The definitive hate crime? What is it?

[Sparky Kronkite]

Of course - all crime is hateful. Hateful is all crime. Is it not?

Yet, all crime is not defined as "hate crime."

Only a small number, relatively speaking, of acutely defined crimes - defined by those who we put in offices to define them under American law (and yes we are talking "American" law here) are so-called - hate crimes.

Most often, those definitions would tell you - the issue of race is at the core. But I wonder - what about the issue of class? What about gender? What about jealousy? And then of course - what about greed?

When one hates enough to commit a crime - why should one be chastised and punished any differently because they committed that crime for racial reasons - as opposed to gender reasons?

To me - criminal acts against any one of another race - is equally bad as committing a criminal act born out of a gender issue. And both should be punished equally.

I hate - hate crimes. Therefore I hate all crime. All issues of "punishment by degree" should be individually and only relative to "crime by degree."

Serious traffic crimes (drunk driving) should reflect a certain punishment that reflects that crime.

A man beating a woman, motivated by gender (yes it's proven the man actually hates women) should be punished accordingly.

One man of one skin color, beating on a man of another skin color with race hatred being an issue, should be punished accordingly. But not any more than the man beating a woman, mentioned above.

Not if the motive is proven "hate."

Hate sees no skin color. Hate is hate.

Something to think about. Something to discuss.

 

[alltherage]

Obviously the title hate crime applies to many crimes.
Rape jumps screamingly to mind. Unfortunately, we live in a society where race, gender, and sexuality all stand out as fertile ground for hate. I think that our goal should be to increase education and tolerance and to try to nip hatreds in the bud. My god I am feeling nieve today.

 

[nasty]

The ultimate hate crime is murder due to race, etc...

 

[Tim1]

could it be

That most hate crimes start with the hatred of one's self?

If you respect yourself, you then can begin to respect others?

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

I simply don't understand "ultimate hate crime."

It is as if you are rating or judging crimes - like some Olympic skating judge.

Like I said - hate is hate - murder is murder.

So, those of you who might be "pro-crime rating," give me some examples. Use a 1 to 10 scale - 10 being the worst.

Running a stop sign? .5?
Male/Female rape? 7.5? Or 8.5?
Cutting off a reporter's head? 9.5?
Genocide? 10+?

You see

Is that the idea?

You see? I don't think that works all that well.

 

[bored1]

Crime is Crime...Murder is Murder.2 of the 3 morons who dragged James Byrd to death in Texas were sentenced to death the other to life in prison. I think what they did was motivated by alcohol and hate. When they are killed which they will be in Texas will they be anymore dead than if they had been found guilty of a hate crime? It appears that they have found the body of the little girl in San Diego. Is her murder and rape a hate crime? Or was the perpetrater just one sick bastard? Pass all the laws you want,You will never outlaw hate.

 

[miles]

The thought police arrived with the idea of "hate crime." The perfect oxymoron.

To think that another human being's life has more value based on their ethnic background/sex/sexual preference is the ultimate civil rights hypocrisy.

Politically correct feel-good legislation that accomplishes nothing.

Punishing people for what they think. God help us.

 

[Guest]

Oh! And I thought I was bad for farting in the hottub!

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Fart in a hot tub is a strong.....

8.5.

 

[MidnightAngel]

Sparky, I gotta agree with you on this.

I personally believe that the only way to "correct" the idea of judging or dealing with a person based on their sex/race/religion/whatever is to stop teaching such behavior to children. This is a totally inherited problem. Children are not born knowing to differentiate their treatment of an individual based on these things. The parents instill this in a child; and that is wrong. It would/will take generations to change this attitude --and that thought wouldn't be so depressing if A START could be established.

Miles, I can't read one of your posts without mentally hearing Clark Gables voice.

 

[Unclebill]

initially posted by Sparky Kronkite
Of course - all crime is hateful. Hateful is all crime. Is it not?

Yet, all crime is not defined as "hate crime."

Of course you are wrong. Much, perhaps most crime has little or nothing to do with hate. The car thief doesn't hate the car owner; he probably doesn't even know them. The bank robber doesn't hate the people whose money he steals. He probably doesn't know them. To say that all criminal actions are hateful is to declare ignorance of the nature of crime and its roots.

