OK, then, "intent"

One nice thing about blogging is it gives us ordinary citizens the same prerogative that members of Congress enjoy to "revise and extend" our remarks.

Several commenters argued that the previous post blurs the distinction between "motive" and "intent" -- and that rather than use these terms interchangeably, I ought to have used only "intent" throughout.

Fair enough. Let's do a universal search and replace:

* * * * * * * * *

Intent is a monumentally important part of our criminal code. Identical deeds can be very different crimes if the intent in the two cases are different. By intent, of course, we mean what the criminal is thinking. ...

Different intent, different crimes and thus appropriately different punishments. Different thoughts, different crimes and thus appropriately different punishments.

The reason I chose Tony Perkins for this little review of the obvious is that Perkins doesn't believe in any of this. He thinks any consideration of intent is out of bounds in a criminal statute. Different punishments for different intent is, to Perkins, legislating "thought crimes."

Thus, Perkins believes, there is no legitimate difference among the cases above -- no legitimate legal distinction between manslaughter and first-degree murder. To pretend there is such a distinction is to criminalize intent -- to criminalize thought.

* * * * * * * * *

The main point is unchanged. Intent matters. To pretend that hate-crimes are unique because they "criminalize intent" is to ignore that intent is a factor in almost every kind of crime. Intent can be a mitigating factor, or it can be an aggravating factor. It can be exculpatory, or it can implicate the suspect in additional crimes. This is nothing new.

If someone beats up Person X, that's a crime. Assault is assault is assault. And it's certainly true, as Perkins and the FRC argue, that assault is already against the law. But if Person X was selected as a victim because the assailant intended to "send a message" -- i.e., to terrorize -- everyone else like Person X, then the assailant has not only committed one crime. In addition to the assault, the assailant has terrorized an entire community of people, and done so intentionally. That is also a crime and those victims too deserve justice and the protection of the law.

Comments

[X]

if Person X was selected as a victim because the assailant intended to "send a message" -- i.e., to terrorize -- everyone else like Person X

Uh oh.
x=scared. People X being beaten up, Nooo!

[freebase]

While I agree that assault is assault, I side with Fred on this. Intent is very important. I know it wasn't mentioned (and doesn't really pertain to hate-crime), but I believe self-defense is also considered a type of intent. To eliminate intent from the equation *entirely* self-defense would be out of the equation too when processing cases.

[katherine]

But hate crimes laws are about motive, not intent. You should have used the word motive throughout.

That said, it's incredibly common and perfectly defensible for criminal law to take motive into account in sentencing someone for their crime, as either an aggravating or mitigating factor. For instance, in a lot of states, prosecutors can seek the death penalty if a murder was committed for pecuniary gain.

[Mabus]

Perhaps someone could clarify the distinction being made between motive and intent? Is it simply a legal definition, or is there some other shade of meaning involved?

[coriolis]

All crimes require Mens rea: a criminal mind. All crimes. Anyone who says differently is blowing smoke: purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently.

[ako]

Motive is why you committed the crime. Intent is what you intended to have happen. All acts, therefore all crimes, do have some sort of motive. You can do a deed, and in fact commit a crime, without intending to do what you did, but you have to be reckless or negligent.

Effectively, intent is whether you meant to run the person down. Motive is what you thought you were accomplishing while you ran them down. And they're both part of Mens Rea, determining if you have a guilty state of mind, a legal distinction that is applied to all crimes in most countries.

So in hate crimes, intnet would be whether you intended to target and violently assult someone of a certain group (as opposed to punching out someone who happened to be gay), and motive would be trying to chase off people like that through violence and intimidation.

[Mark]

Do you automatically have both motive and intent in every case? Take the example of the driver who had a seizure while behind the wheel? He didn't intend to run anyone over, nor did he have a motive for doing so. Or what about a case of a crime of passion. Person A walks into a room, Person B flies into a rage and clubs him over the head with a wine bottle that was just sitting there. Was there both motive and intent? Can intent form in a split second?

Just curious. I find this all fascinating.

Of course, legal hair-splitting aside, I happen to agree that hate-crime laws serve a purpose. And many who are fighting them are doing so because they want to keep on terrorizing some minority or the other. Sigh.

[ako]

Do you automatically have both motive and intent in every case?

