“But this in a case where the underlying action is a crime regardless of the motive. Who stabs people out of affection and respect?”
I either don’t get what you are saying or I don’t get this logic. Who commits ANY crime out of affection and respect? Yeah, crimes are crimes but they do have different motives. It surely wasn’t negligent homicide nor an accident.
My objection is having a law that says a crime is worse if the DA claims it was committed because of a select choice of motives. There is no acceptable motive for stabbing, except self-defense. That one I’m ok with. But a stabbing motivated by racial or ethnic hate is no more a crime than a stabbing motivated by jealousy, greed, or revenge. Prosecute the stabbing, not the motive.
Punishments are doled out in part to be a deterrent, are they not? That’s at least one reason why motive is important and should be considered when prosecuting a committed crime.
Saying a crime is a crime as a reason to dislike hate crime laws seems like a bit of a cop-out.
Why a cop out? The law should protect us all equally. Maybe you are a target of racial hatred, but I am a target of class envy. Why should a crime against you be more severely prohibited than a crime against me? Or vice versa.
Hate has been part of the human condition since there have been humans. People find ways to divide themselves into “us” and “them” wherever they are. If a Dodgers fan punches a Giants fan, is that a hate crime? To me, it doesn’t matter. It’s a crime. The deterrent is to the action, not the motivation.
Sigh…
In this case, he approached the two women and yelled at them because he believed they were Muslim.
Delete I told myself I would get involved.
Then you object to charging Murder 1 versus Manslaughter?
“A crime is a crime is a crime - assault, vandalism, murder, arson - regardless of motive.”
That isn’t true, if you kill someone in the heat of passion (murder 2), you get a different penalty than a premeditated crime, and if you accidentally kill someone it is a different set of penalties. Someone who brutally beats someone up for no reason,who assaults someone just because they felt like it, would get a very different penalty than someone who assaults someone because of circumstances, like the other person was bullying or threatening them (unlike schools, where they will suspend someone beating up a bully who was harassing them and let the bully go free and tell you how the bully was the victim barf, the law would see mitigating circumstances in such a case). The law always takes into consideration motive, someone stealing food to feed their family would be judged very differently then someone knocking over a jewelry store out of greed.
The other thing with hate crime laws is it leaves out something those saying murder is murder are leaving out (and it is very much in the same mindset as the 1960’s civil rights federal indictments for violating civil rights down south), and that is that for victims the courts are not colorblind or unbiased. A victim who is non white or a victim who is gay far too often sees judges and prosecutors who either refuse to prosecute or even investigate what happened, or they give a slap on the wrist for the perpetrator. Judges often allow defense lawyers to bring up that the victim was gay and use the idiotic ‘gay panic defense’ or some such, and it can end up with the perp getting away with a major crime with a minor penalty. By putting in mandatory sentences between the standard one, even if a judge does the usual and gives someone convicted of assault 4 months suspended sentence, they still will face the additional penalty for having committed it as a hate crime. There are a lot of places, and it isn’t just in rural america, where an LGBT person can end up being victimized twice, hate sentencing sends a clear message it won’t be tolerated.In many places in this country, for the same crime, a black perp with a white victim will get a lot stronger sentence then a white committing the crime against a non white.
And it is much in the same realm as treating premeditated murder differently then a passion killing or an accidental one, it is sending a clear message that cold bloodedly planning a crime will not be tolerated, that they will expect the utmost in penalties. Hate crimes send a message that unlike what goes on far too often, someone who murders an LGBT person or a person who is not of their race or another religion will not be tolerated, it is saying as a society we refuse to allow anyone to victimize the victims. It is funny, I usually see people ranting when hate crime laws are applied to when it is for an LGBT person or someone non white or non Christian getting victimized, but leave out that hate crime penalties have been meted out quite a few times when someone who is white is victim because of their race or a Christian or whatnot, the only difference is when the victim is in the majority, no one pays attention to it, bloggers don’t rant about it, papers put it on page 65.
In a perfect world you wouldn’t need these kind of laws, society and the legal system would make clear everyone is valuable, but the reality of our criminal justice system and political system is that often isn’t true, there is different justice if you are in the majority then if you are in the minority of things.
Each state has its own set of laws, but I thought the difference between Murder 1 and manslaughter was intent or premeditation, not motive. My grand jury experience didn’t provide me with a law degree, but when we were discussing what indictments we could deliver I don’t remember motive being one of the considerations.
Well, here is Oregon law on murder:
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.095
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.115
Note that murder is upgraded to aggravated murder (which has a greater sentence) based on motive-related circumstances, such as murder for hire, murder of a police officer, witness, juror, judicial officer, etc., or murder to conceal a crime or identity of the one committing a crime.
Oregon is not unique in upgrading murder charges based on similar motive-related circumstances.
Right after the defendant entered court today, he yelled, "“Free speech or die. Get out if you don’t like free speech … you call it terrorism, I call it patriotism … die.”
There are millions of laws out there, some of which I wish weren’t in place. What happened on the subway was a crime, and it seems clear Oregon will prosecute vigorously as they should, so I’ll bow out.
@ucbalumnus I think those things are “circumstances” of the murder not “motives.” With the exception of hate crimes I was under the impression that no other crimes took motive into account when establishing the elements of that crime – proving intent is what counts.
And even with hate crimes I always thought at the end of the day you had to prove “bias” first and establish the motive for the hate crime.
Wouldn’t murder for hire be based on the motive (money)? Also, wouldn’t murder to conceal a crime or the identity of one who committed a crime also be based on the motive?
Murder for hire shows definitive intent which is still the necessary element that has to be proven. If you can prove an agreement to commit murder then you have pretty much proven the intent.
Murder to conceal a crime is the circumstance surrounding the murder – and intent is still the essential element that has to be proven. Motive is irrelevant in proving the murder.
Wiki helps here:
My objection is having a law that says a crime is worse if the DA claims it was committed because of a select choice of motives.
A lack of intent, or the influence of justifiable passion, is treated quite differently than the act of cold-blooded, intentional murder. One’s murder the other may, or may not be - depending on the prosecutor - manslaughter.
A lot of prosecution depends on the prosecutor and what the public clamors for… hence the hate crime statues. Current fact of life.
hate crime charges are selectively used…here is the case of a black supremacist who converted to islam and beheaded a white co-worker. while he is facing 1st degree charges if the trial goes forward no hate crime charge. it is selective and is filtered threw a political spectrum most times.
http://newsok.com/admitted-murderer-in-moore-beheading-case-had-isis-flag-in-car-prosecutor-reveals/article/5513648
of course this hate crime murder spree got almost zero coverage at all… the victim in new jersey was killed because he was white http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/suspect-killed-n-teen-vengeance-military-article-1.1911964
luckily in oklahoma a heroic boss help stop this mad man before he beheaded his second victim.we’ll as country will have to continue the fight against these black nationalists and hate. . (to paraphrase the wise words of post 13 by cardinal fang)
So, is Christian simply a dangerous bigot, or is he a dangerous madman? Does the law care?
^If his lawyer convinces him to plead insanity, then yes, that would matter.