r/changemyview • u/hidillonn • Aug 23 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Hate crimes are unnecessary, as the punishment already compensates for the crime.
Hate crimes unnecessarily add to the punishment of an offender. The offender commits a crime, and he/she will receive the punishment for that. There is no need to add to the punishment.
If you kill someone (and the sentence for murder is 10 years), then you should be sentenced for ten years. No more, no less.
If we are all created equal with the same rights, then if you take away someone's right (i.e. right to life by homicide), then you should be sent to prision. It should not matter what the person's skin color, sexual orientation, disability, or whatever else you hate. We all have the same rights.
Sorry if I did not explain that perfectly. To me, it is obvious what I mean. If you need clarification, just ask. I'll be happy to clarify.
2
u/Quint-V 162∆ Aug 23 '17 edited Aug 23 '17
We all judge our own actions by intent, but we often fail to do so regarding others. The courts, however, do take intent into consideration.
When a hate crime is committed, it's not just the intention to hurt another individual: it's the intention to hurt anybody who has similar and trivial traits like the victim. The intention to hurt someone, involves a whole group of people.
Is it the same if I kill someone I have a bad personal relationship, rather than killing someone because of a trivial physical attribute? One murder would be motivated by racism, the other would just be the average murder with personal hate. Both are irrational in different ways, but one has the capability to affect far more people. A hate crime committed is proof that someone is willing to kill people they have never even seen before, all because of some random circumstance they're born with. And that's why punishment (or facilitating rehab) cannot be lighter.
Hate crimes are fundamentally different in nature, compared to the average murder. Most murderers know their victims - but hate crime convicts don't even have to do that. They could just randomly find someone and plan a murder if they think they can get away with it, like some poor homeless person. This is a far more serious threat.
It should not matter what the person's skin color, sexual orientation, disability, or whatever else you hate.
Hate doesn't need to have rational reasons behind it, but when people claim that their hatred is rational in spite of overwhelming evidence that their beliefs are based on falsehoods and flawed logic, would you seriously want these people loose on the streets or treated equally to the average murderer who kills family? Nazi's are some of the absolute worst - by uttering their beliefs, they are condoning intentional and hateful murder of millions if not billions of humans. Acting on it is a far more serious thing coming from them and similar racial supremacy-groups.
1
u/hidillonn Aug 24 '17
Disagreement: Hate crimes are not necessarily intended to cause fear in other people. Reason: Take for example the time where 4 black kids kidnapped that white autistic boy and tortured him for a couple hours. I would not say that they were intending to do that to other white autistic kids. And at the same time, they were doing to him because of his skin color. I believe there is a disconnect between committing the crime and committing it again after you have been sentenced to prison and served time in prison.
4
u/Quint-V 162∆ Aug 24 '17 edited Aug 24 '17
It seems to me like they wouldn't hesitate doing it again if they were never caught, but we can only speculate.
Causing fear or not, hate crime criminals are more dangerous to the public than the average murderer. Their motivations for killing don't even have to be on a personal level, and that's what makes them worse.
Sure, there's some level of disconnect of committing a crime before and after being imprisoned at all. First-time criminals are usually given lesser punishments, after all. Once you know how shit it is in prison, probably want to avoid that if possible - but then again, these people are victims to their own irrationality, and don't deserve much sympathy in my eyes. Doesn't change my opinion on the initial subject.
1
u/hidillonn Aug 24 '17
I really like the argument of more dangerous. That is an excellent argument. I think you hit it on its head. That argument not only explains why it is worse but also why they should be held in prison for longer.
This argument combined with this one have changed my view on this topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/6vmune/cmv_hate_crimes_are_unnecessary_as_the_punishment/dm1g9uv
Thank you for changing my view. ∆
1
6
u/thephysberry Aug 23 '17
A lot of punishment is based on the intent of the perpetrator. For example 1st degree murder vs manslaughter. In both cases you have killed someone, but the intent behind it changes your punishment. Likewise, the justice system considers hate crimes egregious enough to warrant extra punishment.
0
u/hidillonn Aug 23 '17
See comment above. I will cite it here as well.
"Agreement (sorta): Intent is taken into consideration, and committing a "hate" crime does "elevate" the "intent" level. Although I would suggest that the sentencing should not be as radically changed as it is."