Not really. You would automatically have motive and intent to do something; but you don't need to have a motive and intent to commit a crime. You have to have a criminal frame of mind, but not necessarily a motive or intent to commit a crime. It's more commonly divided into the purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently standard coriolis cited (they're listed in order of severity). You have to have one of those states, and motives and intent apply primarily to purposeful crimes.

Take the example of the driver who had a seizure while behind the wheel? He didn't intend to run anyone over, nor did he have a motive for doing so.

Yes, and he wouldn't have commited a crime. This is actually a good illustration of why legally the focus is on the purpose, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence (PKRN), rather than motive and intent. Because the law has to distinguish between the guy driving who suffers a spontaneous and unpredictable seizure, the guy with uncontrolled epilepsy who decides to risk it, the criminal engaged in a high speed chase, the drunk driver, and the guy who likes to drive at high speeds with his eyes closed for fun. If you just looked at intent, none of them would be intending to run anyone over, and they'd only have a motive for reckless driving, not for murder. However when you add in knowledge, recklessness, and negligence, it's easier to grade them in order of severity.

- Evading the cops in a high-speed chase through the city; Purposefully engaged in criminal activity (although not the specific crime charged), Knew that he was putting other people at risk, Reckless disregard for human life (unless it's a very unusual high-speed chase), Neglecting to follow reasonable driving standards (although if purpose, knowledge, or recklessness are established, negligence is usually not worried about). Intent is to do get away with a crime, something the law wants to strongly discourage. Possibly felony murder, or second-degree murder. At least manslaughter.

- Driving at high speeds with your eyes closed for fun; Purposefully breaking the safe driving laws (which without the other elements would probably only rate a traffic ticket), Knew that he was putting other people at risk, Reckless disregard for human life. Intent to get an adrenaline rush, something the law doesn't specifically want to discourage, but wants people not to put others at unreasonable risk for. Probably manslaughter. Possibly second-degree murder, depending on the local law.

Drunk driver; Knew or should have known he was creating a public safety risk (in some laws, "knew or should have known" works), Recklessly put other people in danger. Intent to get from point A to point B, which is fine, but not something you should put others at unreasonable risk for (although you can create reasonable risk). Probably manslaughter.

Guy with uncontrolled epilepsy; Knew he was likely to have a seizure, Neglected to take appropriate steps so he wouldn't have a seizure while driving (either get treated to prevent seizures, or don't drive). May be considered reckless, depending on the probability of seizure, possibility of preventing one, and how much effort he made to avoid having a seizure while driving. Intent, still to get from A to B, still not okay to get people killed for. Possibly negligent homicide.

Guy who'd never had any seizure before; No purpose to do anything illegal, didn't and couldn't be expected to know he'd have a seizure, didn't behave with reckless indifference to human life, didn't neglect any reasonable safety precautions. Intent still getting from A to B, not worth creating unreasonable risk, but he didn't. No crime.

Was there both motive and intent? Can intent form in a split second?

I'm going to have to punt this one. I remember from Criminal Law last semester that it was complicated, without a neat rule. My comment's probably long enough already. ;-)

[Chris]

But if Person X was selected as a victim because the assailant intended to "send a message" -- i.e., to terrorize -- everyone else like Person X, then the assailant has not only committed one crime.

No, see, you're allowed to send a message. You're allowed to send a hateful message. You're allowed to send any message you want. Except maybe the message of "fire" in a crowded but unburning theater.

What you're not allowed to do is assault someone!

[X]

Here's a message I would not be allowed to send: "Chris, I know where you live, and tonight I'm coming around with a baseball bat to break your knee caps." What, it's free speech! I mean, how could just saying anything be wrong?!?!?

The next step along is "I hate group Y. I think you're all a lot of ****ers, and if I see any of you wandering around the streets tonight I have a baseball bat, and I'm going to make you sorry that you ever existed."

Do we still have any arguments here that this sort of speech is a very very bad thing, and is NOT in any way legally (or morally) equivalent to: "I hate you and all your kin, and hope that something slightly unpleasant happens to you, like an onion falling on your head."

BTW, the classic is of course: "Now I'm not SAYING that anyone should go burn down the mill tonight, but it seems to me that if someone did..."

