Andrew makes the case against this line of argument without calling you a “fucking moron.” Perhaps you’ll feel more comfortable admitting that you’re flat out wrong to him.

BY way of making that official, according to California law, however:

Hate crime statutes have withstood challenges to their constitutionality on a number of occasions. (See, e.g., Wisconsin v. Mitchell, supra, 508 U.S. 476; In re M.S., supra, 10 Cal.4th 698; In re Joshua H., supra, 13 Cal.App.4th 1734.) In answering various constitutional arguments, the California Supreme Court has concluded that “discriminatory motivation is an element that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt” in prosecuting a
hate crime. (In re M.S., supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 718.)

It’s the same level of proof required for many crimes and its determined by a jury.

And determining what constitutes bias motivation is fairly well spelled out in California and recognized generally in the legal community:

Accordingly, the intentional selection of a victim with a protected
characteristic is not sufficient to constitute a hate crime; a subjective attitude amounting to “bias motivation” is an essential element of the offense. This requirement is implicit in the legislative purposes served by the hate crime statutes; the Supreme Court has explicitly
recognized such a requirement in the statutes; and the Legislature has recently enacted statutory definitions making the requirement an express part of all hate crime laws in the state.

“Bias motivation,” however, is not further defined in the hate crime statutes. Does the requirement comprise only the mental attitude of animosity in the sense of hatred or enmity, or does it extend to something more? And if it does extend to something more, how far does it extend? For example, if a man sexually assaults a woman because of anger
or contempt arising from his relationship with that particular woman, would he be acting with bias motivation? Or must he also harbor some negative attitude that disposes him generally against women? If a perpetrator targets a disabled person for robbery because that particular disabled person appears to be defenseless, is the perpetrator acting as the result of bias motivation? What if the perpetrator has a stereotyped conception that all disabled people are defenseless? The distinction between discriminatory selection for utilitarian reasons and a selection based upon feelings such as bigotry or group animus is well documented in the
academic literature. (See, e.g., Lawrence, Punishing Hate: Bias Crimes Under American Law (1999), pp. 29-39; Wang, Recognizing Opportunistic Bias Crimes (2000) 80 B.U.L. Rev. 1399, 1406-1411; Weisburd & Levin, Gender Symposium: “On the Basis of Sex”: recognizing Gender-Based Bias Crimes (1994) 5 Stan. L. & Poly Rev. 21, 27, 33-40.)

In order to determine the scope of the “bias motivation” requirement of section 422.56, subdivision (d), we may apply well recognized rules of statutory construction, beginning with the plain language of the statute.4 “Motivation” commonly means a motivating force, or subjective reason, for particular behavior. (Webster’s 3d New Internat.
Dict. (2002) p. 1475.) Here, we are concerned with the kinds of motivations that are culpable for purposes of the hate crime laws, and which are not: that is, what does “bias” mean? A common definition of the word “bias” is “an inclination of temperament or outlook
. . . such prepossession with some object or point of view that the mind does not respond impartially to anything related to this object or point of view . . . prejudice.” (Id. at p. 211; see also Black’s Law Dict. (8th ed. 2004) p. 171, col. 1 [bias is “Inclination; prejudice”].) “Prejudice,” in turn, is commonly defined as “an irrational attitude of hostility directed
against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics . . . an opinion or judgment formed beforehand or without due examination.” (Webster’s, supra, at p. 1788; see Black’s, supra, at p. 1218, col. 1 [“a preconceived judgment formed without a factual basis; a strong bias.”] Hence, “bias motivation” connotes some pre-existing negative attitude
toward a protected characteristic.5 While no definitive listing of cognizable motivations is possible, we believe that under proper circumstances a range of attitudes may amount to bias
motivation in addition to hatred or animosity, such as resentment, revulsion, contempt, unreasonable fear, paranoia, callousness, thrill-seeking, desire for social dominance, or desire for social bonding with those of one’s “own kind.” The question is, at bottom, one of proof, and each case must be decided on its own individual circumstances.

So everything you think the legal system is ill-equipped to handle the attorney general of California says he is.

On practical grounds, HCL don’t accomplish anything that existing laws should do.

Yes they do on practical grounds. They signal the state and society’s abhorrence of such crimes directly. They add extra punishment when bias motivation is proven. They have a very practical effect to those people serving an extra 5, 10 or 20 years, what have you, for the crime they committed.

The resources spent on HCL would be better used on making sure the system as it exists works as it should.

