Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

Wake said:

Cmakaioz, I have a question for you. Do you think white people or Christians can be victims of hate crimes?

Click to expand...

That's not a matter of opinion. Of course "white" people and/or Christians can be victims of hate crimes. Anyone who believes otherwise can only do so through ignorance or denial of what hate crime enhancements are, or how they work.

ecofarm said:

To be convicted of a hate crime, one must be a member of or possess hate-group propaganda. And, of course, there cannot be other significant motives in the crime.

So, one could be a hardcore racist and kill someone (because they are black) while screaming 'I hate black people', but if one takes their wallet and doesn't have any memberships/propaganda (in ones possession)... no hate crime conviction.

Click to expand...

Not as far as the law is concerned.... For example, "18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2710. (c) Definition.–As used in this section “malicious intention” means the intention to commit any act, the commission of which is a necessary element of any offense referred to in subsection (a) motivated by hatred toward the race, color, religion or national origin of another individual or group of individuals."

Connery said:

Not as far as the law is concerned.... For example, "18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2710. (c) Definition.–As used in this section “malicious intention” means the intention to commit any act, the commission of which is a necessary element of any offense referred to in subsection (a) motivated by hatred toward the race, color, religion or national origin of another individual or group of individuals."

Click to expand...

Yes as far as the law is concerned. I've thoroughly read the Hate Crime and Hate Speech laws. Aside from "malicious intention", there must be no other significant motives and the person must be a member of or have (in their possession) propaganda from a hate-group that targets the victim's race/gender.

Another possible significant motive? Not Hate Crime.
No membership to or possession of hate-group propaganda? Not Hate Crime.

Those two things are REQUIREMENTS, or a Hate Crime conviction cannot legally take place.

ecofarm said:

Yes as far as the law is concerned. I've thoroughly read the Hate Crime and Hate Speech laws. Aside from "malicious intention", there must be no other significant motives and the person must be a member of or have (in their possession) propaganda from a hate-group that targets the victim's race/gender.

Another possible significant motive? Not Hate Crime.
No membership to or possession of hate-group propaganda? Not Hate Crime.

Those two things are REQUIREMENTS, or a Hate Crime conviction cannot legally take place.

Click to expand...

Not according to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania:

"Human beings may act with a single, exclusive motive; they may act for multiple reasons. Where one intent is criminal under § 2710 and the other not, the question is not which is primary or dominant. If the evidence of criminal intent (here, racial animus) is sufficiently established, it cannot be negated by establishing that a second intent coexisted in the mind of the actor. Such a rule would lead to an absurd result which the legislature did not intend. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(1) (legislature does not intend result that is absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonable). Accordingly, we hold § 2710’s intent element is satisfied if there is evidence that ethnic malice was a motivator for the defendant’s criminal act; it need not be the sole motivator."(see COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v SINNOTT)

Phys251 said:

You asked Cmakaioz, but I'll answer this too: No. A majority-power group cannot be the target of a hate crime, because by definition, a hate crime targets an oppressed group, NOT an individual. Otherwise, it is a crime against an individual only and should be prosecuted as such.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. While hate crime enhancements are far, FAR less likely to be obtained if/when the target of a crime is (or is perceived to be) the member of a privileged or dominant group on the axis of the protected class, it's still possible. The catch isn't that privileged and dominant groups (on a given axis) CAN'T be targeted...rather, it's that they are much less likely to be targets in the first place, and the potential perpetrators who would ostensibly target them -- typically NOT being of the same group -- face much higher risks.

Another -- rarely discussed -- aspect is that the perpetrators of hate crimes are far more likely to come from among groups which are privileged (on the axis in question) because of the sense of invulnerability or entitlement that comes with such privilege. It's much harder to maintain a pretense (let alone sincere belief) in something like black supremacism while living in the United States, because the concrete indicators of financial success and political influence (i.e. income, holding positions in high office, heading up big business, etc.) all contradict such a doctrine. This doesn't absolutely prevent such a doctrine, but it does make it more difficult to hold on to. White supremacists, on the other hand, can point to real, concrete, pervasive advantages of "whites" over nonwhites in many aspects of daily life (which they then warp and distort to lend ideological support to all manner of nonsense). Put another way: you're less likely to believe both in the righteousness AND in the likelihood of getting away with something if and when your political and economic context either doesn't contradict that expectation, or at least does so only weakly.

So if white people can claim to be victims of a "hate crime," then what is the point of this legislation? And where does it end? Some people keep saying it is to protect "minorities" and minority communities from persecution in so many words, but white people are not (as of yet) a minority. What is wrong with the laws that already exist? They aren't good enough? Why do we have to have "extra" laws for certain motivations? I can understand how certain communities would be upset about a specific crime, but to make laws so that there aren't "riots?" None of the explanations I have received answer this question to my satisfaction.