[Chris]

IANAL. But, really? It's illegal to say something like "I know where you live, and tonight I'm coming around with a baseball bat to break your knee caps."? I've heard that it's illegal to make such statements about the president, but I thought that was an exception -- I thought people mentioned it specifically because it's an odd exception.

It certainly doesn't seem to me that it should be illegal. What, would I rather you not WARN me you'd be coming by? And if you don't come by, or I don't believe you're actually going to come by, then I'm not harmed by you saying it. And if it seems like you're actually going to come by, then it's not what you SAID that I'd be worried about! I'd think it would fall under something like "attempted assault" there?

[Jeff]

You have to have a criminal frame of mind, but not necessarily a motive or intent to commit a crime. It's more commonly divided into the purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently standard coriolis cited (they're listed in order of severity). You have to have one of those states, and motives and intent apply primarily to purposeful crimes.

I don't understand that term. It's commonly stated that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", and people have been cited for breaking odd or obscure laws. Let's say I cross the street anywhere other than an intersection, and it's totally legal where I come from. I go somewhere else, and I don't see any signs saying I must cross at a marked intersection, so, when safe and after looking both ways, I cross in the middle of the street.

I have no "criminal mind" (I'm doing something that it would never occur to me is illegal), but I can be cited and fined even though I'm not even negligent.

I'm on a trip to Singapore, and I pop a stick of gum in my mouth. Perfectly natural behavior where I come from, and no "criminal mind", but I'm still going to get a caning.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that "criminal mind" doesn't come into play in every crime, although it would in any "purposeful crime" ("purposeful" here is loosely defined; I can be negligent -- step on the gas instead on the brake in a moment of panic -- without intending any harm.)

[ako]

I don't understand that term.

Understandable. It's a confusing phrase. "Criminal frame of mind" is a way I've heard Mens Rea paraphrased in English. "Criminal frame of mind" is sort of a tautology, basically meaning one of the states of mind necessary for a deed to be a crime. It goes back to the purposeful, knowing, negligent, or reckless idea. I didn't get much into purposeful, but it involved intentionally doing something that is illegal, not necessarily intentionally doing something that you know is illegal. If you purposefully choose to do a certain act, you do the act that you intend (without, for the moment, considering any unintended consequences) and it turns out that act is illegal, it qualifies as intentional or purposeful. Someone who was ignorant of the law but chose to buy gum, get on a plane to Singapore, then chew gum, would be judged to have committed a deliberate crime. So would some guy who moved his family to the US, and then started beating his wife bloody, which is part of the reason for that rule. It's really nothing to do with knowing you're violating a law, just how your actions relate to your choices and intents. That help clear things up?

[Jesurgislac]

Chris: IANAL. But, really? It's illegal to say something like "I know where you live, and tonight I'm coming around with a baseball bat to break your knee caps."? I've heard that it's illegal to make such statements about the president, but I thought that was an exception -- I thought people mentioned it specifically because it's an odd exception.

I don't know about US law, but in UK law, if you sent a message like that to me, yes, you would have committed a crime. Not as a serious a crime as if you actually had come round with a baseball bat and broken my kneecaps or attempted to do so, but it is a criminal offense to send abusive or threatening messages.

If it's the first time you've done this and the police establish that it's extremely unlikely that you had any real intention of carrying out your threat (for example, you didn't actually know where I live, or you were physically too far away) you are unlikely to be prosecuted for it. If you've sent more than one e-mail like this to me, though, the police might get a warrant to search your hard-drive, and if you have anything illegal on your hard-drive, you might end up in court on quite another offense.

One of the most astonishing things about the chocolate Jesus controversy was that interview with Donahue and the artist - when Donahue said, twice, that if he had the powers of the Taliban he'd have more than the artist's head cut off, and yet his adherents apparently saw nothing in this but "good ol' American free speech".

[Scott]

In addition to the assault, the assailant has terrorized an entire community of people, and done so intentionally. That is also a crime and those victims too deserve justice and the protection of the law.

As if normal street crime can't terrorize "an entire community"; they deserve the "protection of the law" they get by deterring all violent criminals. The message you want to send is that killing/beating/threatening to steal property is the more 'acceptable' motive (if A is worse then B, then B is better than A), because what's someone else's property to a leftist? The criminal is probably poorer and thus more deserving.

