AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Hate Crimes

16 3612
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.[1]

"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by hatred of one or more of the listed conditions. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).[2]

-Wikipedia


Should we differentiate hate crimes from regular crimes? Do hate crimes help extinguish racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice? Or do hate crimes reinforce forms of prejudice?
  • 16 Replies
Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,085 posts
Nomad

I think crashing down on hate crimes could be a good way of stopping individuals being racist or sexist or homophobic - etc. But two points that come from this:

1. How do you differentiate a normal crime from a hate crime if the person doesn't actively admit they committed the attack simply because of the other persons colour/gender/sexual orientation?
2. Isn't it better to tackle the root cause of this horrible and unjustified hate rather than stop individuals? People will still be passing on their prejudices about blacks/women/gays/whoever if we don't deal with this hate early in life rather than wait until it shows as a violent act?

NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

I just don't see the justice.

If a white man punches a white man, it's assault and battery. If a white man punches a black man, it can become a hate crime.

If all men are equal, shouldn't it always be considered a hate crime, or never considered a hate crime? I don't think anybody deserves special treatment or special protection, where the attacker is charged with a hate crime.

Who cares if someone attacks another person because of their sex, race, religion, or whatever? The point it, they attacked another human being.

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

1. How do you differentiate a normal crime from a hate crime if the person doesn't actively admit they committed the attack simply because of the other persons colour/gender/sexual orientation?
2. Isn't it better to tackle the root cause of this horrible and unjustified hate rather than stop individuals? People will still be passing on their prejudices about blacks/women/gays/whoever if we don't deal with this hate early in life rather than wait until it shows as a violent act?


Both excellent questions. I'm not sure where I sit on this question, but I thought I'd at least try to provide a response to your questions.

Re 1) This is a question of intentionality. And philosophical problems aside (of which there are many), the U.S. court system seems to have a method for determining the intentionality of a suspect. Take, for example, murder vs. manslaughter. The only real intrinsic difference between the two (in cases where the suspect was in his right mind), is whether or not the person intended to kill the victim. With murder, you killed someone and you did it on purpose. With homicide, that's not the case. So to answer this first question, you're going to need some evidence to indicate the crime was committed because of the victim's race/gender/sexual orientation. If there is no evidence, this line of prosecution simply can't be pursued.

Re 2) You're absolutely right - we should be trying to combat the root of the problem rather than simply punishing the aftermath of extreme bigotry. But this isn't the function of the judicial system. While there is some argument to be had that the judicial system is part deterrent, no one would accept this is a primary role of the judicial system. But even viewed as a deterrent, if someone wants to kill a gay person because they're gay but decides not to because of the harsher penalty, that's all the better for society as a whole. Proponents of hate crime legislation will argue this is a clear benefit over not having any such legal consequences.


Ultimately, perhaps, we can view the legislative and judicial systems as merely trying to reflect the societal standards that are already in place. We all know that it's heinously wrong to kill someone and even more so just because they are of a certain minority. But neither system can hope to change public opinion or society itself by making laws and prosecuting those that don't follow them.
So, without some method of changing the hearts and minds of Americans, isn't something like this the next best thing? Or does it only exacerbating the problem by enforcing the distinctions amongst peoples that we shouldn't be making in the first place?
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

Who cares if someone attacks another person because of their sex, race, religion, or whatever? The point it, they attacked another human being.


You're right, but the problem is that the attacker doesn't view it this way. The argument is that if the attacker simply saw the victim as another human being rather than, say, a homosexual, then the crime wouldn't have been committed in the first place.
Hate crimes, if you read the definition provided in the OP, are motivated solely by the differences between the attacker and the victim. So the attacker isn't hurting the victim because the attacker is angry or wants the victim's money or whatever. The crime happens simply because the victim belongs to a group that the attacker doesn't like.

If everyone thought like you and I do - that attacking another living thing or human is already intrinsically evil - then there would be no need for this differentiation. But there are people who want to hurt others simply because they belong to a particular group. This is clearly problematic and there is good reason to treat these cases differently from normal cases of pure violence.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

But there are people who want to hurt others simply because they belong to a particular group.


Are crimes based off of prejudice any worse than crimes based off revenge or personal gain?

If someone vandalized a government building because they wanted to cause trouble, should they be treated any more/less than someone who vandalized the building to make a statement?

I'm probably going to get a lot of crap for this, but I believe this clip speaks some truth. However, I understand that hate crime laws are not as black and white as the show makes it out to be.

Despite this, you have more protection from people who apposes your sexuality, race, color, and religion, than you do from people who hate you for other reasons such as personal conflicts and from people who wish to commit a crime against you for their own personal gain.
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

I'm probably going to get a lot of crap for this, but I believe this clip speaks some truth.


I've become fed up with SouthPark's pretentiousness on all things. These guys seem to think they have all the answers, but all they really have are just bad arguments that completely miss the point.
Their basic claim is that all crimes are hate crimes because hate is involved. The argument here seems to be that there is no legal (maybe even intrinsic) difference between, say, someone killing a black man because he hates black people or someone killing a man because he was sleeping with his wife.

The difference between the two cases has to do with the justification for the act. Let's look at the supposed analogy:
1) I kill a man because I hate all black people.
2) I kill a man because I hate all men who sleep with my wife.

