Hate Crime

[zoo22]

Yeah, the line is etremely blurry... I don't think anyone could say the differences between terrorism and hate crime is well-defined. Terrorism, in America at least, is considered aimed at a society as a whole (not just a particular group of that society). You mentioned that people in Minneapolis were afraid of going to the mall for fear of it being bombed... That fear wasn't limited to white people, or black people, it was across the board.

When the Oklahoma bombing happened, before they discovered that it was done by a white man, there was a big anti-Muslim backlash. While the bombing itself was targeted at our society, thus considered a terrorist act, the attacks on Muslims as a result were considered hate crimes. A black person didn't need to be worried about being beaten up for walking down the street, while a Middle-Eastern person did need to worry.

Also, people keep bringing up "thought crime." Intent and motive are both a part of determining punishment for crimes. Adding lesser/stiffer penalties and having more complicated definitions of crime based on intent and motive is across the board. If someone spray paints "BB was here" on a wall, it's simply not the same thing as spray painting "Christians will die - Be very afraid" on a church. (Especially if it turn out that when the vandal is apprehended, they have a history of anti-Christian crimes, and are affiliated with anti-Christian groups). It is BTW, very difficult to prosecute a hate crime.

Someone cannot be convicted of hate. People have the right to both free thought and free speech. They can express their hatred through their right to free speech, and through their freedom to assemble. A Nazi murder of a Jew that is commited based on hatred towards Jews with the motive being not only to kill that particular Jew, but also to instill fear of death in all other Jews, is more than simply a murder. And yes, I do believe it is an act of terrorism. A more specific act of terrorism than WTC, which targeted America as a whole, but terrorism.

For some people, it may be simply an unfortunate issue of names/words. *Most* people don't have a problem with the terms "1st degree, 2nd degree", but if there's a word rather than a number assocated with degree, people read their own meaning into that word. "It's not a crime to hate ... hate is a thought ... to think should not be a crime." ... But if a "Hate" crime was defined as "X degree" people probably wouldn't take it to issue so much.

Another difference between hate crime and terrrorism to think about is that the government has proclaimed a war on terrorism, but not on hate crime. Why?

The Homeland Security Act is FAR more "thought crime" oriented than any definition of "hate" crime laws.

 

[zoo22]

Terrorism doesn't just contain murder as it's only crime.

Niether does hate crime.

 

[zoo22]

Since most "hate crimes" involve murder, I'll just stick with the crime of murder in any example.
What communities do you know of where murder wouldn't cause some form of dischord?

Degree. If a black man, associated with an ant-white group killed a white woman because she was white, proclaiming "Death to Whitey," the resulting level of cultural dischord between blacks and whites based on hatred and fear has far greater implications than Scott Peterson murdering his wife. As horrific as it was, Lacy Peterson's murder did not have the potential (or the purpose), of inciting a war between men and women. Similarly, if a sole agent had flown a plane into the WTC, acting as an messenger for saving the whales, the level of cultural and political discord resulting would not be the same as it was given that it was a planned attack by a right-wing Muslim group based on hatred against America.

 

[Mustard Seed]

So is the destruction of media that propegates hate okay? Who defines hate?

So is the destruction of media that propegates hate okay? Who defines hate?

Degree. If a black man, associated with an ant-white group killed a white woman because she was white, proclaiming "Death to Whitey," the resulting level of cultural dischord between blacks and whites based on hatred and fear has far greater implications than Scott Peterson murdering his wife. As horrific as it was, Lacy Peterson's murder did not have the potential (or the purpose), of inciting a war between men and women. Similarly, if a sole agent had flown a plane into the WTC, acting as an messenger for saving the whales, the level of cultural and political discord resulting would not be the same as it was given that it was a planned attack by a right-wing Muslim group based on hatred against America.

So is the destruction of media that propegates hate okay? Who defines hate?

 

[zoo22]

So is the destruction of media that propegates hate okay?

Depends. In most cases, that would be an infringement on freedom of speech. But if that media is actually promoting or inciting illegal action that could breach the public's safety or peace it would be considered illegal.

Who defines hate?

Not a simple answer (and I am NOT professing to be able to answer it fully, btw). In America, hate (as regarded by the law) is defined by many different levels of elected government thrugh voting. Community, State, Federal. Thus one of the issues with defining the difference between hate crimes and terrorism: Different states have different inclusions, and different target groups specified as illegal to taget against as a whole. Usually based on specific circumstances that have arisen in that particular community or state. Some states include mentally challenged people. I'm sure that if a given community had an ongoing serious problem of specifically people with red hair being systematically threatened, assaulted, killed, that community would eventually have to define their laws somehow to address it. Likewise, penalties differ state to state. But this all applies to action and motive, not on actual hate. We're all free to hate.