Ensuring that bias-motivated crimes are officially acknowledged and punished is how the system should work.

Also, while I’m hardly AO’s biggest fan it’s telling that you didn’t respond to his comment that Sheppard’s murderers are doing life, as are the guys who dragged that poor guy to death in Texas.

Telling? Telling of what exactly? HCLs increase the punishments for bias-motivated crimes because bias-motivated crimes tend to do more damage to the individual and society:

Crimes purposely directed against members of a racial, religious, or other
specified group are punished more severely than randomly inflicted crimes because a bias-inspired crime “is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.” (Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) 508 U.S. 476, 487-488; see In re Joshua H., supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at p. 1748.) For example, studies indicate that hate crimes are more likely to be committed by strangers than non-bias crimes, and are more likely to be committed by multiple offenders; for these and other reasons, injuries inflicted during hate crimes tend to be more severe. (In re Joshua H., supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at p. 1478, fn. 9.) Further, “[r]eports show that victimization on the basis of an immutable characteristic or protected status has a more debilitating effect on the victim and on members in the victim’s community than does conventional crime: victims fear a recurrence and experience an increased sense of vulnerability, isolation, and injustice.” (Ibid.; see Wisconsin v. Mitchell, supra, 508 U.S. at p. 488 [“[A]ccording to [Wisconsin] and its amici, bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest”].)

So there is a reason why bias-motivated crimes deserve harsher penalties. HCLs ensure that this happens when they occur.

And please note this, from California law:

“(a) Except in the case of a person punished under Section 422.7, a
person who commits a felony that is a hate crime or attempts to commit a
felony that is a hate crime, shall receive an additional term of one, two, or three years in the state prison, at the court’s discretion.

“(b) Except in the case of a person punished under Section 422.7 or
subdivision (a) of this section, any person who commits a felony that is a hate crime, or attempts to commit a felony that is a hate crime, and who voluntarily acted in concert with another person, either personally or by aiding and abetting another person, shall receive an additional two, three, or four years in the state prison, at the court’s discretion.

You can drone on and on about “Disembowelment” or “Quartering” but that’s the childish tactics of a childish person. The HCL in California tacks on up to four years at the “court’s discretion.”

Here’s the PDF cited:
http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/04-1104.pdf#xml=http://search.doj.ca.gov:8004/AGSearch/isysquery/307ae2c3-cc8b-4808-ab9d-52876850a7a6/9/hilite/

Read the whole thing Jaim. Try to educate yourself and try to argue from the facts of the matter, if you can.

It seems that you are implying that the judge alone decides weather or not to use HCL in a case, and that his judgement of hate is on some sort of scale. This is incorrect for a few reasons. First, the prosecution is the party who would be bringing a HC charge against a defendant. It is up to them weather they think the defendant can be charged with a hate crime. Second, there aren’t different “hate levels”. The killer was either modivated by bias or he isn’t. Third, it is soley the jury’s job to decide what crimes the defendant is guilty of. The judge does not have to ponder anything.

If a prosecuter thinks he can convince a jury that the crime was modivated by bias, then he will charge the defendant with a hate crime in addition to the original crime. The jury will either decide, “yes, this was a crime modivated by bias” or “this crime was not modivated by bias.” It is a black and white, yes or no question considered seperately from the original crime.

A killer will probably hate his victim. Hating the victim because he is an asshole is not a hate crime. Joe could plan to kill Fred because he stole his car, and it is regular old 1st degree murder. Fred being black, white or gay makes no difference. If Joe plans to kill Fred BECAUSE he is gay, then it is first degree murder PLUS a hate crime IF the prosecutor can prove bias modivated the crime.

Despite all of this, I think that HCL probably don’t actually do much in deterring crime. To me they seem like more of a legal formality. It may not affect the punishment significantly, but it may make it more difficult for someone charged with a HC to be granted parole or other privliges. From my very limited understaning of law, I’ve noticed that legal definitions can seem very trivial on their surface, but are actually very important in other less obvious ways. Deciding the effectiveness of HCLs is probably beyond the scope of an internet argument. However, I doubt there is much sense in saying that HCLs use up resources. These aren’t new crimes that are tried on their own, they are added to other crimes.

This whole argument stemmed from LGBT groups being added to existing hate crime laws. No HCL was passed recently, and as far as I know HCLs are nothing new. Apart from weather or not we agree that HCLs are necessary or effective, I think we agree that if they are going to exist, they should apply to every way that people can think of to hate other people.

