Does hate crime = thought crime?

Definitely.. it's assault :-O

 

Hate crime is not a crime category or form of crime. It is a stipulation that is added on in addition to a crime category (i.e. assault), usually meaning harsher sentencing. So it can't be a form of "thought crime"- it only becomes an issue when it becomes the motivation for a real crime category like assault.

 

That's a hate crime, not a thought crime.

It doesn't matter if the guy was a drag queen or not, or gay or not. The guys beating him up thought he was, and that's what instigated the assault.

 

I think I grasp 'hate crime', but what's a 'thought crime'?

 

In Japan, during WWII, there were two men Josei Toda and Tsunesboro Makiguchi who were arrested as thought criminals. They would not accept the state religion because of their beliefs they were Nicherin Buddhists. Tsunesboro Makiguichi died in prison on Nov 18th a year and a half later. Josei Toda survived the experience.

 

I think hate crimes, in some sense, is a thought crime; The whole point of them is to discourage people from attacking a whole group by attacking a small part of it. Anyways, who beats up the disabled? Jesus, I can see race beating, religious persecution, and homosexual rage, but I never thought we'd get that low (Well...I did, but w/e)

 

I'm not sure why the reasoning behind the crime should affect the punishment, unless it was an acident or similar

 

I agree. Murder is Murder. Assault is Assault. If we need to, make the penalty for all assault harsher. The reason someone assaults someone else shouldn't determine the severity outside of accident/premeditation and such.

 

An important component to hate crimes legislation is raising the awareness in the general public that a problem exists. Hand in hand with this is educating the public that the targeted individuals are just like them and deserve equal protection. Too often in the past laws were not enforced equally. For example: Because of the social stigma attached with transsexualism, crimes against transsexual people many times went completely unpunished.

 

You are absolutely right. What is really interesting is when people think that their world veiw is the ultimate reality. People think that they have a moral highground so to speak to cast judgement on others life styles

If someone is not being hurt who is anyone to judge someone elses choices. This is arrogance

 

yeah, it is, if you don't perceive the physical act as separate from the motives or reasons for committing the act.

 

Can you, please, explain a little more fully? Perhaps give an example?

 

When we assign additional value to the seriousness of a crime because of why it's commited, then it becomes something else. Of course reasons or motives are important but where do we draw the line?

 

I think that crime is crime. If someone breaks my window to break in my home or someone breaks my window because they despise my ethnicity.

I think there is a difference. I would feel less safe to know that someone hated me that much and there was nothing that I could do to protect myself.

If someone breaks my window because they want me TV then I can go get a dog, or install a security system to desuade someone from robbing me.

If someone hates me. What will stop them from stalking me and my family. Hurting or murdering me or my family.

The holocost is the biggest hate crime ever. 9/11 was a hate crime. Hate crimes are different in my mind. The distinction is important. Hate fuels more crime. Hate fuels more brutal crimes.

In the 1940's there were 6 million murders that stemmed from the hatred and power mongering of one person.

Hate is powerful. Weak minded people are moved by someone elses hate. Weak minded people will give up their moral compass because of someone elses hate and bullying tactics.

 

My problem with Hate Crime is that it implies that the same crimes are somehow lesser when committed against someone not included in Hate Crime Legislation.

When one person assaults another person, that is a crime. Whether it is someone he loves, someone he knows, someone he hates, or someone he's never met, the crime is the same.

Legislating additional punishment for the motivations of crimes is a slippery slope that leads to legislating lesser punishment for the motivations of crimes - if only by nature of the fact that the former is enacted.

I think the best statements on this subject came from the 2000 Presidential Debates where Al Gore asserted that Bush was against Hate Crime Legislation, "Mr. Governor, in your state a black man was dragged to death behind a truck by men who had purely racist motivations. How can you stand here and oppose Hate Crime Legislation?" Dubya then replied (in one of his rare 'smart' moments), "The perpetrators have been convicted of murder and are going to be executed. If you can come up with a way to execute them more, I'm open to Hate Crime Legislation."

 

And it is for this very reason that judicial sentences have a range, not an exact figure. It is for the judge to dispense justice according to the crime. If the sentence for a busted window is time served through 11 months 29 days, the judge can use his judicial power to see to it that justice is served.

Adding legislation to the process is only going to unbalance our system further.

 

I disagree. The motive is important. I looked up the crime of the man who was dragged to death in Texas. I read that the men were not repentant and they were proud to die for the crime. If Bush wonders if they should die twice. I think they should not die at all. Let them rot in prison without any possibility for parole. Hate crimes are far mor vicious. If they think that they are just going to get the death penalty then there are no limits to the brutality. They may think "Iam going to die anyways..."

My answer they should rot in prison until they die a nice natural death. The thought of spending thier life in prison may however disuade someone.

Being shot by a gun and murdered is far different than being dragged to death or lynched.

So I disagree on this although you did make some excellent arguments. People need to know that racism that ends in violence has severe consequences. People should not be proud to die for killing someone.
That is the difference and why there needs to be hate crime legislation. The same is true for Matthew Sheppard. A hideaous violent crime where they tortured him for being gay.

The difference are these crimes are just not murder they include torture before the murder.

 

Wow, Sookie, what a great response. This stuff breaks my heart. I can't believe the horrible things people do to each other on a daily basis.