Obviously hate throughout the world is interpreted and accepted on different levels in many different forms, by many different cultures and governments.

In some extreme cases, hate is defined by the world. Crime against humanity is hate crime at the highest level. Worldwide. Genocide. Hitler set that one up for us. We realized that it's possible for hatred (or supremacy) based on color, religion, etc. to start at a community level, but spread until it's a threat to the entire world's peace. But we have a harder time understanding how dangerous hate crime is when it takes place on a lesser level.

But that's all based on action in regard to hate.

 

[Mustard Seed]

What's worse infringing freedom of speech or freedom of thought? Ever see "Minority R

What's worse infringing freedom of speech or freedom of thought? Ever see "Minority R

Depends. In most cases, that would be an infringement on freedom of speech.

What's worse infringing freedom of speech or freedom of thought? Ever see "Minority Report"?

 

[Mustard Seed]

Respectable reply. Should one be punished more for enjoyment in criminal behaviour?

Respectable reply. Should one be punished more for enjoyment in criminal behaviour?

Not a simple answer (and I am NOT professing to be able to answer it fully, btw). In America, hate (as regarded by the law) is defined by many different levels of elected government thrugh voting. Community, State, Federal. Thus one of the issues with defining the difference between hate crimes and terrorism: Different states have different inclusions, and different target groups specified as illegal to taget against as a whole. Usually based on specific circumstances that have arisen in that particular community or state. Some states include mentally challenged people. I'm sure that if a given community had an ongoing serious problem of specifically people with red hair being systematically threatened, assaulted, killed, that community would eventually have to define their laws somehow to address it. Likewise, penalties differ state to state. But this all applies to action and motive, not on actual hate. We're all free to hate.

Obviously hate throughout the world is interpreted and accepted on different levels in many different forms, by many different cultures and governments.

In some extreme cases, hate is defined by the world. Crime against humanity is hate crime at the highest level. Worldwide. Genocide. Hitler set that one up for us. We realized that it's possible for hatred (or supremacy) based on color, religion, etc. to start at a community level, but spread until it's a threat to the entire world's peace. But we have a harder time understanding how dangerous hate crime is when it takes place on a lesser level.

But that's all based on action in regard to hate.

Respectable reply. Should one be punished more for enjoyment in criminal behaviour?

 

[BillyBob]

Terrorism causes fear in society, where as, if BillyBob killed his next door neighbor, I wouldn't have the same kind of reaction, and so, it is therefore, not "terrorism."

:noid:

 

[BillyBob]

So, why do we accept "terrorism" as a term?
All they are doing is vandalizing (car bombs), or murder (flying planes into buildings).

Why call someone a terrorist, instead of a vandal, or a murderer?

Why not simply have a War on Murder?

Terrorists murder with the expectation of changing something, such as political rule or whatever else they aren't happy with. Look at what Al Queda did in Spain, they blew up a train and Spain pulled out of Iraq. The Palestinians terrorize Israeli's because they are sore losers and want Israel to pull out of....well, Israel.

It's not just murder.

Besides that, murder isn't the only thing they do. They kidnap and torture, they use propaganda, they take over governments......

 

[zoo22]

Respectable reply. Should one be punished more for enjoyment in criminal behaviour?

Wow ... Never thought about that. Hmm.

I think on some level, that's built into the judicial/jury system... On a certain level, in some but not all circumstances, I think a jury and/or Judge takes that into account when imposing a sentence. Similar to a criminal showing no remorse. I definitely have to give it some more thought, but initially, I think that if there were a way to undoubtedly prove it, and based on the type of crime, yes. But I think it's too blurry to really ever come very directly into play.

 

[Mustard Seed]

The fact that there is no "proof" of hate or pleasure is why I tend to disagree with

The fact that there is no "proof" of hate or pleasure is why I tend to disagree with

I think that if there were a way to undoubtedly prove it, and based on the type of crime, yes. But I think it's too blurry to really ever come very directly into play.

The fact that there is no "proof" of hate or pleasure is why I tend to disagree with "hate" crimes.

 

[Mustard Seed]

BillyBob's on one here. Terrorism is different. Hate is in both but there's more to i

BillyBob's on one here. Terrorism is different. Hate is in both but there's more to i

Besides that, murder isn't the only thing they do. They kidnap and torture, they use propaganda, they take over governments......