Even when I’m not here, you still can’t stop thinking about me.

Over twenty times, Jaim.

Dude.

Get a grip on yourself.

You’re as disingenuous as Fafaroo. Do you guys live together?

Jaim, you have some serious self-esteem issues, buddy.

When you said you were going to take a break, everyone here collectively nodded their heads, but then we all thought it was going to be a lot longer than two days.

Criminal penalties typically don’t have much of a deterrent effect. To wit: the death penalty doesn’t prevent murder. In crimes of pre-meditation, possibly. In crime of passion, definitely not.

“Indeed, you have yet to refute a single thing I’ve said with a link to an actual fact or legal argument. I’ve done that several times here.”

My first link was to wording from the Federal statute that HCL obligates judges to mete out harsher sentences for said hate crimes, you fucking liar. You’d denied that this was the case.

“If you can’t back up your claims with sources and citations, you really don’t deserve any respect because you show zero respect for anyone’s intelligence.”

Your sources have been decent ones, but also biased ones. And that’s fine, because as I began way back a few days ago, I simply stated my belief that HCL are a bad idea. You proceeded to go ape-shit.

“We’re having this debate because you refuse to grasp the actual facts of the matter.”

Reading over this thread, I’m content to let my words stand for themselves. HCL are a bad idea for the many reasons I’ve cited. In particular, you’ve got the theoretical problems of asking judges to ponder metaphysical issues of “hate level.” On practical grounds, HCL don’t accomplish anything that existing laws should do. The resources spent on HCL would be better used on making sure the system as it exists works as it should.

Also, while I’m hardly AO’s biggest fan it’s telling that you didn’t respond to his comment that Sheppard’s murderers are doing life, as are the guys who dragged that poor guy to death in Texas.

“Right. Like identity theft has been totally eradicated by the passage of anti-identity theft laws.”

Well, by your assinine standard, we should also pass anti-meteor laws. Hey, they won’t accomplish anything, but maybe, maybe they just might! Teach those dirty metors a thing or to! And we’ll feel better about ourselves!

If you’re going to pass Federal legislation, the burden is on the people who passed it to prove it does something. When you can show me a KKK member who was going to murder a black person but decided not to due to HCL, you’ll have a point. Until then, you don’t. And you never will.

“Jaim, like I said, you really don’t deserve any respect.”

Incredible how many enlightened supporters of HCL fall back on this type of hate themselves. Sad and pathetic, Dennis. But keep telling yourself what a friend of humanity you are.

Right. Like identity theft has been totally eradicated by the passage of anti-identity theft laws. I suppose you think we should repeal them too. Right? If not, why not? They haven’t “magically” stopped all identity theft.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200711/111607a.html

Jaim, like I said, you really don’t deserve any respect. You argue like a six year old.

No, Jaim. We’re having this debate because you refuse to grasp the actual facts of the matter. You hold a different opinion because you are operating, and choose to operate, with the wrong assumptions and zero facts. As they so often say around here, you are not entitled to your own facts, Jaim.

That might be one way to read it, Jaim, but like your reading of everything else about hate crime laws, you’d be totally wrong.

I said the lack of a deterrent effect is not enough to invalidate the reasons for the law. That is not the same thing as saying there is no deterrent effect. I don’t know if they have a deterrent effect either way. Do you? If you know for a fact that they have no deterrent effect, maybe you could cite that study?

I won’t hold my breathe, but surprise me, Jaim. Cite some evidence in support of your claim that they have no deterrent effect.

Go find some actual facts to support your argument. That would be a refreshing change of pace.

(I’d still love to hear where you got your law degree)

What a self-defeating argument. Jaim, do you have a law degree?

I’ve certainly cited more legal authorities than you to support my arguments. You haven’t cited one. Indeed, you have yet to refute a single thing I’ve said with a link to an actual fact or legal argument. I’ve done that several times here.

So Jaim, either put up or shut up.

If you can’t back up your claims with sources and citations, you really don’t deserve any respect because you show zero respect for anyone’s intelligence.

So you granted that HCL does nothing to deter hate crimes, but I guess you might have been granting that as a hypothetical. So I’ll ask, how would HCL that included sexual orientation have prevented Mathew Sheppard’s murder? Or to accept the obvious, that HCL wouldn’t have, how would the sentencing of the murderers have been changed in a way that would have provided a societal benefit if HCL had included sexual orientation at the time of the trial?