The more common root of crime is laziness, i. e., it is easier to steal one's food, money, car, etc., than it is to earn it. And if one has no respect for people at large, there is no constraint to or likelihood that they will respect the property or person of another.

That is not to say that no crime has its root in hatred, only to illustrated that what does is a relatively small percentage.

initially posted by Sparky Kronkite
Only a small number, relatively speaking, of acutely defined crimes - defined by those who we put in offices to define them under American law (and yes we are talking "American" law here) are so-called - hate crimes.

Most often, those definitions would tell you - the issue of race is at the core. But I wonder - what about the issue of class? What about gender? What about jealousy? And then of course - what about greed?

When one hates enough to commit a crime - why should one be chastised and punished any differently because they committed that crime for racial reasons - as opposed to gender reasons?

I consider it very fortunate indeed that very few crimes have been defined as hate crimes considering the implication of the term.

Hate is an emotion. What you advocate in the definition of hate crime is punishing one for emotion. So, does that mean that all who hate should be punished even if they do not act on that hatred?

And if you define a hate crime, why then can we not define a love crime and since love is a noble emotion, this crime should then receive leniency. This could be for the person who kills their mate, child or loved one who is dying slowly in agony as the result of a debilitating disease, perhaps.

initially posted by Sparky Kronkite
To me - criminal acts against any one of another race - is equally bad as committing a criminal act born out of a gender issue. And both should be punished equally.

I hate - hate crimes. Therefore I hate all crime. All issues of "punishment by degree" should be individually and only relative to "crime by degree."

Serious traffic crimes (drunk driving) should reflect a certain punishment that reflects that crime.

A man beating a woman, motivated by gender (yes it's proven the man actually hates women) should be punished accordingly.

One man of one skin color, beating on a man of another skin color with race hatred being an issue, should be punished accordingly. But not any more than the man beating a woman, mentioned above.

Not if the motive is proven "hate."

Hate sees no skin color. Hate is hate.

Something to think about. Something to discuss.

I too hate crime. Likewise I despise the criminal because simply put, they choose not to conduct themselves as civilized human beings. Thus they do not warrant the consideration or treatment one owes a civilized man.

But I cannot comprehend how you can intellectually and reasonably embrace the idea of a hate crime.

The hate crime legislation makes unprovable presumptions. They seek to increase the harshness of the punishment based on certain physical traits of the perpetrator and victim. But a crime is defined as an action. We have not as yet degenerated to a point in America where crime has been defined as thought, word or emotion. The idea of political correctness is a step in that direction as is the idea of hate crime, but we have not as a society committed to that path as yet and I fervently hope we never do.

So long as the first amendment is honored, we will not.

I can only wonder how you can define distinctions for what you propose. To define a hate crime and to impose a greater punishment is to create an irrationally discriminatory set of legal standards. It is in effect saying that to commit a crime against one man is more serious than to commit the same crime against another. How can you justify that unless you place a higher value on the life of one of the two men? And how do you justify having the government legislate a preference for the value of one life over another based on race, gender, age or any other criterion? Do you seek to negate the principle that all men are created equal?

And again, you are wrong when you say hate does not see skin color, ludicrously so, in fact. Hate crimes thus far have been created specifically for the punishment of the hatred that very explicitly uses skin color. Hate uses a range of criteria that is as wide as the expanse of the human experience. Hate uses as its base individual personalities, skin color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and the list goes on.

If you look far enough, I'm sure you will find hatred based on every possible human idea. Hate is, IMNTBHO, born of ignorance except when hatred is based on very specific criteria and then against very select individuals who by their actions demonstrated that they deserve only loathing, e. g., criminals, those who do not respect the rights, lives and property of others. These people earn the hatred directed at them. The instances of inculcated hatred are situations where innocent people are targeted for hatred for stupid, irrational, anti-intellectual, emotional reasons.

And I'm curious how one would prove a motive. Motive is one's intent, one's idea or thought related to an action. How, short of admission, do you discern and establish beyond reasonable doubt one's thoughts and the relationship between those ideas and thoughts and one's actions.