If I'm knifed on the street for any reason, the person who does it deserves the same punishment he'd get for knifing someone else because that person happens to be gay, or do I not deserve the same protection from the Holy and Sacred State as groups favored by leftists do?

[Scott]

If someone buys all the left wing anti-WalMart rhetoric and shoots WalMart's CEO, is that a hate crime?

If someone buys all the left wing environmental rhetoric and assaults someone getting out of an SUV, is that a hate crime?

If someone buys all the feminist rhetoric and shoots abortion protesters, is that a hate crime?

[Mnemosyne]

If someone buys all the left wing environmental rhetoric and assaults someone getting out of an SUV, is that a hate crime?

Considering that William Cottrell got 8 years in federal prison for setting fire to 125 SUVs at a dealership because it was considered a "terrorist act," I'm pretty sure that assaulting a person for the same reason would carry an even more severe penalty.

It may surprise you to hear this, but property can be replaced. A car can be replaced with another car. A house can be rebuilt if it's destroyed. But if you assault a person and their leg has to be amputated, that leg is gone. It ain't going to grow back. And if the person dies, their family can't just go out and buy a new family member the way they can go out and buy a car.

Objects are not people.

[hapax]

IANAL, but I think some folks on this list need to look up the distinction between "assault" and "battery." It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in most places, you do not need to commit actual violence to be guilt of assault -- a credible threat to "come around to your place after dark and break your kneecaps" would do it.

Scott @11:27 -- well, by MY understanding, all your examples are indeed hate crimes. I'm pretty much a First Amendment absolutist, but if the intent was to "send a terrorizing message" to Wal-Mart shoppers, SUV drivers, and abortion providers *as a group*(as opposed to, say, punish Lee Scott for his crappy policies, keep that particular driving from wasting more gasoline, or stop those particular providers from perfoming any more abortions.) I'd even agree with you that if a particular communist mugger was assaulting victims and stealing their wallets *with the intent of terrorizing other wallet-carriers into abandoning the capitalist system* (rather than appropriating that particular schmuck's billfold), that would be a hate crime as well.

Yes, it's a tricky distinction -- but as others have pointed out repeatedly, that's why we have a jury system.

[the opoponax]

i think if the act is political in nature, rather than motivated by a particular bigotry, it falls more in the territory of "terrorism" than "hate crime". though inasmuch as the two are different sides of the same coin, i'm not sure the distinction matters all that much.

if i drove my car into a knot of anti-abortion protesters outside a clinic, killing several of them, and my intent/motive was to send a message to all anti-abortion protesters, that would be terrorism, not a hate crime.

the same reason that 9/11 was terrorism, not a hate crime, or just garden variety mass murder. at the center of those attacks was a desire to send a political message to the US and/or the west. not a racial or religious one -- had the attackers crashed their planes into megachurches in Houston and Colorado Springs, now that would be a hate crime (writ large, of course).

also, @ Chris: my threat of coming over there and breaking your knees as an example to "your kind" in and of itself is necessarily illegal, or a hate crime. but if i said that to you, and then i actually did it, that would be pretty damning evidence that what had occurred was a hate crime. that sort of speech is protected, in that it isn't a crime to say such a thing. but at the same time, that sort of speech can have consequences, just as any other speech can. for instance it can be used against you in a court of law. just as, for instance, my saying "i sure would love to rape babies" would, if i were ever suspected of actually doing such a thing.

[the opoponax]

wait, shit. when i said "my threat... in and of it self is necessarily...", what i meant was is NOT necessarily. sorry bout that...

[pharoute]

Wow you people are serious, I was hoping this thread would devolve to "Is the beginning sound on Law & Order 'Dun-Dun", "Chun-Chunk", or "Clun-Clunk"?

Happy Easter Everybody! "Looooo LOOOOOO La LOO LOO LOO la LOO..."

[Lila]

Almost completely off-topic, but this does have something to do with intent, and with breaking the rules:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2007/04/rwanda_genocide.html

(hilzoy at Obsidian Wings on UN military observer Mbaye Diagne)

[Reverend Ref]

Okay . . . all of this has been incredibly fascinating. One of the reasons I visit Slack is because of the depth of discussion that is generated (the other, of course, being LB Fridays!).