BillyBob's on one here. Terrorism is different. Hate is in both but there's more to it.

 

[BillyBob]

Yep, murder is simply a means to an end for terrorists, it's not the goal.

 

[zoo22]

What's worse infringing freedom of speech or freedom of thought? Ever see "Minority Report"?

Yep, saw it, read it, love it, agree with it.

I think infingement on both (thought and speech) are extremely dangerous.And I think they go hand in hand. One right is virtually useless without the other. I don't know whether I think one is worse than the other.

But I don't consider laws against either terrorism or hate crimes (whether they're the same or not I'll ignore right now) an infringement on either. These laws are based on action in relation to intent and motive. Someone can daydream about murdering their husband for the $. No crime there. Someone may think about it even if it is the last thing they would ever do, or if it is the most terrible thing they could ever imagine. If they go about planning it, that becomes conspiricy to commit murder. If they go through with it, that's murder, with intent, as well as conspiricy to commit. And the motive is taken into account. A woman who murders her husband after the 100th time he beats her and their children up has a different motive/intent, which is also taken into account (once this would not have been the case). So punishment/restitution comes into play in relation to the intent, motive and severity of a crime. Not just the crime itself.

As I'd said in an earlier post, I really think that ONE of the issues is the word "hate" in "hate-crime." Hate is thought/feeling, so it's natural for people associate it with thought. Most everyone has feelings of hatred. That is not and should not be a crime.

Hate-crime is simply a specific crime (murder, vandalism, etc) with stipulation related to intent, motive and damage (the damage being to the entire group in question and to society as whole). Most crimes have added stipulations based on these things and it's no problem.

But the phrase "hate-crime" instinctually raises a sense of limitation on thought, which is not the case. We are free to hate. We are not free to act however we want based on that hate. And sometimes the crime, based on the intent and motive differentiates itself from a similar crime without those same intents and motives.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Yep, saw it, read it, love it, agree with it.

I think infingement on both (thought and speech) are extremely dangerous.And I think they go hand in hand. One right is virtually useless without the other. I don't know whether I think one is worse than the other.
These laws are based on action in relation to intent and motive. Someone can daydream about murdering their husband for the $. No crime there. Someone may think about it even if it is the last thing they would ever do, or if it is the most terrible thing they could ever imagine. If they go about planning it, that becomes conspiricy to commit murder. If they go through with it, that's murder, with intent, as well as conspiricy to commit. And the motive is taken into account. A woman who murders her husband after the 100th time he beats her and their children up has a different motive/intent, which is also taken into account (once this would not have been the case). So punishment/restitution comes into play in relation to the intent, motive and severity of a crime. Not just the crime itself.

In law we do not judge specific motive. Just it's existance. And only at certain times.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Terrorism is inherently different. Terrorism encompases overthrow of a complete socie

Terrorism is inherently different. Terrorism encompases overthrow of a complete socie

Yep, saw it, read it, love it, agree with it.
But I don't consider laws against either terrorism or hate crimes (whether they're the same or not I'll ignore right now) an infringement on either.

Terrorism is inherently different. Terrorism encompases overthrow of a complete society.

 

[zoo22]

In law we do not judge specific motive. Just it's existance. And only at certain times.

That's true. But motive IS taken into account in regards to severity of punishment. It is also virtually inseparable from intent.

 

[BillyBob]

:cow:

 

[Mustard Seed]

"Hate" crime designation devalues "like" crimes where equally egregious motives are i

"Hate" crime designation devalues "like" crimes where equally egregious motives are i

That's true. But motive IS taken into account in regards to severity of punishment. It is also virtually inseparable from intent.

"Hate" crime designation devalues "like" crimes where equally egregious motives are involved.

 

[zoo22]

Terrorism is inherently different. Terrorism encompases overthrow of a complete society.

Not necessarily. There is religious terrorism within societies, political terrorism *within* societies. Plus, there are many definitions of the word terrorism. But I understand what you mean. I also understand what BB means.

Either way, I think we're all very clear through this that the line between "hate-crime" and terrorism" are very blurred.

I think the term "domestic terrorism" is a far better term than hate crime. But not perfect. I also think that more people need to begin to understand that crimes based on religion, color, origin, etc, DO in fact threaten our entire society.

Didn't the Nazi's overthrow a complete society? Today, the Nazi's method of overthrow would be far closer aligned with "hate-crime" than terrorism.