Hate Crimes

Isobel - posted on 10/16/2009

the legal definition of hate and the dictionary definition of hate are two different things...I think most of us are talking about the legal definition and one is talking about the dictionary version. if you admit that the crimes I mentioned were different from each other, then you understand the spirit of the law. Disagree all you like...you are disagreeing with the definition, not the concept.

Diana - posted on 10/15/2009

Christa, you're still ignoring that the wording of the law makes no provision for any particular groups. No group is "protected." You seem to have a chip on your shoulder and think that minority groups are somehow being given a free pass by the hate crime law. They're not. As posted, the law stipulates that if race, religion, gender, etc., etc. is a motivation for *any* crime it may be prosecuted as a hate crime for a harsher penalty. So if a bunch of gay guys beat up a straight guy just because he's straight, with the intention of making straight people afraid, then they can be prosecuted under hate crime laws. Now, how it's used may be up for debate-but the law is not. Under the law, NO ONE IS BEING GIVEN SPECIAL "PRIVELEGES." As I said already, punishment fits the crime-and so a crime that is intended to, and does, terrorize many people is prosecuted with all of those people in mind. It's not about what specifically the victim was the made the person hate them-it's about the fact that an entire group of people is now afraid, no matter what group that is.

Jenny - posted on 10/15/2009

Quoting Christa:

Ok Cathy, I will give you that. A person robbing a bank is not a hate crime. Let me be more specific. A targeted murder of any kind, a rape, an attack etc. These are all hate crimes no matter what the motive is. Whether it's targeting a black person because they are black or targeting an old girlfriend. They are both fueled by hate. I agree with your last statement but is must include I hate you because, you did me wrong, you looked at me funny, I have anger issues and hate everyone, etc. I'm trying to make it clear that I'm comparing apples to apples here. A gay guy murdered and a straight guy murdered, in the EXACT same way, both those murderers should be punished equally. Just because one guy did it because he hates gay guys and the other did it because that guy looked at him funny doesn't matter to me. They both acted out of hate and anger and should both be punished the same. If you don't then you do send the message that the gay guy was more important then the straight guy. That is what it comes down to for me. I hope that clears things up a bit.

Now I'm really bowing out, I know I've said that several times already, but I mean it this time. I'm going to unsubscribe to this one so you guys can't lure me back. :-P

Except straight guys aren't walking around in fear that they will be next after a straight guy gets beat up or murdered. Many of my homosexual friends have experienced acts of violence for just being themselves in public. That's it. Not picking at someone, not starting a fight, not hitting on a straight person. For hanging out in a public place with his gay friends. When a gay person is beat other gay people experience fear. That is why the (rightly) harsher punishment.

Cathy - posted on 10/15/2009

Quoting Christa:

No I still think all crimes are hate crimes. But yes I do think there are different levels. And I still think one victim should not be held in a higher regard then another. We are ALL equal.

A person robbing a bank at gun point is not commiting a crime of hate ... thats a crime of greed.

The problem is that you are in this statement setting parametres that only certain groups of people can be victim to a hate crime. That simply isn't true. A hate crime can affect anyone in any walk of life.

If the motivation is "I hate you because you are... black, white, gay, straight, american, british, canadian, support the wrong team, emo, goth, etc etc etc ... and 'cause of that i'm going to kick the shit out of you". If someone actively seeks out a random person from the hated group, for any reason, that becomes a crime of hate.

?? - posted on 10/15/2009

Well I'm glad you focused on the one part of my post that I asked you to stop focusing on.

THAT speaks volumes :-\

?? - posted on 10/15/2009

All victims are equally important. Stop it with that crap - no one is saying the victims are not any less important than any other victim.



The Motivation Behind The Crime Is The Key Factor In Deciding What Punishment Is Appropriate.



Focus on that.



Hate Crimes are crimes that are committed by targetting a certain group of people and picking someone who happens to randomly come by from that group of people and doing those heinous things to them, not because they did anything themselves, but because they happen to be apart of that group of people.



Hate Crimes instill fear in a community of people by randomly choosing a person from that community and sending them the message "I DON'T CARE WHO YOU ARE - IF YOU ARE GAY - I WILL KILL YOU BECAUSE I HATE GAYS."