So Mr. Perkins is against hate crimes ("Thought Crimes" as he puts it) because there are already laws on the books for a variety of crimes (assault, murder, theft, etc), and by adding hate crimes into the mix you create a special class of people. On the most basic level, he's saying, "Everyone is equal, nobody should be attacked, and no one group of people should claim special rights because we are all protected equally."

Here's my question: Does this mean that the FRC will quit screaming about how Christians are marginalized and treated as second-class citizens because they aren't given special protection?

Just wondering.

May you all have a blessed Easter season.

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

opoponax, it sounds like you see a distinction between "hate crime" and "terrorism" that depends upon the target of the message. That is, it's a "hate crime" if the target is a racial, ethnic, or religious group, but it's "terrorism" if it's a political group. Is that what you're saying?

(I don't think I agree with you, which of course isn't the end of the world; but I'd like to be sure of what it is I'm disagreeing with.)

[X]

Opo:
IANAL either, and I don't know about the US, but in Canada announcing an intention that to assault someone can indeed be considered an actual assault, if it appears that you are actually serious about carrying out the action. Basically, if someone has advertised that they are putting your life and limb in danger, you don't have to wait for them to actually do the deed before you can act against them. Obviously there has to be a healthy dose of discretion in how this is applied, because you can't go arresting everyone who's ever shouted "I wish you were dead". But that said, credible threats are covered along with extortion, fraud and incitement to violence as non-protected speech.

As a foot note, I know that "uttering death threats" is something you can be charged with, and I'm pretty sure it extends to cover threatened assault too.

[the bunny]

IANAL but the "Law and Order" sound is supposed to be the clanking of a cell door.

[ako]

It has to be a very specific and credible threat, but threatening someone can be a crime in the US as well. If someone says, "I'm going to find where you sleep tonight and set fire to the building," in a way that leads you to think he's serious, you don't have to stay up all night circling the building and checking for gasoline before calling the cops. Death threats are one of the classic legal exemptions to the first amendment, although they do tend to be narrowly defined. Something like "If your house burned down tonight, and they pulled your charred corpse from the rubble, that would make my day," or "wouldn't it be great if he got run over in the street?" isn't considered a death threat under normal circumstances. Neither is something that would otherwise be a death threat, but in context isn't, like where I just typed "I'm going to find where you sleep tonight and set fire to the building," which is clearly an example.

Also, something that would not, in of itself constitute a death threat under normal circumstances if it's clear that everyone knows what it means. For instance if someone on an anti-Slacktivist crusade started sending us all Left Behind books in the mail, with the words "Read and learn" written on the inside cover, that wouldn't normally be a threat at all. But if anyone who'd gotten the books and then went on to post in the comment thread again was killed, this happened enough to form an obvious pattern, and someone who knew about this but had no intention of killing us started mailing out the "Read and learn" books to scare us all out of posting, then that would still be a threat.

[the opoponax]

first order of business -- wtf is this IANAL business about?

@ Nicole: it's not so much about the nature of the group, but the nature of the act. if the message i'm trying to send is political in nature, and not motivated by race, gender, religion, etc. it's not a hate crime, but possibly/probably terrorism. 9/11 wasn't a hate crime, because it wasn't an attack on any particular group of that nature. in fact, it wasn't an attack on any particular group at all, other than "people who happened to be in the general vicinity of the World Trade Center at 9AM on September 11, 2001." and yet it was quite clearly meant to sent a political message.

yet if the same group had bombed the campus of Yeshiva University, killing an equal number of people, that could be interpreted as a hate crime, if it were clear that the message being sent wasn't political (stop sending so much money to Israel!) but religious (Jews must die!).

this is all counter to Scott's supposition that someone who killed anti-abortion protesters would have committed a "hate crime". which doesn't really work -- that would just be terrorism.

[Jesurgislac]

IANAL=I Am Not A Lawyer

Googling on an unknown acronym often produces good results. Googling on IANAL got me this

[Jesurgislac]

er, this.

[PK]

Perkins and friends oppose hate crimes legislation because of slippery slope fears. They imagine the Bible being banned as hate speech for Leviticus 20:13 and such.

[Stacy]

PK: could be, but I imagine somewhat more immediate fears. They oppose hate crimes legislation because they kind of like engaging in hate speech, and have been known to have followers who engage in actual hate crimes.

