not explicitly state so? People will still kill and harm out of racism, except now they will do so passively.

I wish you hadn't "put it down for "smart people(?) to read," now we are a little less smart. By the way, It's not "studied laws," it's studied law. It seems you're hardly a scholar of jurisprudence yourself; I could hold that against you, and say that you are likewise "incapable of rational thought," but that would undermine your own argument as to why hate crime laws are enacted to begin with. I wouldn't want to do that now, would I?

Kudos to Ronathon and Alaskaboy and a few others. I'm glad this thread provoked such enlightening responses. Only one half-wit out of the bunch ain't bad!

I really think it's our duty to promote more criticism of these and other terrible laws. I guess my question now is: What do we do about it? Who do we vote for?

The very idea of a "hate crime" is bankrupt, in that it presupposes that a life taken in one set of circumstances is worth more then another's taken in a differing set. More then anything, the idea of hate crimes is another example of political pandering to a fragmented electorate.

He was called a (fill in the group of your choice), before being beaten up? Oh my, we have to do something to protect that group so let's extend the law and add onto it a special provision, that will make us, the politicians feel better and might get us a few more votes or contributions.

As the underlying principle is equality before the law, the concept of "protected groups" is absurd. Likewise, to be blunt..the dead guy is dead..so whether the killer gets life without parole; or life without parole plus an additional 25 years for special circumstances only appeals to those who knew or are part of the deceased's group. Along the same line, if the purpose of the law is to deter future crimes; does anyone really think that some bigot is going to be affected by these laws; and if you answer no to that question then you are admitting, that these "hate crime laws" are not about deterrence, but rather revenge. Personally, I don't have anything against revenge, but let's be honest about it.

The whole thing makes me wonder, how far do we extend this, after all if a pissed off former employee comes in and shoots his boss, calling him let's say..an asshole manager..does that put middle management into the hate crimes group.

great discussion, all. I used to think hate crime policy was a good idea, and slowly matured my way to seeing it for what it is, as this topic correctly identifies. Wanna know the real sad part?

It didn't all click until an episode of South Park. No joke.

<link>

gotta love South Park

I agree with your points, damon2, but you have to admit that there are many examples in our legal system of unequal punishments and unjust laws. I could make many of the same arguments about the death penalty that you make about hate crime laws. Look at how much money we spend on the so-called "War on Drugs", and how we sentence drug offenders, whereas if you rape someone you are likely to get 5 years or less as long as you didn't kill the victim. Nobody ever thinks about the effect of laws like Megan's Law or the Patriot Act on civil liberties, because we all want to feel safe an secure, and our politicians manage to spin the issue to make it impossible for anyone to oppose their agenda. It's insanity.

If I actually managed to get face-to-face with either of the two candidates for president, you know what I would ask them? I would ask them "Instead of telling me what new laws you would pass to improve our lives in some way, tell me what law you would choose to REPEAL. Identify some law that you think is unnecessary and that you would like to see overturned."

You know, now that I think about it, if they manage to do another YouTube debate where people can submit un-screened questions, I may just submit that one. The more I think about it, the more I think I would really like an answer.