A person who kills someone because they are drunk, say they get a punishment of 25 years to life with the possibility of parole at 25 years. They are paroled at 25 years and had perfect behavior in prison because he knows he screwed up big time, he got wasted and he took a life and that's just NOT him, get out at say 50 years old, gets a job as a grocery bagger and continues on his life to be a good normal citizen. Learned his lesson.



A person kills someone because the guy looked at his woman the wrong way. A person kills someone because the guy was a hobo and standing on the street. A person kills someone because the guy was cheering for the opposite team. The chances of those crimes are SO unlikely to happen again.



(I'll switch this around just for you Christa)

A BLACK GUY kills a WHITE GUY because he HATES WHITE PEOPLE. He gets charged with a hate crime and is given life in prison without the possibility of parole because in PRISON that hatred won't just .......... go away. He will have to get in with the other black gangs in prison, continue to hate white people, probably end up in fights, and all sorts of other crap with white vs black gangs in prison and the chances of that hatred going away are slim to none. He would get out at say 50 years old and STILL hate white people - and NOW there's some black dude out on the streets who figures OH WELL I CAN KILL ANOTHER ONE! And the white people in that community are now scared shitless because they KNOW this dude already killed some poor guy 25 years ago and he can still kill another one because what does he care? He's 50! He felt safer in he joint anyways......



Hate Crime Breeds Hate. Are you gettin the point here? Why hate crime IS different than other crime? The motivation behind the crime is a reason to keep a prisoner locked away for longer. They pose a bigger threat. The act in itself poses a bigger picture that needs to be addressed.

Isobel - posted on 10/15/2009

so you do believe that there are SOME hate crimes...that particular one just doesn't fit the bill? that's a little better...all crime is not hate crime then.

Cathy - posted on 10/15/2009

A hate crime is despising someone and holding no value to their life because of what they are not who they are.

Jodi - posted on 10/15/2009

Cathy, that's "A Time to Kill" isn't it. I didn't watch the video, and my sound is off, but I have seen the movie. I have also read the book. Both of them brought me to tears. And I agree all motives are different, and should be punished accordingly. This movie (and book) is a very good example of that.



There are issues like that also in To Kill A Mockingbird......but apparently that is on some of the banned lists in school these days because it is racist!!!

Cathy - posted on 10/15/2009

Everytime I hear this closing statement in this movie I cry. Seems relevant to this debate.



For anyone who hasn't seen the movie or read the book, a little girl is brutally raped but because she is black her attacker is freed being from a good white family and the little girls life is considered to have no value. The girls father kills him. He is then tried for murder.



There are still people who think like this, whatever the difference sexuality, colour, nationality. Its an act of terrorism to hurt people from one group, to strike fear into that community. Every crime isn't based on hate but as a motive to any crime it needs to be addressed.

Isobel - posted on 10/14/2009

Christa, what if we make the crimes a little smaller and see if we can agree on the point...
does spray painting FU on the side of a walmart deserve the same punishment as spray painting DIE KYKES on the side of a synagogue? Does lighting a fire in a garbage can on a side walk deserve the same punishment as burning a cross on a black family's front lawn?

?? - posted on 10/14/2009

You can't make something personal and expect me to waver from my opinion on a matter... that doesn't even make sense Christa.



If my child were to commit a crime out of hatred I would expect the law to punish him appropriately and if my child was a victim of a hate crime I would expect the law to punish that person appropriately.



If my child were to commit a crime out of stupidity I would expect the law to punish him appropriately and if my child was a victim of a crime of stupidity I would expect the law to punish that person appropriately.



I have no control over that. So making it personal is really pointless. I wouldn't expect special treatment because he is my child. I expect every person to be held responsible for the crimes they commit and I expect every punishment to fit the crime. And I think that EVERY CRIME that is committed out of hate needs to be addressed specifically as a hate crime, and punished on a level to show the rest of the world that HATE is not acceptable and will be punished to the max.

?? - posted on 10/14/2009

The motivation is completely different Christa, I'd be fightin my ass off regardless to make sure the fuckhole gets what he deserves but my childs case would be completely seperate from the other case so there's no comparison.



I'm really unsure what your point is because like I said MOTIVATION IS KEY.



By that statement alone.... every murder should mandatory get life in prison regardless of the reason it was committed. The fact that you don't care what the motivation is behind a crime worries me, WHY is a HUGE factor.