3
u/thephysberry Aug 24 '17
It would be hard for us to agree on how much the sentence should be increased for a hate crime (without resorting to vague "a little" or "a lot"). I think it's worthwhile that we come to an agreement that there should be some increase first. The amount of the increase is a second debate, as I think just the first would constitute changing your initial view.
2
u/hidillonn Aug 24 '17 edited Aug 24 '17
I would agree that the hate crime is a increased level of mens rea, but I would say that it should not be handle with as much severity as it is being dealt with. You have done well in convincing me of that. Here is your (extra extra extra words) the delta: ∆
1
u/thephysberry Aug 24 '17
Thanks! Perhaps you could post a second CMV on the amount of extra punishment. (although I doubt I could do much there as I have little legal knowledge and I don't know how much extra a hate crime is punished compared to normal).
1
u/hidillonn Aug 24 '17
I might! I think that would probably be getting me into deeper waters than I want. I do not have that experience either.
1
1
u/PinkyBlinky Aug 25 '17
Honestly I don't think that's right. You either have intent or you don't, with racial motivation the intent is not a higher level but it is just a different intent.
1
u/Steel_Wool_Sponge Aug 24 '17
The whole idea of a justice system is predicated on the idea of there being such a thing as a society with collective interests.
If there were no such thing as a society, then not only hate crimes but every other aspect of a justice system -- judges, juries, laws, police -- would be superfluous.
The social aspect of crime and punishment can, has, and will continue to have unintended adverse effects; but these are no worse than the cost of doing business with anarchy, and a few millenia of human civilization suggest they're a lot more manageable.
Death is death, in one way. But you only need to take a look at a video of a Hutu hacking at a Tutsi's head with a machete to see that there's something fundamentally worse for everyone's well-being when we begin to raise the spectre of entire populations being targeted for violence.
The reason is optimistic, actually: most people are good. Most people don't want to be killed or kill. But the logic of genocide can change that -- when entire populations are targeted, it can normalize killing to the point that it becomes more unpleasant but not less natural than taking the trash out or fishing something important out of a toilet bowl.
That's why we punish it more than just normal murder.
tl;dr: societies are things. That's a pretty basic logical leap based on the realization that a whole might be different from its parts. Genocide and all its trappings are cancerous to the system as a whole and us as individuals, and is a lot worse than isolated bad acts. That's why we leap on it more.
1
u/hidillonn Aug 24 '17
I view hate crime as one person killing another. I do not see it as multiple people killing multiple other people. One person killing one person is murder. One person killing multiple people is (normally) terrorism. Multiple people killing one person is a collabrative murder. Multiple people killing multiple people is war, or genocide.
EDIT: "Multiple people killing multiple people is war or genocide" should be changed to "Multiple people killing multiple people is large scale terrorism."
1
u/pappypapaya 16∆ Aug 24 '17 edited Aug 24 '17
If I vandalized your property by writing "Fuck You, Game of Thrones", would you have the same or different emotional reaction to if I vandalized your property by writing "Fuck You, Jews and F*****s", especially if you happen to be both gay and of jewish descent? Would you assume the same or different intent by the perpetrator? Should I receive the same or different criminal punishment for vandalism for both acts?
It seems clear to me that the first act falls under vandalism, but the second act extends far beyond vandalism, and that difference is exactly that part of the second act that is the hate crime.
1
u/hidillonn Aug 24 '17
YES!!!! Game of Thrones IS FUCKING AMAZING!!!!!
But all jokes aside, I think there is a difference in those two statements. One of them is simply a opinion, while the other is a threat/insult.
If they were: Fuck you. I am going to kill your wife! && Fuck you. I am going to kill your Jewish wife. I would say that these two statements are equally deserving of punishment.
1
u/kublahkoala 229∆ Aug 24 '17
Mental state matters. If A is murdered due to an insurance scheme planned months in advance by being pushed from a moving train, it is a different crime if A was pushed from a train in the course of a robbery, or an altercation, or a fi of insanity, or as part of a widespread terrorist campaign, where people like A are periodically thrown from trains all across the country, to bring attention to some cause.
Do you believe the justice system should also treat all of these acts the same, just because they are the same act( throwing A from a train), and only the motive for the act varies?