And even if you could prove that one's thought were motivation of irrational hatred, how do you justify imposing a more severe penalty if the action is criminal? Because to do so is to punish one for their thoughts or ideas. And that concept is foreign in America where freedom is to be respected and protected.

And any American should have respected their right, their freedom to think and speak as they like; not that they should be immune to consequences for doing so stupidly and irrationally, only that they have the right to do so. For example, I fully respect the right of anyone to be a racist, bigot or whatever belief they choose. I have absolutely NO respect for people who choose these types of irrational, stupid, mindless beliefs but I respect their right to hold them. Likewise, I will not associate with them nor with anyone who does.

And if you can implement the concept of increased punishment based solely on one's thought, then why not also establish the capacity to use the law to execute a preemptive strike and punish someone who hates just to deter them and others from committing these crimes based in hatred? Because, in reality, there is no difference; punishing someone for their thoughts, words and ideas is precisely what the category of hate crime is designed to do and this is the basis of my reason for condemning this ludicrous idea.

So to answer your question, the ultimate hate crime is to use the law to define this ludicrous concept as a law, this irrational category of crime, i. e., to define ideas, thought or speech as criminal. Crimes are actions one takes involving the initiation of force. Thoughts and words are not crimes, not in a free society, only actions that result from them.

initially posted by miles
The thought police arrived with the idea of "hate crime." The perfect oxymoron.

To think that another human being's life has more value based on their ethnic background/sex/sexual preference is the ultimate civil rights hypocrisy.

Politically correct feel-good legislation that accomplishes nothing.

Punishing people for what they think. God help us.

Amen!

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

UncleBill, UncleBill, UncleBill........

You over literate, type A, soap boxed, tight ass. You are blinded by the very words "you absolutely know you know how to" interpret.

The word "hate" is open for definition and interpretation of any definition. Of course hate is emotional. I never said it wasn't. How could anyone say that?

Yet "hate crime" loosely put - has been defined by the Supreme Court. And hey - if you didn't get that message - sorry.

And of course "in your way of using the word hate" a car thief might very well not "hate the owner of the car" - but that theif - any theif, any one who commits a crime - they "hate something about their position in life." Why else would anyone commit a crime? There has to "be a problem" in their lives in order to come to a drastic conclusion as to commit a crime. They ain't right.

All I'm saying is hate crime - as defined (or better, attempted to be defined) by any court or person or anything - is wrong. Putting "value" on crime - is wrong.

A crime is a crime. Anyone who commits one is a criminal. Anyone who is a criminal is bad. Anyone who is a criminal is anti-social and fucked up. Anyone caught being a criminal (hey, all we can do is catch them) should be punished. And the punishment should fit the crime. Ill defined (I don't beleive it can be defined) hate crime should not be punished any differently that any other - relative criminal act.

The attempt to define such a thing as hate crime is wrong. Putting it into some sort of practice is wrong. What they are doing is wrong.

 

[Astro]

I dont care if the man beats a woman because he hates her or because he was drunk it's still a crime. If a yellow-skinned person beats up a red-skinned person is it racist? Or if a white guy beats a black guy? what about a dark brown guy beating up a light brown guy? Justice is blind and should be blind to the colour of victim and the criminal - the crime is still there and should be treated for the crime, not for the reason behind it - thats the job of education.

However not all crimes are bad. If I kill a man because he is about to kill me, its still killing someone but its self-defense. Change that to killing a man because I know he will kill someone (presume I aint mad) still a killing - now its a crime - is it bad?

And I dont think all crime is because people are too lazy, sometimes it is the only way for them. Doesnt mean I approve just means I can understand.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Astro bud - it's purely technical.

If it's "written law" and you break it - for what ever God damn reason - you're a criminal.

And there is always a better way than crime - there is no excuse for crime - that's movie, make-believe bullshit. Every one should know - of course they don't - that no matter how small the crime, no matter how large - white collar, blue collar - that that crime "harms somebody." And therefore commiting a crime is wrong. No matter what the crime.