I would be fightin my ass off to make sure that the asshole that hurt my child would get everything they deserve, as I would expect from EVERY parent. It would also depend on WHY this asshole chose my child as their victim - random victim, my child had nicer clothes, my child was being a butthead, they were drunk, the idiot thought my child looked at them the wrong way, EVERY CRIME HAS A MOTIVATION - and that motivation should be the KEY FACTOR in deciding the punishment.



If the murderer of my child is up for parole in 20 years, he better be ready for his victims family at the parole hearing. If the murderer of a black kid by a white supremist is up for pareole in 20 years... he has a lot to be prepared for IF he gets out. American History X. The hate crime affects an entire group of people, not just an individuals family and friends. The reprecussions of a hate crime are much more intense and it BREEDS hatred on BOTH sides of the fence - and those crimes NEED to be addressed more vigorously because the hatred multiplies as soon as it is known to happen.

Amie - posted on 10/14/2009

Criminal Code of Canada: Hate Provisions - Summary

"Hate" is defined as a crime under two parts of Canada’s Criminal Code: sections 318 and 319. To convict anyone under the Code, very specific proof is required: both of the criminal act itself, and of the intention or motivation to commit the crime. It isn’t enough that someone has said something hateful or untrue; the courts will only find someone guilty if they contravened the Code exactly, and if they did it deliberately.

In most cases, hate propaganda communicated through the Internet is an offence under the Criminal Code. Amendments to the Code, made under the Anti-Terrorism Act in December 2001, further clarify measures and offences regarding Internet hate crimes.

Section 318: Advocating Genocide

The criminal act of "advocating genocide" is defined as supporting or arguing for the killing of members of an "identifiable group" — persons distinguished by their colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. The intention or motivation would be the destruction of members of the targeted group. Any person who promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence, and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Defining Genocide

Section 318 defines genocide as any acts committed with intent to destroy an identifiable group —such as killing members of the group, or deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction.

Section 319(1): Public Incitement of Hatred

The crime of "publicly inciting hatred" has four main elements. To contravene the Code, a person must:

* communicate statements,
* in a public place,
* incite hatred against an identifiable group,
* in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.

Under section 319, "communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; a "public place" is one to which the public has access by right or invitation, express or implied; and "statements" means words (spoken, written or recorded), gestures, and signs or other visible representations.

All the above elements must be proven for a court to find an accused guilty of either:

* an indictable offence, for which the punishment is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
* an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Section 319(2) defines the additional offence of communicating statements, other than in private conversation, that wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.

Section 319(3) identifies acceptable defences. Indicates that no person shall be convicted of an offence if the statements in question:

* are established to be true
* were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds it was believed to be true
* were expressed in good faith, it was attempted to establish by argument and opinion on a religious subject
* were expressed in good faith, it was intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada

Warrants of Seizure

Section 320 of the Criminal Code provides for the seizure and forfeiture of physical hate propaganda material kept on any premises for distribution or sale.

Section 320.1 added under the Anti-Terrorism bill in 2001, allows the courts to order publicly available hate propaganda to be deleted from computer systems, such as a Web site. The individuals responsible for posting the offensive material are given the opportunity to convince the court that it does not constitute hate propaganda. This provision applies to any hate propaganda located on a Canadian computer system, regardless where the owner of the material is located.

Additional Hate Provisions

The courts may define the motivations of hate, bias or prejudice as aggravating factors when sentencing an offender for other offences, such as assault, damage to property, threatening, or harassment. The result is usually a more severe punishment (section 718.2(a)(i)).


18 U.S.C. § 242 : US Code - Section 242: Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation,
or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different
punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being
an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed
for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury
results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if
such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a
dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death
results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if
such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated
sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or
an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned
for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to
death.

Diana - posted on 10/14/2009

"If the finder of fact at trial or, in the case of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court at sentencing determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected any victim or any property as the object of the offense of conviction because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person, increase by 3 levels."

That's the wording in the federal law from 1994.

I had to do some searching for that-I Googled "hate crime legislation" and waded around until I found it.