ChrisL said:

So if white people can claim to be victims of a "hate crime," then what is the point of this legislation? And where does it end? Some people keep saying it is to protect "minorities" and minority communities from persecution in so many words, but white people are not (as of yet) a minority. What is wrong with the laws that already exist? They aren't good enough? Why do we have to have "extra" laws for certain motivations? I can understand how certain communities would be upset about a specific crime, but to make laws so that there aren't "riots?" None of the explanations I have received answer this question to my satisfaction.

Click to expand...

I do not interpret "hate crime" laws in the manner you describe. I follow this guideline: "Any crime motivated by a bias against a person or group based on their ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, religion etc... is a hate crime"

Connery said:

I do not interpret "hate crime" laws in the manner you describe. I follow this guideline: "Any crime motivated by a bias against a person or group based on their ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, religion etc... is a hate crime"

Click to expand...

Okay, but that still doesn't answer my underlying question. Why do we need this kind of legislation when these crimes are already against the law and carry a penalty. Why is the motive of "bias" worse than the motive of "I just like hurting or killing people?"

ChrisL said:

Okay, but that still doesn't answer my underlying question. Why do we need this kind of legislation when these crimes are already against the law and carry a penalty. Why is the motive of "bias" worse than the motive of "I just like hurting or killing people?"

Click to expand...

The penalties are harsher for hate crimes and are meant to act as a deterrent for future activities of this type.

Connery said:

The penalties are harsher for hate crimes and are meant to act as a deterrent for future activities of this type.

Click to expand...

So is the death penalty. Doesn't make it right though. These crimes are the SAME crime, just with different motives. It doesn't make any sense to treat one any differently than another because I believe that MOST people who do these types of things are not of sound mind to begin with (not that they are insane, just not of sound mind). It is stupid because there is no end to this type of logic. Someone who is short could claim that they were assaulted because they were short. We already have laws, and they should be applied EQUALLY to all IMO.

cmakaioz said:

Incorrect. While hate crime enhancements are far, FAR less likely to be obtained if/when the target of a crime is (or is perceived to be) the member of a privileged or dominant group on the axis of the protected class, it's still possible. The catch isn't that privileged and dominant groups (on a given axis) CAN'T be targeted...rather, it's that they are much less likely to be targets in the first place, and the potential perpetrators who would ostensibly target them -- typically NOT being of the same group -- face much higher risks.

Click to expand...

My argument has been ethical, not legal. I think I made that pretty clear in an earlier post. There was a recent case where a black man was accused of a hate crime against a white man. Such incidents, however, are rare.

Dominant groups cannot, by definition, face undue humiliation simply because their people belong to those groups. Minority groups can. They are already behind the eight-ball as is, for whatever reason, and hate crimes worsen that situation for them.

Another -- rarely discussed -- aspect is that the perpetrators of hate crimes are far more likely to come from among groups which are privileged (on the axis in question) because of the sense of invulnerability or entitlement that comes with such privilege. It's much harder to maintain a pretense (let alone sincere belief) in something like black supremacism while living in the United States, because the concrete indicators of financial success and political influence (i.e. income, holding positions in high office, heading up big business, etc.) all contradict such a doctrine. This doesn't absolutely prevent such a doctrine, but it does make it more difficult to hold on to. White supremacists, on the other hand, can point to real, concrete, pervasive advantages of "whites" over nonwhites in many aspects of daily life (which they then warp and distort to lend ideological support to all manner of nonsense). Put another way: you're less likely to believe both in the righteousness AND in the likelihood of getting away with something if and when your political and economic context either doesn't contradict that expectation, or at least does so only weakly.

Click to expand...

Now this I strongly agree with. Hate crimes usually have the intentional or unintentional result of further maintaining the undeserved privileges of the dominant group and the tribulations of the oppressed group.

ChrisL said:

So is the death penalty. Doesn't make it right though. These crimes are the SAME crime, just with different motives. It doesn't make any sense to treat one any differently than another because I believe that MOST people who do these types of things are not of sound mind to begin with (not that they are insane, just not of sound mind). It is stupid because there is no end to this type of logic. Someone who is short could claim that they were assaulted because they were short. We already have laws, and they should be applied EQUALLY to all IMO.

Click to expand...

You asked for the reasoning behind it, I provided that reasoning. Whether people agree with it or not requisite element.


Same crime with "different motives" that is the linchpin for assigning a penalty, I see nothing wrong with that. Indeed, there are laws in various jurisdictions where killing a peace officer etc is automatically considered first degree murder where someone who is not a peace officer may not warrant first degree murder for the same act but second degree murder in New York. As such, the penalties are different first degree murder is death penalty or life imprisonment second degree murder is 10 to 25 years in prison. Following your logic the same crime different motives, but, it is not in reality.