We can agree to disagree that HCL are unfair in theory, but can you make a valid argument as to how they benefit anyone in practice? Or did anti-black and anti-female violence magically disappear since the first installment of Federal HCL?

Good call.

Go fuck yourself.

Tell me where I said it would have no real-world impact. Where the fuck do you think I think these laws exist?

And I’m happy to point out that you’ve been a shrieking asshole throughout the proceedings here. Even people who agree with you noticed.

And I’m happy to point out that you’ve presented a piss poor case with shitty reasoning and serious factual errors.

You could be as sweet as a buttercup, Jaim, but it wouldn’t make you any less wrong.

but if you want to stay up on your high horse, allow me to remind you of your first comment to Amused after he AGREED with you:

And you’re a rickety old fart. Nuthin’ like the truth.

How pleasant, Jaim.

That works.

In my opinion HCL isn’t meant to deter people from committing hate crimes (it would be impossible, but good if it did), but it’s the same as all our laws (that also don’t deter people from breaking them). It’s in place to prosecute those who do break the law and give them the right punishment and sentence that goes along with that crime.

Just like Andrew mention up above we have different levels of punishment when it comes to murder based on intent :”Manslaughter – Killing without intent to kill;
2nd degree – Killing with intent to kill, but not pre-meditated against the victim; 1st degree – Killing with pre-meditated intent against the victim”.

HCL is just another way of prosecuting people who base their action of murder or harassment on some form of hate.

And I’m happy to point out that you’ve been a shrieking asshole throughout the proceedings here. Even people who agree with you noticed.

IMO of course, but HCL defenders tend to be their own worst enemies.

And yet not beyond the abilities of the legal system, as you put it. Indeed, people get charged with intent to murder all the time.

Take in Massachusetts for example. In Mass. there are two charges that can be brought against a person, intent to murder or maim and intent to kill:

On intent to murder or maim:

To support the charge of assault with intent to murder, the prosecution must demonstrate an actual intent to kill on the part of the defendant. In this way, the lesser offense of assault with intent to murder requires a higher degree of specificity with regard to state of mind than does the greater offense of murder, which does not necessarily require an actual intent to kill. Since the prosecution must prove a specific intent to kill, the defense may offer evidence of the defendant’s intoxication at the time of the crime to negate the prosecutions assertion that he intent to kill existed.

on intent to kill:

Assault with intent to kill represents a lesser included offense within assault with intent to murder. This means that assault with intent to kill shares some elements with assault with intent to murder, but is a less serious crime. The distinction between the two crimes is that the mental state the law requires for assault with intent to kill is satisfied with proof of an intent to kill, without malice, while assault with intent to murder requires proof of both an intent to kill and malice. The offense of assault with intent to kill requires only such an intention as would amount to voluntary manslaughter if the victim had died. Thus, as with voluntary manslaughter, the law requires no proof of malice, but only proof of the existence of mitigating circumstances consisting of a heat of passion induced by sudden combat or reasonable provocation.

http://www.massmurderdefense.com/pages/assault-intent.html

Oh gee, look at that. There are varying levels of intent which can only be proven by making a case about the assailant’s mental state. And then the jury decides whether the prosecution met the required standard of proof.

No different than what’s required in HLC laws.

The idea of a hate crime against a straight, white, non-disabled person is perfectly valid under HCL, and it’s also perfectly ridiculous.

Okey dokey then. You’ve now reduced your whole argument to “I say it’s ridiculous so nyah!”

Once again, no citations. No links. No authoritative evidence to support any of your arguments.

BTW, are we agreed that HCL would have no real-world outcome on preventing hate crimes as you claimed up-thread?

No, we’re not. They might and they might not. I just don’t think prevention is a significant reason to argue against or for hate crimes laws. I believe it’s important, in and of itself as as a pluralistic society, for the state to officially recognize that bias motivated crimes are worse than other motivations and for those people who do commit them, to be punished more severely. I would hope that this message would prevent hate crimes, but I don’t think there failure to do so renders them meaningless or “ridiculous.”

Glad to know the wrong-headed supporters of HCL are classy as ever.

And, Jaim, really, this is not a winning attitude for you. You’ve commented too much on too many threads here for anyone to think you have a legitimate beef with name calling or foul language.

Are you so desperate now that you’re willing to risk blatant hypocrisy as well as exposing your flat out ignorance?