Diana - posted on 10/14/2009

All crimes are not hate crimes, and hate crimes should be punished more adamantly than others. Christa, you are working under the assumption that a hate crime law protects only people of certain races. It actually protects people from crimes committed on the basis of religion, race, ethnicity, and (we're still working on this one) sexual orientation. Your assumption that a black person who killed a white person based on hate and a white person who killed a black person based on hate would be treated differently is false. That's not how the law is written.



Those laws are there to protect us from being terrorized. They are there to say that we are striving to make society an equally safe place for everyone.



I will agree that sometimes the legislation is pushed to its extreme-for example in the case Lindsay was talking about-but it needs to be there.



Motivation plays a big part in how we prosecute and how we sentence people. If the motivation was not only to terrorize one person, but an entire group of people, then the punishment should be proportionate to the crime-therefore not only the victim and the victim's family need to be kept in mind, but also the group of people who are now afraid to walk out their front doors.



(This post edited for clarity's sake. Sorry, I'm on hella good cough medicine.

?? - posted on 10/14/2009

Quoting Christa:

I want to use this as an example:

Boulder, Colorado. After discovering that one of their members had never had sex with a white woman, an Asian gang went looking for one. When they found a white University of Colorado student, the six men gang raped her in their minivan for two hours.
At their trial, “Detectives described the woman’s night of terror, including repeated threats to kill her.
“The woman leaped out of the minivan after one of the men raped her. Naked, she sprinted across Lefthand Canyon Road before Steve Yang tackled her, authorities said.
“‘They were all screaming at her, calling her names and hitting her,’ Detective Jane Harmer testified.
“Yang put her in a headlock and dragged her back into the van, where she was raped repeatedly, Harmer said.
“‘It was a free-for-all,’ Harmer testified.
“One man threatened to ‘cut and burn her,’ and another put a gun barrel to the back of her head when they released her, Harmer said.”

If the men had been white and the girl had been one of their ex lovers, but the rest of the details were the same, would that NOT be a hate crime? Would it not be as horrible?

No - it's not a hate crime. The motivation is not a hatred for a specific discriminatory factor.

Yes - it is JUST as horrible, all of these crimes are horrible. THE MOTIVATION IS THE KEY FACTOR.

LIKE I ALREADY SAID Stealing is bad - but stealing bread to feed your family is 1 thing. Stealing bread because you're bored is a completely different level of disgusting behavior.

Murder is bad - murdering people because you're fucked up on drugs and not in control of your own mind and body is disgusting and repulsive. Murdering someone because they happen to be [gay, muslim, white, black, indian, cross dresser] is a whole other level of disgusting behavior.

There are different motivations - being bored, bad and stupid - people get punished for everyday in the world. Being hateful, discriminatory, thinking you have the right to take someone's life just because they are [for example] gay - that's beyond stupid. Thats beyond replusive, that's a hate motivated crime.

The crimes are all HORRIBLE, the MOTIVATION - direct, targetted, specific hatred brought upon another individual because of a specific DETAIL in life -- that's not the same as someone being personally affected by another human being in one way or another (your ex lover example - for example - crimes of passion) as someone anyone any random individual that has absolutely no other attachment/relationship/expectation/reason to be targetted other than the SOLE reason of specifically targetted hatred.

I know this is all over the place, sorry, doin 5 things at once and really really tryin to explain the difference -- I've given you simple examples, I've explained the differences in simple ways -- I've given you actual examples from life (and no I don't know the punishments of those, like I said, quick google search of hate crimes committed by black people towards white people that are just as brutal and disgusting as hate crimes against black people, gays, cross dressers etc because you said that white people aren't included in the hate crime 'category')......... I can only explain it in so many ways, and I'm really not understanding why you're unable to see the distinction LOL

I agree that punishment should always suit the crime - no matter how horrible it is - stealing, rape, murder, etc - hate crimes though... hate crimes have a whole other vile ingredient to them - hate crimes are not directed at ONE individual even though there is usually an individual victim - they are committed with a 'message' directed at the group of people not just the individual.

The attacks on the twin towers = hate crime. It was a message to the people of the united states of america - specifically the government. It wasn't a message to the people in the twin towers saying WE HATE YOU SPECIFICALLY SO WE'RE GOING TO KILL YOU. It was a crime committed against an entire group of people because they KNEW it would strike fear into the hearts of an entire group of people. Not one individual person, an entire group of people.