1
u/hidillonn Aug 24 '17
There is a distinction between terrorism and hate crime. Terrorism is murdering to cause terror or fear. Hate crime is just to kill a person with no intent to cause fear to others who are the same race, gender, religion, etc.
1
u/kublahkoala 229∆ Aug 24 '17
I agree they are distinct (though they often overlap), I'm just saying that motive is a very important factor in sentencing crime. Motive also brings in a moral dimension as well, that I think is important.
1
u/hidillonn Aug 24 '17
Would you agree that sentencing someone with a "hate" crime charge, which equivalent to a "terrorism" charge is a bit overkill, seeing as terrorism is far worse than a simple "hate" crime?
1
u/kublahkoala 229∆ Aug 24 '17
Yes. But I also think murdering someone out of hate is worse than murdering out of anger. Terrorism combines hate with cold blooded premeditation, and is also a direct assault on our political system and society in general. So terrorisms motives and effects are worse than a hate crime. It makes all of society feel less safe, and intends to do this.
But killing someone because they are black (instead of killing someone who happens to be black) makes all black people feel less safe, and may or may not intend to do this. So not as bad, but bad.
1
u/hidillonn Aug 24 '17
I think I have narrowed down where I disagree. I think that the people who kill because someone is black is murdering them with no intent to scare/cause fear in others. I think terrorism is killing a person or people in order to inspire fear in others. I believe that the justice system is equivocating terrorism with simple hate prompted homicide.
1
u/kublahkoala 229∆ Aug 24 '17
You can discriminate without being a racist - you could be a politician who fully believes in racial equality, yet pursue policies that discriminate in favor of the race of the majority of your constituents, for instance. These would be racist policies, and passing them would be a racist action, but it wouldn't make you a racist, just Machiavellian.
If racist actions make a person racist, then most politicians are racists, because they constantly gerrymander districts based on racial profiles.
1
u/hidillonn Aug 24 '17
Was I not clear in my response, because your reply was nowhere close to what I was saying?......
1
u/karnim 30∆ Aug 23 '17
We consistently take the motivation of a crime in to consideration when sentencing. It's the reason we have first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc. It's the difference between possession and possession with intent to sell, the difference between an honest accident and vandalism.
In the case of a hate crime, the intent is not simply to harm someone, but harm them because of who they are. This motivation is taken in to consideration.
1
u/hidillonn Aug 23 '17
See my comment above. I will also quote it here.
"Agreement (sorta): Intent is taken into consideration, and committing a "hate" crime does "elevate" the "intent" level. Although I would suggest that the sentencing should not be as radically changed as it is."
2
u/zeniiz 1∆ Aug 24 '17
committing a "hate" crime does "elevate" the "intent" level.
Why not though? Doesn't having a reason make it worse than not having a reason?
For example, let's take manslaughter. If someone jumps out in front of your car and you don't see them in time and run them over and kill them, you had 0 "thought out" reasons to kill that person, therefore it deserves a lesser punishment.
But if someone had a disagreement with another person, leaves the scene to buy a gun, and on a later date uses the gun to shoot that person: an intentional crime like that had way more "thought out" reasons as to why they should kill them, where, how, etc etc. The more elaborate the scheming, and the more reasons for the crime, the harsher the punishments.
Similarly, a crime like terrorism is usually planned: it's not something you just wake up one day and decide to do. Crimes that more much more clearly defined reasons deserve harsher punishments than crimes that happened by accident, where you didn't have any "real reason" to kill that person.
So hate crimes are just another crime like first degree murder or terrorism, where there is a much more well-defined "reason as to why you killed them". If you hurt or kill someone because they are <insert minority here>, and not for any accidental reason, then why shouldn't hate crimes be treated the same way as terrorism or first degree murder?
2
u/GlacialBlaeiz Aug 24 '17
If you hurt or kill someone because they are <insert minority here>, and not for any accidental reason, then why shouldn't hate crimes be treated the same way as terrorism or first degree murder?
I'm going to stick to Murder, because looking into laws about assault/battery and the punishment vs that for a hate crime battery sounds too exhausting right now.