Also, why are so many people who are opposed to hate crime legislation all in favor of Gitmo-style special handling of terrorists? After all, crashing planes into buildings is already against the law, no need to add "terrorism" to the indictment, right?

[Bugmaster]

Yes, I actually oppose both hate crime laws and Gitmo. Go figure.

Anyway, IANAL, but I think that "intent" was, historically, a way to determine whether your murder was premeditated -- not why it was premeditated, necessarily.

Anyway, I hate bigoted speech as much as anyone, but I still believe that it should be protected, for several reasons:

• Tomorrow, something you say will be considered by someone as bigoted -- guaranteed.
• If you can't talk about it, you can't expose it for the bigotry that it is
• Who decides what is bigoted speech and what's not ?

There are others, these are just the top three. In other words, I don't particularly want the KKK to parade on my street, but I think that they do have the right.

I don't believe that hate crime laws deter hate crime better than regular laws do, but I do believe that they stifle free speech, which makes them a lose-lose proposition.

[the opoponax]

Hate crime laws and the protection of hate speech are not mutually exclusive.

[the opoponax]

i was thinking a little more about this whole issue this morning on my way into work.

i basically approach the concept of hate crime legislation as something that will protect me and the people i love.

most people who are against hate crime legislation feel that it would be a liability for themselves or the people they love. does that then mean that people who are against hate crime legislation are, therefore bigoted or sympathetic to bigotry? that the first thing that crosses the minds of many straight white men is "this means i'm going to get sent down the river!" is really troubling to me.

[Patrick McGonegal]

Hate crime legislation is a personal interest of mine. I love reading about how people try to justify it. Your article here claims that if a target is picked to provoke fear in others, the criminal has somehow violated some right of these individuals not to be afraid...

That is a pretty sloppy legal distinction. So, if the criminal beats up and old man, all old men everywhere are going to be afraid? Or just those living within x miles of where the crime was committed? Or just those with beards? Or just those wearing plaid shirts?

So, if the criminal beats up a gay man, all gay men are going to be afraid? Or just those living withing x miles of where the crime was committed? Or just those with eyeshadow? Or just those wearing heels?

It doesn't take much rational thought to understand why hate crime legislation is unethical: because it diminishes the human value of those who were harmed or attacked in a situation that did not rise to the definition of "hate crime". This type of legislation introduces a whole new tier of complexity to our legal system that has no place there. It slants the prosecution in a particular directions.

Example: a stranger in a bar makes a social faux pas and ends up getting his butt kicked. He presses charges. The police investigate, but are loathe to prosecute a local in a he-said, he-said scenario where: 1. they know the perpetrator and, 2. the stranger admitted to having made some less-than-intelligent remarks.

The stranger sees this hesitation on the part of the prosecution and decides to up the ante. He claims that he's gay and that the only reason he was beat up was because the perpetrator was looking for a reason to pound on him because of his homosexuality.

The law enforcement folks would be hard pressed to ascertain whether or not the fellow was actually gay. He may just be pissed off because he didn't win the fight. But if any hate crime legislation is on the books, the police and the legal system would be constricted as to how they would be able to proceed.

A crime is a crime is a crime. When we start making it legally more heinous to beat up, oppress, harm, or kill a certain type of individual, we are diminishing the rights of everyone else. Where do we draw the line? Do we protect rich people in poor neighborhoods because they are the minority? Do we protect yuppies in cattle country? This is ridiculous. Beating someone up, abusing them or killing them is a crime in and of itself. What led the criminal to do it serves only to convict, not to justify additional sentencing.

I think it is childish and ignorant to assign moral values on the lives of our citizens based on there demographic. It should be no more shocking that a white, heterosexual male was beaten in a bar than it should be for a black, homosexual male who was beaten in a bar. A homeless man in an alleyway has just as much right not to be attacked as gay yuppie in a Galveston bar.

As for the "message" sent by "hate crimes"... that is part of the drawback of a free society. We are free to be racist. We are free to be homophobic. And we are free to notify our fellow citizens of these convictions. When a racist beats up a black man, he is sending the same message that an unknown criminal who mugs and old lady is sending. They are both saying they don't care about civilized society and they should be locked up. Period. To differentiate between the two is to belittle the very idea of justice.