Amie - posted on 10/14/2009

Quoting Christa:

  If these special laws get passed it wouldn't be because white males are not protected.

Christa you do know there is already hate crime legislation not only in the USA but quite a few countries around the world don't you?

It's not an if they get passed, they already have been.

?? - posted on 10/14/2009

Just to point that I wasn't makin shit up - this was a quick google search of hate crimes committed by black people against white people --



Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Upset about a racial name-calling that occurred earlier that night, several black men savagely beat a random white man who had had nothing to do with the incident. He slipped away from his attackers, but they forced him to swim into a lake to escape. He drowned. The three men were sentenced to less than a year in jail.



Massachusetts. Four black men decided to murder the next white person they saw. That unlucky soul was a college student from Boston, whom the men stabbed to death.



Indiana. A black man was arrested for killing seven white people with a shotgun. He explained that he murdered his victims due to his “deep-rooted hatred” of white people.



Miami, Florida. The leader of a black supremacist sect (i.e., the “Yaweh ben Yaweh cult”) was convicted of the murders of several white people. He ordered his followers to kill any and all “white devils.” They killed at least seven white people, bringing back body parts to their leader.



North Carolina. Seven black men kidnapped a white woman, raped her, put her in a tub of bleach, shot her five times, and dumped her body. The murderers said they did this for racial reasons.



North Carolina. Four black teenagers lured a white, ten-year-old girl into an empty house. “There, they sodomized her, strangled her with a cable wire, and beat her to death with a board. In the past few weeks, the trials in the Tiffany Long case have received extensive coverage in the North Carolina press. But with two of the three defendants already sentenced to lifelong prison terms, and the third now standing trial, the national media have all but ignored the story. Only the Associated Press has reported on the trials, in a single, cursory piece. The AP, of course, failed to mention the race of the people involved — an oversight it seldom if ever committed in the case of Amadou Diallo.”



Boulder, Colorado. After discovering that one of their members had never had sex with a white woman, an Asian gang went looking for one. When they found a white University of Colorado student, the six men gang raped her in their minivan for two hours.

At their trial, “Detectives described the woman’s night of terror, including repeated threats to kill her.

“The woman leaped out of the minivan after one of the men raped her. Naked, she sprinted across Lefthand Canyon Road before Steve Yang tackled her, authorities said.

“‘They were all screaming at her, calling her names and hitting her,’ Detective Jane Harmer testified.

“Yang put her in a headlock and dragged her back into the van, where she was raped repeatedly, Harmer said.

“‘It was a free-for-all,’ Harmer testified.

“One man threatened to ‘cut and burn her,’ and another put a gun barrel to the back of her head when they released her, Harmer said.”





Kansas City, Missouri. An Ethiopian immigrant shot two white coworkers — killing one and critically injuring the other — at his workplace, then turned the gun on himself. At his residence, police found a three-page, signed note he had written in which he railed at “black blood sucker supreme white people” for oppressing him and black people in general.



New York City. In a Midtown office building, a white woman was assaulted, raped, and anally raped by a black man who called her racist names during the attack. Police refused to label it a hate crime.



Alexandria, Virginia. A black man walking through a neighborhood went over to a white eight-year-old boy playing in his great-grandparents’ front yard and slit the child’s throat, killing him. A witness says that the attacker shouted racial epithets during the attack, and the main suspect in the case owns anti-white hate literature and had written a note about killing white children. He had been previously arrested for attacking an unarmed white stranger with a hammer. (During the attack, he called his victim “Whitey.”

This particular case provides a perfect example of the terrible way that anti-white hate crimes are handled. First, the investigators decided not to tell police officers about the racial aspects of the case, even while the police were conducting a manhunt to find the boy’s killer. When this was revealed by the Washington Post, city council member Joyce Woodson defended this withholding of information from the cops on the front line. “What they did was proper. We already live in a racially charged world.” The Democratic mayor of Alexandria implied his agreement: “Efforts to sensationalize this investigation will only hurt this investigation.

To make things even stranger, the FBI offered to send agents and a fugitive task force to help with the manhunt, but the local police rejected the offer. They also refused the help of the FBI’s profilers, forensics experts, and others.