Now - if you weren't taught that - that any crime hurts somebody - you are a social misfit - but ignorance is no excuse to get away with crime.

And there is nothing wrong with hating - lately I happen to hate Osama. But you see - if I killed him (right now that is) it would not be a crime. It would be justice.

 

[Astro]

Sparky Kronkite I'm sure we can play the pronoun game and not try to insult people.

If I am to understand your reply you believe that killing Osama now would be justice but killing him before Sept 11th would be murder? Even if you knew what he was going to do?

And before you think I'm a politically correct idiot, I hope the DNA studies prove the bugger is dead already.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Astro
. . . However not all crimes are bad. If I kill a man because he is about to kill me, its still killing someone but its self-defense. Change that to killing a man because I know he will kill someone (presume I aint mad) still a killing - now its a crime - is it bad? . . .

To be more accurate, your action of killing an assailant is not a crime, it's the exercise of your right to self-defense.

Originally posted by Sparky Kronkite
You over literate, type A, soap boxed, tight ass.

Very accomplished ad hominem attack; well punctuated, well chosen words, very literate and excellent spelling. You have a unique talent for laying a good foundation for a reasoned discussion.

Originally posted by Sparky Kronkite
The word "hate" is open for definition and interpretation of any definition. Of course hate is emotional. I never said it wasn't. How could anyone say that?

I thought we had dictionaries so that words were not open to great latitudes of interpretation. And if you read my post, I never once intimated that you said hate was NOT an emotion. I simply clarified that it is since you are advocating that hate be the basis for punishment.

I won't argue with your presumption that there must "be a problem" in their lives nor do I argue against your point that "They ain't right.". All I suggest is that they may merely be lazy, i. e., more inclined to try to take from you that which you have earned rather than expend the effort to earn something comparable for themselves.

Granted in reading your original post, it seemed to me that your position was to endorse the concept of the hate crime. From your opening statement and the absence of a conclusive, direct statement to the contrary, your overall tone conveyed to me that you embrace and endorse the concept.

In reading you subsequent post, it seems I misunderstood your intent. I've been wrong before; I'm sure it'll happen again. But I credit your structure with some level of complicity in my error.

Originally posted by Sparky Kronkite
If it's "written law" and you break it - for what ever God damn reason - you're a criminal.

So you're a proponent of this theory of crime. Well, that makes it impossible to discuss crime in any meaningful context since you have no intellectually defined, rational, consistent means of defining criminal acts.

What you are saying is that law defines crime. Thus, the reasonable corollary is that if there is no law, there is no crime, i. e., if you do not define an act as criminal by enacting a law, then one cannot commit a crime.

Conversely, anything one defines by enactment of a law is a crime. You are de facto implying the validity of the concept that sodomy is a crime because there are jurisdictions in which the laws have defined it as such. But these are laws which have been determined by courts to be an invasion of personal privacy and hence, violations of individual rights and freedoms.

And if you choose to advocate this irrational percept, I can see no place where we have any common ground on which to discuss the point.
Edited to correct a double negative

 

[miles]

spunky crankyite

And therefore commiting a crime is wrong. No matter what the crime.

Oral sex is against the law in some states. Who is the victim?

Not to mention prostitution, gambling, marijuana, etc.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

I've never advocated anything here.

Just pointed out fact. If it's "on the books as law and you break that law - and you're found guilty of doing so - you're a crook." I never said the laws were correct. Never advocated any laws.

I do think that it's generally a very good idea to obey laws - no matter how dated or irrational. Either that or work to change them, nullify them, what ever.

As for yer grammar cut Uncle Bill - big whoop - all your grammar and a donut might get you a cup of coffee. I'm sure it's served you well. That's why your here - right?

 

[Unclebill]

Re: I've never advocated anything here.

Originally posted by Sparky Kronkite
. . . As for yer grammar cut Uncle Bill - big whoop - all your grammar and a donut might get you a cup of coffee. I'm sure it's served you well. That's why your here - right?

Well, you have me commpletely baffled with this one.

Where did I offer a cut? I must have really mastered the art of the subtle attack because I missed it myself.