Are hate crime laws necessary?

[Guantanamera]

Thanks,

Is there any evidence that it works?

I find it bizarre, how can killing one person be any different to killing another? Isn't the crime murder?  If they are identified as coming from a particular group, how does that change things? Isn't murder  just ( ) murder? No matter who you kill?

Sorry to sound dumb

Cindy

I think what your missing is that the law places an inordinate amount of weight on the intent with which someone committed a particular crime. For instance, if a person accidentally hits a biker while driving they may be charged with manslaughter, because they didn't intend to hurt anyone and yet they killed someone through negligence. However, if a person kidnapped someone else, and stabbed them forty times and left them to die- the intent of the crime is obvious and they would likely be charged with a first degree murder. (To demonstrate, a soldier is technically a murderer, but the intent behind his crime is to 'protect' people so they atrocity of the act is diminished and we don't punish him) In our instance, hate crimes are committed because people specifically target an individual of a specific group for violence, because we live in a society that disallows discrimination, we consider the intent of this crime to be particularly heinous and as such the criminal deserves a particularly large sentence.

As for the efficacy of such policies, hate crimes legislation like other forms of 'getting strict on crime' don't actually prevent crime at all. These policies assume that people are essentially rationale beings that calculate risk vs. reward constantly in their mind, to proponents of 'throw them in prison forever' justice the goal is to make the risks of being convicted so great that no one would dare to commit a crime. However, people are not rationale beings and don't make rationale decisions most of the time. Because people are not rationale, the threat of throwing them in prison forever doesn't phase them, and thus does not decrease the likelihood that someone would commit a crime. But because most people are ignorant of legal issues, and 'getting tough on crime' is a good political strategy, policies that actually utilize our resources effectively to reduce crime such as better education, better socioeconomic opportunities, and diversity training in schools won't be enacted anytime soon.

Tl:DR Trans people and LBGT people still suffer significantly higher rates of violent crime, punishment doesn't work, only policies that promote prevent actually prevent crimes. However, we live in a backward country, so expect to be the victim of violent crime in your lifetime!

[tekla]

However, we live in a backward country

Perhaps some do, but in fact most do not.  Matter of fact lots of people are getting up and going to work today at jobs that are pretty much the opposite of backwards, they are going out to invent the future.

And the evidence is that it tends to muck up the trial, for intent is a very slippery thing.

[Julie Marie]

Creating hate crimes, anti-discrimination laws, and things of that nature raise awareness that there is a disparity in how minorities are treated.  And that's important when one is damaged socially, financially or physically. 

In this impatient world we think if we don't get an instant result then we need to rethink our strategy and develop a new one.  But some things just take time.  The civil rights movement created awareness and started a dialog.  But even today, decades later, there is still prejudice lingering.  Had we not passed laws and enforced them (sometimes) where would we be today?  Probably right back where we were. 

There are too many people who gravitate towards "leadership" roles who know polarizing people by instilling fear in them is a very effective tool in getting them behind you.  And if the fear one is instilling in the masses harms a person or group of people, you need some sort of legal stop gap, because the power hungry won't regulate themselves.

Sure, people are emotional animals and they will still commit crimes even if there is harsher penalties for doing so.  But in time, the social attitude will change and eventually that will be taught in homes, where prejudice begins.  It takes a long time but if nothing is done it will never happen.

[ToriJo]

Where hate crime laws are effective is not murder cases.  It's cases where a T person gets the crap beat out of them, but will live.  Or a kid in school who is black gets the crap beat out of the, but will live and physically recover.  This isn't a minor crime of "fighting" where likely both parties instigated the fight.

The purpose of the law is to say, "As society, we do not think it's okay to go looking for a black guy to beat up, nor do we see this the same as a simple fist fight."

Another example is arson - it's one thing for me to go and set fire to an abandoned building.  Bad, and should land me in jail.  But if I burn down a mosque, chances are I'm trying to send a message to an entire group of people: You aren't welcome here.  Even if the dollar amounts of damage betweeen the abandoned building and the mosque are the same, the burning of the mosque will have a lot stronger effect on a lot more people. I hurt more people worse if I burnt down a mosque.  The "punishment" should fit the crime.

Hate crimes in the US are laws against using arson or physical violence to rid my community of minorities I don't like.

It's similar to other crimes - if I burnt down a judge's house because he's presiding in a case against a fellow gang member, the penalty is worse than if I burnt down most other people's house.  It's not about property damage - it's about the crime of trying to subvert the judicial system.  Likewise, hate crimes aren't about property damage or violence towards a person, they are about trying to deny freedom to minorities that legislators think have a right to live even in places where some dislike those minorities.  Like the attack on the judge, it's an attack on society in a way simple assault or arson is not.

The other difference between these beatings and typical beatings (like a typical bar fight) is that in the typical case, there is one victim.  In a "gay bashing", the victims are all gays who are unable to enjoy walking around society without undo fear.

[Guantanamera]

The other difference between these beatings and typical beatings (like a typical bar fight) is that in the typical case, there is one victim.  In a "gay bashing", the victims are all gays who are unable to enjoy walking around society without undo fear.

This ^^.

Are there a good number of people interested in politics or are otherwise wonkettes here?

[JadeRose]

Sorry for reviving this topic from the dead.

This topic recently came up in my life, and while I can see both sides of this argument, I think that Slanan's posts really drive the point home about these types of laws, and how premeditation and intent are the base for our legal system here in the US, and I just wanted to say thank you.

I think what the opponents of hate crime legislation don't understand (besides the perspective of a victim of hate) is the effect something like this has on a group, whatever kind of group that may be.