Eventually, the police arrested a suspect who was reportedly tied to the scene by DNA evidence. In another bizarre move, the Justice Department — which had acknowledged that it was monitoring the case — declined to prosecute the killing as a hate crime. The government’s prosecutor in the case cannot charge the victim with a hate crime. “There’s no applicable hate crimes law in Virginia,” he explained.

An editorial in the Washington Times pointedly commented on the deafening silence surrounding the brutal child-murder: “Has anyone seen Jesse Jackson around lately? Kweisi Mfume? Al Sharpton? For persons whose political antennae are ordinarily so sensitive that they can pick up racial tremors a thousand miles away, they seem to have overlooked a possible hate crime right here in the vicinity of the nation’s capital.”

Even though all of the above incidents occurred in the last ten years, anti-white hate crimes are not new. The Village Voice writes of “the wave of random street killings that terrorized San Francisco in 1973. The ‘Zebra killers’ struck without warning, murdering whites at night. Most victims were shot. One was raped, another beheaded. Four young black Muslims were arrested in 1974 and charged with 14 murders, seven assaults, one rape, and an attempted kidnapping. The Zebra killers were convicted in 1976.”





All of these crimes are JUST as brutal and EQUALLY motivated by hatred and SHOULD ALL BE CONSIDERED HATE CRIMES. Just as much as Matthew Shepard's murder was a hate crime.

?? - posted on 10/14/2009

They aren't in a protective bubble................. it's the law saying hating [race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, discriminatory factor] is not an acceptable reason to beat rape and murder someone and you will be punished for it.



These people have NO OTHER REASON for murdering WHOEVER other than the fact that they HATE whatever discriminatory factor. These crimes have no other motivation other than the fact that the person is discriminating against a person because of who they are - nothing else - just being who they are, being black, being gay, being a cross dresser, being fat, being muslim, being christian, being indian.



I'm sorry you can't see that.



And YES THAT IS A HATE CRIME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If the MOTIVATION was simply that the black guy HATES white people --- KKK !!! It HAS happened!!! Black people have been persecuted before because they KNEW the white guy was in the KKK, he had NO other motivation behind killing the guy OTHER THAN THAT and he was brought up on hate crime charges because of it.



It is NOT a one way street.

?? - posted on 10/14/2009

You're missing the point on purpose lol



They're not "more important" or have "more value" or any of that crap. It's the fact that they are TARGETTED ON PURPOSE SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF ___________. Insert whatever discriminatory factor.



We don't prosecute people on their gender, race, religion etc but EVERY crime the MOTIVATION is one of the KEY factors when determining the punishment. Whether it's some dude stealing bread to feed his family or some dude stealing bread because he was bored. Or some guy goes around beating up random people or some guy goes around and beats up people of a specific race.



There is a difference. And there are different motivations to each crime even though the crime is the same crime.



As for the gay guy who provokes crap... he's asking for it, and should be punished equally. Same with the white guy who provokes the other white guy. And the black guy that provokes the white guy. When you're the instigator, you have to be prepared to take responsibility for your actions. I think in those situations the motivation is still the key factor.



For instance - white guy and black guy. White guy hates black people, but is saying/doing nothing. Black guy knows white guy doesn't like black people, so black guy eggs on white guy

--- that's not a hate crime that's two dudes being idiots.



White guy hates black people and has been harassing the black guy so black guy eggs on white guy

--- that's not a hate crime that's two dudes being idiots.



White guy hates black people and has been harassing the black guy so black guy defends himself

--- that IS a hate crime.



You HAVE to look at the motivation behind the crime in order to determine whether or not it's a hate crime. There ARE differences.

ME - posted on 10/14/2009

It seems to me that we typically do look at a person's motivation when charging them with a crime and when sentencing them. The difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder is basically whether or not you INTENDED to KILL the person ahead of time. For this reason, we give less harsh penalties to people who react badly in a fit of passion, than to those who have planned for days, weeks, or months to kill a person. If there are wittnesses around who can support the fact that the motivation for a crime was the hatred of a whole group of individuals, and the victim happens to fall into that group, and the criminal went out looking for a member of that group to victimize, then that is different than reacting badly in a provocative situation...imo.

?? - posted on 10/14/2009

Oh haha I don't remember, if you say it might have been you, it might have been lol I don't even remember what forum it was on.