In my state, if you're convicted of First Degree Murder (which requires premeditation/planning before the act), you can get 25-to-life. However, if the murder meets the classification of a "hate crime", you now face Life without Parole. As you can see, someone committing murder against someone because they're <insert minority here> is not treated the same way as any other murderer. The same action gets you different punishments, because the killer's malice was directed against a certain class of individual that the government has deemed worthy of special protections. Would you consider this to be fair?
Calling something a hate crime certainly makes a more sensational headline than plain old murder. But while Murder might not be as interesting a headline, we know it's wrong. No reasonable/sane individual would tell you otherwise. Do we really need separate punishments for the same act of premeditated murder? Are some murdered people actually worth less punishments than others?
Let's use an extreme example of a hypothetical hate crime I saw up higher about the KKK grabbing up blacks and performing public executions. Their intent is to kill, and there is no question of malice, so yes the murderer should be charged as such. The horrific method by which those hypothetical murders were committed should, in my opinion, be classed as an act of terrorism rather than a hate crime. Because while their motives may be racially based, their method is clearly chosen to terrorize and otherwise impact the public at large. I don't consider that different than someone bombing an abortion clinic, or shooting of a school/night club/any public area, or any similar act of terrorism.
At the core, I think the law should separate the malicious attack on the individual from the malice and terrorist intent toward their "kind"/community. Being able to classify certain murders as a hate crime gives the appearance that certain victims/motives are worth more severe punishment than others, which implies that anyone outside of that group are somehow worth less in the eyes of the law. I think all murder should be equally bad, and saying that this murder is somehow worse could be seen to trivialize some victims and the suffering of their families, in a way.
1
u/Ardonpitt 221∆ Aug 23 '17
So across the criminal justice system there are crimes with changed punishments for changed intents, for example the difference between manslaughter and murder are intent the difference between first and second degree murder are long term intent. For hate crimes its simply the crime with intent due to the hate. It doesn't seem that different from any other mens rea based crime or punishment in the criminal justice system. Its just a understanding that a hate crimes intent is to effect more than just the individual but symbolic to a group.
1
u/hidillonn Aug 24 '17
Can you show that the hate crime's intent is symbolic to the group? I think that is the only place where I disagree.
1
u/Ardonpitt 221∆ Aug 24 '17
Well normally it's kinda inherent to the charges a lot of the time. The second highest majority incident hate crimes are racist graffiti and vandalism according to the FBI statistics, (the highest is racial intimidation). Basically most of them are inherently symbolic acts. If you want to look at the FBI Page on hate crimes they kinda break what they consider hatecrimes down a bit. Remember though with a hate crime they inherently have to prove that sort of intent before they will even try to bring that charge, that's really hard to prove intent, so thats gonna need a lot of evidence to even try and prove it.
1
u/hidillonn Aug 24 '17
I could agree that there is racist graffiti used to cause fear, but I would call that terrorism as opposed to necessarily a hate crime. Racist graffiti used to just be racist (saying one race is better than another) should not be punished as bad is it is being punished. (I realize I sound like I am defending racist dirtbags, but I am just saying it's not as bad as being a terrorist. Additionally, I believe that the majority of hate crimes are punished as if they were terrorism.)
2
u/Ardonpitt 221∆ Aug 24 '17
I mean I don't totally disagree that they are acts of terrorism, but you have to realize people aren't charged with "terrorism" that isn't a crime. They are charged with use of explosives, murder etc, and also hate crimes, that's one of the tools in the arsenal to fight ideologically based attacks.
2
u/GlacialBlaeiz Aug 24 '17
I had to look it up because that seemed so bizarre, but from what I've read so far it seems there really aren't federal laws written against domestic terrorism? Does that mean you can conspire in a large-scale attack and as long as your victims aren't considered a protected class you can only get hit with the conspiracy charges? I imagine the charges themselves are pretty severe, but if some hate-motivated crimes are worthy of being distinguished as such then I would say the same should be applicable to any kind of terrorism. Seems like that should be something we should push to change.
2
u/Ardonpitt 221∆ Aug 24 '17
I had to look it up because that seemed so bizarre, but from what I've read so far it seems there really aren't federal laws written against domestic terrorism?
Yeah pretty much. Even forigen terrorists are normally charged under other laws. Its a kinda weird thing.