Just for starters, we can see a serious disanalogy between (1) and (2) simply because (1) is based off nothing more than how a person looks while (2) is based off an action the person did. Realistically, I have to accept the claim that hate crimes are those committed based on who the victim is, with the crime itself being its own reward.
Here, one could rebut by trying to argue that in (2) I hate those people who are the kind of person who would sleep with my wife. But that's not what I hate. I don't go around killing people just because they would sleep with my wife if given the chance. I killed this one particular guy for this one particular incident. There is no extrapolation to a particular group.

Despite this, you have more protection from people who apposes your sexuality, race, color, and religion, than you do from people who hate you for other reasons such as personal conflicts and from people who wish to commit a crime against you for their own personal gain


No, protection is not the same thing as punishment. We all are supposed to have equal protection under the law, and hate crime legislation does not violate that maxim. It's just that certain types of crimes warrant harsher penalties.
Using your logic, we could conclude that we have more protection against murder than manslaughter. Or that we have more protection from aggravated assault or assault with a deadly weapon than we do against plain ol' assault.

We can also see, using (1) and (2) from above that it seems prima facie more likely that someone will continue to kill black people because of a hatred for blacks than it is that someone would continue to kill people who have slept with his wife.
All these factors seem to warrant a harsher penalty for what seems all the world to be a more heinous crime.
dwaxe
offline
dwaxe
9 posts
Nomad

My opinion is that hate crime laws should exist and should be enforced. They are a fair part of the multilateral effort to repress social indignities like racism, sexism, and homophobia.

EnterOrion
offline
EnterOrion
4,220 posts
Nomad

I find them retarded. Whether or not you hated the person for no reason but their different, you still committed a crime against them. No matter who you are being attacked by anyone, it should be treated the same.

All they do is create problems, especially when it's impossible to tell whether they had prejudice or not. There is no true way to tell if someone did it because of prejudice or for some other reason.

That, and it doesn't matter, a crime is a crime. Everyone is affected by it. It's not much more brutal because they didn't like you being black or gay or whatever.

goumas13
offline
goumas13
4,752 posts
Grand Duke

My opinion is that hate crimes divide the society. Hate crimes are collective. A person commits it, but a whole group of persons identify themselves with the perpetrator.
A group exercises the violence towards an other group. The targeted group feels threatened and believes that is treated unjustly by the law, so its members react against the unrighteous "established order", often violently. The results are disturbances in the society and therefore more crimes.

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

There is no true way to tell if someone did it because of prejudice or for some other reason.


An outed gay 17 year old is walking down the street when a group of rednecks beats him to death and ties him to a fence. Now, while we obviously can't determine with absolute certainty the motivation behind this attack, I think it's at the very least pretty clear.
Yes, a crime is a crime. But not all crimes are punished the same. It's not the judicial system's job to implement morality, but to implement the standards of justice.
Other crimes have a motive - something to be gained beyond the perpetration of the crime itself. With hate crimes, the act is an end in and of itself.

The major objection here is that hate crimes only further the distinction between groups of people. They reinforce the notion that we are somehow different. Here's the rub:
The proponent of hate crime legislation does not have to accept the maxim that groups of people are somehow different.
The punishment here is for harming someone because the attacker makes some distinction between groups. Hate crime legislation simply punishes someone for acting on these notions. It says nothing of whether they are true or false.
Sure, hate crime legislation itself must define what groups can be involved in a hate crime - but this is a descriptive maxim rather than a normative one. They're not saying these distinctions actually exists, they simply state that if you commit a crime against a person because of these particular perceived conditions, then your penalty will be harsher than if you didn't.
goumas13
offline
goumas13
4,752 posts
Grand Duke

The hate crimes motive is that the victimized group is labeled as "evil".
An evil entity is always hostile and threatens our identity. We cannot change it's behavior. We cannot approach it with kindness or empathy. They are agents, who desire to hurt, destroy and damage.
Because the threat it poses is so severe, we are justified in neutralizing that threat by any means possible.

CommanderDude7
offline
CommanderDude7
4,689 posts
Nomad

the end justifies the means right?

goumas13
offline
goumas13
4,752 posts
Grand Duke

Machiavelli wrote that the "ends justify the means". This quote is misinterpreted as any action, no matter how unethical or immoral, can be justified for the purpose of any reasonable or needed outcome. But Machiavelli specifically stated that this philosophy could not be ethically used by individuals for personal greed, profit, or self improvement.

*off-topic*

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

The hate crimes motive is that the victimized group is labeled as "evil".


If that is the case (seems reasonable, I hadn't considered it) then hate crime legislation can make more specific the claims that that kind of thinking isn't acceptable. And the punishment is still justifiable, sense those who act from those kinds of premises are more likely to continue to commit violent acts against that particular group.

On a larger scale, if you kill a bunch of people who are occupying a territory because you want that land, it's war. But if you kill those people because they belong to a racial or ethnic group, then it's genocide. And that is certainly a distinction that I think needs to be made.
Nurvana
offline
Nurvana
2,520 posts
Farmer

They have problems with this in Africa; Correctional rape for homos. Real shame.

Showing 1-15 of 16