It's not the crime that is the key factor Christa, it's the victim and why they chose that person as their victim. Of course ALL of those crimes are horrible - if ANYONE is brutally raped and murdered it is equally as awful. BUT the HUGE difference is the MOTIVATION behind the crime, not the CRIME itself.



Matthew Shepard would (most likely) NEVER had been a victim (of that crime) if the crime had not been MOTIVATED by the murderers extreme hatred for homosexuals.



You're focusing on the crime and not the meaning of what a hate crime is. You're choosing to ignore the fact that a crime motivated by a specific hatred for something (race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, weight, appearances alone) is just has that much more concentrated purpose than someone murdering and raping someone just because they were there and they were "at the wrong place at the wrong time."



Hate crimes are TARGETTED people. People who are specifically sought out on an individual level because of who they are. Because they are African American, because they are gay, because they are transgender. People who are targetted specifically because someone (the murderer) has a hatred for that one specific 'thing'.



I do understand what you are saying, but I think it's the opposite of your last sentance. We are equal - and that is why we should be protecting everyone equally and making sure that people who breed hatred in their lives know that if they decide to act on their hatred, they won't be treated like it's nothing more than the average run of the mill murder, then maybe it will stop people from turning lil Jimmy down the block into the next Matthew Shepard.

?? - posted on 10/11/2009

If a black person kills a white person because they are a white person and there is no other motivation they get the same penalty as a white person that kills a black person just because they are a black person and there is no other motivation.



People get beat up all the time - black people, white people, gays, lesbians, junkies, hobo's, mexicans - just because they are who they are and the only differences between them are motivations.



There HAVE BEEN cases where someone was beat because they were a fat person and it disgusted a group of young thin people - I don't remember where it was or when - some time ago, but it HAS happened.



Some crimes aren't prosecuted and deals are made all the time but it does not mean it doesn't happen and it's just really sad to think that someone thinks that it doesn't. Reverse bull...... yeesh... that last sentance you're gonna have to elaborate on please;

I think there is too much 'hate' to make a certain crime for all of it.

Konda - posted on 10/11/2009

What I 'hate' is there are 'hate' crimes for certain races.....in the US anyway, if you are white, and a black beats the shit out of you because you are a white honkey, then so be it, not hate, reverse-racism. There is no 'hate' crime for beating the shit out of a fat person because they are too damn fat and disgust you....or a fat person beating the shit out of a skinny person because he/she is too thin. I think there is too much 'hate' to make a certain crime for all of it.

Lindsay - posted on 10/09/2009

I think TRUE hate crimes deserve strict penalties but I also think that sometimes crimes get turned into hate crimes that really aren't so. Does that make sense? Let me give an example....A few years ago, there was a teen that was hit while crossing a busy street in our city. The driver of the car was white. The teen was black. It was dark outside and the teen was dressed in dark clothing therefore making himself harder to see. The person driving the car didn't see him until it was too late and hit him and killed him. It was a very tragic accident and just that, an accident. The man driving the car was very upset and called and cooperated with the police. They deemed it just that, an accident and did not charge him. The next day, the NAACP raised hell about it being a hate crime and such. To make a long story short, they raised so much shit that this man ended up behind bars.



My point being is that some crimes are obviously hate crimes and should be charged as that. But I've also seen that if the incident involves someone that is often the target of hate crimes, it becomes that falsely.

Krista - posted on 10/09/2009

I was watching Ellen today, and she had a woman on her show who was the mother of a teen who was killed 11 years ago because he was gay. Two men picked him up to give him a ride, beat him, then tied him to a fence in freezing temperatures and left him to die. As the mother explained it, a hate crime is a crime that is committed with the intention of not only striking fear into the victim or his family, but in a whole group of people. Hate crimes are committed by those who think that they need to show others how wrong their way of life is, or want to make people live in fear because of who they are. No, not all crime is hate crime, obviously. Not even every crime comitted against a gay man or a black woman or a Jewish person is a hate crime. I don't think that the designation of "hate crime" is given just based on the race, religion, or sexual orientation of the victim. It's something that has to be determined by looking at the facts and determining the motivation behind the crime. That's what lawyers and judges and trials are for. There are definitely certain crimes that are committed out of hate and they certainly deserve harsher penalties than other, lesser crimes.

Isobel - posted on 10/09/2009

First of all...loved that video! Thank you Cathy.