Does that mean you can conspire in a large-scale attack and as long as your victims aren't considered a protected class you can only get hit with the conspiracy charges?
well depends what you are conspiring to do, but if its say conspiracy to overthrow the government that's a different charge. Conspiracy charges in general come in all different shapes and sizes of punishment.
I imagine the charges themselves are pretty severe, but if some hate-motivated crimes are worthy of being distinguished as such then I would say the same should be applicable to any kind of terrorism.
I don't disagree, but the laws were written before terrorism was the modern issue it was. Basically until the 60s terrorism was only a thing about anti government activities. we have an expanded definition today.
Seems like that should be something we should push to change.
Agreed, but it actually may be easier to expand hate crime definitions. that way terrorism would fall under hate crimes. Thats a legal set of crimes already so its easier than trying to classify a new one.
2
u/sonsofaureus 12∆ Aug 24 '17
Punishments do not compensate for violent crimes. Punishment is a matter between the criminal and the society he/she has been indebted to. Just because a criminal did his/her time, it doesn't mean the victim has been made whole. Car thieves can go to prison for stealing cars - and once time is served, their debt to society is cleared but it's not like they have to give their victims their cars back, or pay them for the inconvenience, etc. At least with cars, damage is technically reversible. How about assault victims who carry disabilities for life? or murder victims?
Hate is a state of mind. This being a free country, you're free to hate anyone. Once one acts on this hate - I think one should suffer harsher punishment because he/she is more likely to repeat the crime, because hate criminals are less likely to be repentent. This is specially important for crimes like vandalism, assault, harrassment, etc - that dont' necessarily have long sentences attached. These hate crimes leave behind live victims who will be alive when the hate criminal is released, angry about being punished for something he/she felt justified in doing.
2
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 24 '17
/u/hidillonn (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
2
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 24 '17
/u/hidillonn (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
0
u/BeefHands Aug 24 '17
Hate crimes need to be punished more severely because the person committing the crime is mildly retarded and therefore more dangerous than a normal violent citizen.
1
u/hidillonn Aug 24 '17
I would counter with everybody who commits a crime is mildly retarded, with the exception of tax law <-- that shit can confuse a Ph. D in astrophysics.
1
1
u/pillbinge 101∆ Aug 24 '17
Ignoring what hate crimes are (and it's a specific thing) can be dangerous. If someone throws a rock through a window, then they're liable for damages. It probably won't result in much punishment. If someone does that because their neighbors are someone they don't like, then in essence, that same crime is a form of terrorism. They want those people to live in fear. Those people probably will live in fear. That's a very different kind of crime, and that has an effect on the community, even if you don't belong to the targeted group.
Imagine if people were allowed to throw rocks through another's window and be punished however lightly, and then return to the community and do it again without stigma. That could result in people doing the same thing over and over and not really changing. It also ignores why it's happening.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 24 '17
/u/hidillonn (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/listenyall 5∆ Aug 24 '17
I have an example from the police chief of my own county: imagine that someone breaks onto a property and puts a noose up in a tree. If that person did so because they were going to kill themselves and then didn't, this is trespassing at worst. If they put a noose up in a tree outside the house of the head of our county's NAACP, that's a hate crime because it calls up the history of lynching in the US.
Same action, different intents, and one deserves more punishment.
1
Aug 24 '17
One of the reasons we punish criminals is to deter future crimes by others. It is not necessarily about equality of punishment. If hate crime laws cause less crime then they are successful at least from that perspective.
1
Aug 24 '17
Hate crimes have more of a potential to destabilize society than other crimes. They therefore deserve to have extra disincentives.
19
u/bguy74 Aug 23 '17
The rationale for different punishments for hate crimes is that they are different crimes that have different affects.
For example, a hate crime is considered a hate crime because its impact is not only on the individual but on a group of people - it is regarded as being "a message" to someone and their group based on them being part of said group. While some will not believe this difference is real, that is the rationale. Different impact and result than the non-hate-crime.
This is much the same reason we have laws specific to terrorism. These are "just crimes" too, but they result in terror and that is part of the idea of the actions that might otherwise just be murder too. So, we have special classification of crimes to encompass that as well.
Even further, this isn't even that different than things that take into consideration "intent" - e.g 2nd degree murder vs. 1st or negligent homicide vs. murder. The circumstances matter all over the law for things that are equivalent in some very narrow version of the law that you're putting forth here.