[e. nonee moose]

the assailant has not only committed one crime. In addition to the assault, the assailant has terrorized an entire community of people, and done so intentionally. That is also a crime

Storing this in my "answers-to-stupid-questions" file.

[the opoponax]

if the criminal beats up and old man, all old men everywhere are going to be afraid?

i think you're completely misunderstanding the nature of hate crimes, here.

a hate crime is not any time you commit a crime against a certain protected group. if my girlfriend leaves me for a black guy, and i go find him and kick his ass, that's not a hate crime even though i'm white and he's black.

a hate crime is when you commit a crime against a person motivated completely or almost completely from bigotry IN ORDER TO send a message to people of that group. and there has to be a lot of evidence that this is the case for hate crime to be applied. this is what judges are for. this is what juries are for. this is how criminal law works.

[the opoponax]

we are diminishing the rights of everyone else.

by which you mean "we are diminishing the rights of more powerful groups to continue to oppress those who are less powerful".

it's funny. my roommate apparently doesn't have "the right" to live in a convenient and affordable roommate. i apparently don't have "the right" to hold hands with a lover in public. but straight white men's right to keep things that way should be protected.

[the opoponax]

that should be "convenient and affordable neighborhood". sorry.

[Bugmaster]

most people who are against hate crime legislation feel that it would be a liability for themselves or the people they love.

No, I'm not against hate crime laws because it would stop me from beating up minorities, if that's what you mean. I'm against hate crime laws because I want to live in a society where all people are treated fairly, and where I am free to say whatever I want (barring yelling fire in theaters), and everyone else is free to do the same. Hm, ok, so I guess I am against hate crime laws because I want a better life for myself and the people I love, albeit indirectly.

For example, I find it really hateful when opoponax says, "if you're against hate crime laws, then you're a misogynistic racist bigot". But, if someone wants to outlaw that kind of speech, I'd fight to preserve it. And if I ever beat up opoponax, I expect to be prosecuted, for beating up opoponax personally -- not for whatever thoughts I happen to be thinking at the time. If opoponax beats me up, I expect her to get prosecuted the same way, and get the same exact penalty, regardless of my race or hair color. Similarly, I would absolutely fight for opoponax's right to hold hands with anyone she wants in public. If someone beats her up for doing that, I expect the to be prosecuted accordingly. You beat up opoponax, you go to jail, period. I believe this is what "fair trial" means. Really, why is this so difficult to accept ?

And yes, hate crime laws are not mutually exclusive with free speech. They don't stop it. They just dampen it, quite a bit. I don't find that acceptable. Now that I think about it, I'd rather have bigoted people proclaiming their bigotry from the rooftops, making fools of themselves, as opposed to skulking in dark alleys muttering to themselves; this allows the rest of society to dish out the scorn that bigots so richly deserve.

[Jeff]

I don't particularly want the KKK to parade on my street, but I think that they do have the right.

So does the ACLU. And I agree. The KKK got to march down the streets of Stokie, Ohio, which were deserted that day. They made their speeches to no-one and went home.

And if I ever beat up opoponax... if opoponax beats me up

My bets are on opoponax!

Bugmaster, did you see my example of the Latinos beating up a few blacks and saying "No blacks north of 150th Street!"? Surely, there's a crime beyond a couple of assault and batteries. In fact, "clear and present danger" is the cite given for yelling "Fire"; wouldn't this example also show a clear and present danger that limits free speech?

[hf]

Bugmaster, think about what you're saying. Hate crime laws do not punish speech, they punish crimes if these crimes derive from bigotry. Yet you say you oppose such laws because they would dampen noxious speech. Well, hopefully they would discourage people from making bigoted remarks as a secondary effect, because any successful movement against bigotry must do exactly that. I assume you have no objection to people dampening bigotry in private life (because you are not a compete moron). Yet you apparently think any government act that has this effect must be evil, even when it primarily aims to stop violence and does not punish anyone unless we convict them of an existing crime! You know, I'll bet anti-assault laws indirectly help discourage people from shouting obscenities in a public place. Surely we must remove this threat to free speech!

We could theoretically imagine hate crime laws that courts could use to punish jaywalkers who make offensive statements. I would therefore support restrictions on the types of crimes we can include, if it seems necessary. But in principle hate crime laws serve the central purpose of government.