Second, there is not a doubt in my mind that burning a cross on somebody's front lawn deserves more punishment than starting a fire in a public garbage can...both fires, both illegal yet there's a difference.

Getting into a barfight cause a guy is a jerk or hitting on your girlfriend is different than walking up to someone who is muslim, gay, black, whatever, and bashing their head in.

Putting a swastika on a synagogue is not the same as spraypainting the wall of the local walmart.

No, not all crimes are hate crimes. And Yes, hate crimes deserve stricter penalties.

Charlie - posted on 10/07/2009

I think hate crimes should be punished more harshly but i don't think all crimes are a hate crime EG, if someone steals a loaf of bread to feed his family it isn't done out of hate its done out of necessity and perhaps love for his family.

CATHY , I loved that , hahaha they were cage fighters or something right ? geez teach those guys to pick on drag queens !!

Jodi - posted on 10/07/2009

No, not all crime is hate crime.......

A person who robs the local store to get some money, that is not a hate crime. It is not motivated by emotion or hate, it is motivated by material needs.

A person who robs someones house and accidentally kills someone while doing so, is motivated by material need, and then self- protection (I mean protecting themselves from getting caught), not hate.



My view of a hate crime is when someone is specifically targeted because of who or what they are.



If the person who robbed and trashed a store chose that store because they didn't like the owner or manager, that is a hate crime. If they chose that store because it was convenient, it isn't.



I think whether it is hate crime or not is entirely dependent on the primary motivation.

Jeannette - posted on 10/07/2009

http://www.workers.org/ww/1999/texas0930...

I think the death penalty is too light for these people actually...in this case, I would stoop to a public lynching in the town square, and let their bodies rot for about 3 days so that people will see the consequence of such a horrific gruesome murder!

Jeannette - posted on 10/07/2009

Okay, I took a shower, thought about it, and changed my mind. In Texas, there was a black man that was pulled behind the pick up truck of a group of white men...he died...I don't know if it could be proven that this was premeditated because they met up with the guy in a public place, they didn't know him personally....so screw it! Yes, there should be hate crime laws!!!!!

Jeannette - posted on 10/07/2009

Here is how I view it...I think that any crime committed that was premeditated, is indeed a hate crime. I think that those crimes should be punished harsher due to the fact that the person thought about the crime before committing it.
Now, as far as whether or not every gay person who gets beat up by a straight person is the target of a hate crime, I don't think so. I think gay people can be assholes who taunt people into knocking them out, just like I think a straight person can be an asshole and taunt until they get clobbered. I think we need to be careful in that sense, because no person should get special protections and considerations based on the way they look or live. I hope I said that in a way that is understandable.

Amie - posted on 10/07/2009

What a silly idea that all crimes are hate crimes.



I can concede that there is an element of hate behind most crimes. That doesn't automatically make them a hate crime.



Eg. The white man that murders his black wife because she cheated. He hates her and that is his drive behind why he murdered her BUT he doesn't hate all black people so it doesn't fit the hate crime label.



A hate crime is when you specifically go after a certain person because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. If there is no underlying reason besides that then THAT is a hate crime.



Eg. The man who goes out and attacks a gay man because he is gay. No other reason, he's just gay and I don't agree with that. THAT is a hate crime.



I can't articulate well how I think these crimes should be punished. I do however think that an all across the board level punishment for crimes is a ridiculous idea.



Does the man who murdered his wife deserve lesser time than the man who beat the gay man? No. He deserves more time, he took a life. That doesn't mean the other shouldn't get off easy either. It's such a complex issue. Just because it's a hate crime though shouldn't automatically mean a very stiff sentence, the factors (what was done, end result, etc.) of the crime should be taken into account too.

Cathy - posted on 10/07/2009

This is taken from a news story that was on UK TV this evening. The two drunken thugs decided to pick a fight with a couple of "drag queens" for no other reason than not liking the way they were dressed. Fortunatly in the case the "drag queens" turned out to be cage fighters in fancy dress for a stag night.

Sara - posted on 10/07/2009

My husband hates the idea of hate crimes, but I think hate crime legislation is needed so that people know if they commit a crime that can be proven to be motivated by race/sexual orientation/etc that it will carry harsher penalties with it. I do agree that all crimes are hateful, but I don't think that all crimes are hate crimes.