Connery said:

You asked for the reasoning behind it, I provided that reasoning. Whether people agree with it or not requisite element.


Same crime with "different motives" that is the linchpin for assigning a penalty, I see nothing wrong with that. Indeed, there are laws in various jurisdictions where killing a peace officer etc is automatically considered first degree murder where someone who is not a peace officer may not warrant first degree murder for the same act but second degree murder in New York. As such, the penalties are different first degree murder is death penalty or life imprisonment second degree murder is 10 to 25 years in prison. Following your logic the same crime different motives, but, it is not in reality.

Click to expand...

Yeah, at the rate we're going, we can look forward to many more arbitrary laws to come. :doh

ChrisL said:

Yeah, at the rate we're going, we can look forward to many more arbitrary laws to come. :doh

Click to expand...

I do not find it arbitrary in fact I find it both a creative and sophisticated endeavour. Not all crimes are created or committed equal and a single application or resolution is a disservice to both the individual and society, moreover constitutional issues would undoubtedly arise with such an approach.

Connery said:

I do not find it arbitrary in fact I find it both a creative and sophisticated endeavour. Not all crimes are created or committed equal and a single application or resolution is a disservice to both the individual and society, moreover constitutional issues would undoubtedly arise with such an approach.

Click to expand...

Well, that's your opinion. IMO, this kind of legislation opens the door to all kinds of "NEW and IMPROVED" (or so they will have you believe/without considering possible unintentional consequences - - there always are) laws and bans and control. Why is hate crime legislation coming from the FEDERAL government? I don't think it's the governments place to tell anyone how to think or feel, or to say that these thoughts and feelings are worse than these thoughts and feelings. I don't feel comfortable with this kind of legislation at all.

So, I guess we just agree to disagree then. It was nice talking with someone who can actually be respectful and kind though. Thanks for that.

ChrisL said:

Well, that's your opinion. IMO, this kind of legislation opens the door to all kinds of "NEW and IMPROVED" (or so they will have you believe/without considering possible unintentional consequences - - there always are) laws and bans and control. Why is hate crime legislation coming from the FEDERAL government? I don't think it's the governments place to tell anyone how to think or feel, or to say that these thoughts and feelings are worse than these thoughts and feelings. I don't feel comfortable with this kind of legislation at all.

So, I guess we just agree to disagree then. It was nice talking with someone who can actually be respectful and kind though. Thanks for that.

Click to expand...

Look to the state statues Chris.

I think that if it's a hate crime to shoot up a Muslim mosque/institution, the same must hold true if it's a Christian church/institution.

Wake said:

I think that if it's a hate crime to shoot up a Muslim mosque/institution, the same must hold true if it's a Christian church/institution.

Click to expand...

There's no such thing -- legally speaking -- as a hate crime ON ITS OWN. It's NOT a separate offense.

It's not a hate crime to shoot up a mosque OR a church.

It IS a crime -- and a strong candidate for a potential hate crime enhancement -- to shoot up a mosque or church AND BE SHOWN IN COURT TO HAVE DONE SO ON THE BASIS OF SPECIFIC ANIMUS TOWARDS MUSLIMS OR CHRISTIANS.

It is ALREADY the case that someone can indeed be convicted and have an HCE tacked on for shooting up a church or Christian institution.

The EXACT SAME CRITERIA for carrying an HCE in sentencing applies.

cmakaioz said:

There's no such thing -- legally speaking -- as a hate crime ON ITS OWN. It's NOT a separate offense.

There are, however, hate crime enhancements, which increase the severity of a sentence for already having been convicted of a criminal act.

It is ALREADY the case that someone can indeed be convicted and have an HCE tacked on for shooting up a church or Christian institution.

The EXACT SAME CRITERIA for carrying an HCE in sentencing applies.

Click to expand...

I see. Would there then be an HCE for this guy shooting up a religious institution?

Wake said:

I see. Would there then be an HCE for this guy shooting up a religious institution?

Click to expand...

POSSIBLY. HCE's require a substantial additional burden of evidence.

A prosecutor would have to show through evidence (not assertion), at least the following:

1. commission of a crime;
2. demonstration of specific animus on the part of the criminal against the targets/victims of the crime on the basis of their membership in a protected class;
3. demonstration that the specific animus (#2) was the basis of their committing the crime (#1)

Anything short of that = No HCE.

zstep18 said:

Do you belief there should be a distinction between premeditated murder and regular murder? Same thing.

Click to expand...

Motive is not the same thing as intent. Motive is not the same thing as planning.

When you criminalize motive, you criminalize thought.