[Jesurgislac]

I'm against hate crime laws because I want to live in a society where all people are treated fairly

Actually, you make clear below that you don't want to live in a society where all people are treated fairly: you want to live in a society where you and the people you love can continue to be a privileged class.

and where I am free to say whatever I want (barring yelling fire in theaters), and everyone else is free to do the same. Hm, ok, so I guess I am against hate crime laws because I want a better life for myself and the people I love, albeit indirectly.

I guess you're telling us that you're a straight white guy and that the people you love are all also white. And straight.

[hf]

That should be: directly serve the central purpose of government. They punish those who use violence or arson to terrorize people.

[Jesurgislac]

Bugmaster: Now that I think about it, I'd rather have bigoted people proclaiming their bigotry from the rooftops, making fools of themselves, as opposed to skulking in dark alleys muttering to themselves

Oh, I can't resist this.

BM, I've experienced bigoted people proclaiming their bigotry from the rooftops, or rather, directly at me. It was no fun. It was scary and unpleasant. They felt free to do so because they didn't consider that telling me how inferior women are or how disgusting lesbians are or how repulsive any queer person is "made idiots of them": they felt free to do so because they assumed (and got) societal approval for doing so, and thus got to drive me and the people I loved into dark alleys muttering to ourselves.

Of course I'd rather the bigots were in dark alleys muttering to themselves - metaphorically or literally. Why wouldn't I? Why wouldn't anyone who had actual experience of bigots who feel free to say what they like to you?

[X]

Someone: "we are diminishing the rights of everyone else."

Opo replies: "by which you mean "we are diminishing the rights of more powerful groups to continue to oppress those who are less powerful". "

No, I don't think that's what hte original quote was getting at. The logic in the first claim is that "if one person is extra protected, then everyone else is by definition less protected." It's not a (directly) patriarchal thought, and labelling it as such introduces an extra layer of complexity that just gets people more confused.

I think the best objection to the statement is just that it is missunderstanding of what hate crime laws say. They don't ban all hate. In a country with hate crime laws you can still legally say all sorts of hateful things, and you can still commit lots of crimes against "protected" groups without any extra penalty. The difference is that you cannot take actions that any reasonable observer would know puts people in fear of their lives.

Bugmaster, do you honestly believe that if I make all sorts of highly credible and believable threats that I am going to burn your house down tonight, that nobody should be able to lay a finger on me until I am caught on the scene in the act of sloshing gasoline on your walls, with a lighter in my pocket? just to clarify

[X]

Jesu:

an excellent post, except I don't believe that it is actually illegal to make remarks that belittle someone for their group membership. Is it? I certainly took all sorts of abuse for being a nerd as I grew up, and while it was hurtful and left impressions on me, I don't believe it was illegal behavior. Immoral? Certainly. Dispicable? Definitely? Legally hate speech? No.

BTW, clearly the abuse i received was not as extreme as the abuse you have received, but neither was it entirely negligible. It did involve a certain amount of violence at times.

[Ursula L]

Hate-crime law strikes me as particularly important for a democracy, because the temptation to turn political disagreements into physical fights is a specific and serious threat to the maintenance of a successful civil order.

The "classic" examples of hate crimes - bombing the churches where civil rights organizers met, assaulting black citizens who registered to vote, shooting doctors who provide abortion - all involve not just a crime, but the attempt to use that crime to achieve a political end. And to achieve that political end without using the political process, subverting the political methods for achieving social and political goals.

A democracy where people who disagree with the political order use violence to gain their goals doesn't stay a democracy for long. Even if the forms of democracy are kept intact, the substance isn't there if people are prevented by terrorism from organizing to achieve their goals, or from participating in the process.

So I'd add a third crime to the hate crimes list:

1. The physical assault
2. The terrorism directed at a particular group
3. The subversion of democracy and the political process (I'm not quite sure what the formal name would be for this. Treason?)

[Jeff]

I guess you're telling us that you're a straight white guy and that the people you love are all also white. And straight.

While this may be true, I don't think it helps. It shifts the argument from "hate crime is a special type of crime, and needs to be recognized as such" to "I Blame The Patriarchy!". Bugmaster will then respond to the latter statement and ignore the first; or, at the very least, his response will be colored by the IBTP statement.

More constructive, in my opinion, is to give examples like the in Long Beach -- the black girls attacking white girls was a form of hate crime.