tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8088893.post110210442153246847..comments2023-10-18T07:02:57.612-04:00Comments on The Barking Dingo: Hate Crimes and Their Punishment - Part IIDingohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04386587646469853172noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8088893.post-21999131798181003042008-03-23T17:04:00.000-04:002008-03-23T17:04:00.000-04:00You say that motivation does not need to be proven...You say that motivation does not need to be proven, but you are mistaken in that. In fact, it is the very motivation of the criminal that decides whether a crime is an act of hate or not. A hate crime by definition is a usually violent crime MOTIVATED by prejudice or intolerance toward a member of a gender, racial, religious, or social group. For instance, some white guy (or vice versa) could kill a black guy over drug money. The white guy could say racial slurs, but in the end, he was motivated by greed, and not hate. However, someone could say it was a hate crime for what the guy said, even if that assumption is faulty. In the end, in order to PROVE something is a hate crime, you have to KNOW the motivation, and you usually can't know the motivation for anything for certain. Therefore, hate crimes are in a way unjust.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8088893.post-20454084589774644212008-03-23T17:03:00.000-04:002008-03-23T17:03:00.000-04:00You say that motivation does not need to be proven...You say that motivation does not need to be proven, but you are mistaken in that. In fact, it is the very motivation of the criminal that decides whether a crime is an act of hate or not. A hate crime by definition is a usually violent crime MOTIVATED by prejudice or intolerance toward a member of a gender, racial, religious, or social group. For instance, some white guy (or vice versa) could kill a black guy over drug money. The white guy could say racial slurs, but in the end, he was motivated by greed, and not hate. However, someone could say it was a hate crime for what the guy said, even if that assumption is faulty. In the end, in order to PROVE something is a hate crime, you have to KNOW the motivation, and you usually can't know the motivation for anything for certain. Therefore, hate crimes are in a way unjust.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8088893.post-1102113744099173092004-12-03T17:42:00.000-05:002004-12-03T17:42:00.000-05:00We are talking around each on intent and motivatio...We are talking around each on intent and motivations... I am focusing on the intent of the crime. We can assume that all crime has motivation, otherwise why would it be committed (assuming the person is not a klepto or sociopath). If you steal a wallet, we can infer that the motivation was greed and the intent was to take something that did not belong to you. If you see broken windows on a synagogue and swastikas painted on the walls, we can infer the motivation was not greed, but hatred. All crime is motivated by something. The difference is intent of the perpetrator. <br />for example - If a kid goes and vandalizes a synagogue by painting "Springdale high school football rules" he is a punk kid out for some laughs. He has committed a crime, but none of the people who worship at that temple would feel targeted or unsafe. His intent was not to strike fear into the Jewish community. Now if that same kid spray paints swastikas and anti-Semitic slogans on the walls, we can infer his motivation was not for laughs, but hate. And due to the nature of the crime, we can infer his intent was to send a message to Jews that they are not welcome in that community. Now, the actual property damage is the same. The paint to cover up the vandalism will cost the exact same, but the damage done to the community is much more in the second instance than in the first. If the damage done is greater, then why should not the punishment. <br /><br />How do you determine intent? Well, you just have to evaluate the evidence to determine if something is a hate crime or not. If you just have a guy laying dead in the street, it is difficult to determine and most likely a "hate crime" will not be one of the charges even if it was motivated by hate. Now, if you have four dead girls from a bomb going off in the basement of a Black Baptist church, I am willing to make that leap and call it a hate crime. <br /><br />I agree, we can not, and we should not legislate what people think. But I believe it is perfectly acceptable to let those few Americans who are willing to try to intimidate other Americans through violence, "your actions will not be accepted in our country." You have a right to hate, but you do not have the right to make your fellow Americans fear. Any American can hate all they want, but they don't have the right to act upon that hate.<br /><br />As for protected classes of persons, I have never seen legislative that only protects certain groups. The text often reads "race, religion,ethnic/national origin, or sexual orientation group." That means that whites are as protected as blacks, men are as protected as women, and heterosexuals are as protected as homosexuals.Dingohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04386587646469853172noreply@blogger.com