|
Post by Christine on Jun 22, 2017 21:34:06 GMT -5
I'm a bit on the fence -- I come out about where Opty does. I do see the arguments for hate crime enhancements and I don't dismiss them. On the other hand, as I've argued in other threads, is a crime worse depending on who commits it or who it is committed on? Can I (consistently) argue, as I do elsewhere, that the victim is harmed no more if the perp is an illegal alien than a citizen, and that therefore crimes committed by illegal aliens shouldn't be in a separate class -- and yet argue that the murder of a person of a particular race, gender or orientation is worse than the murder of another? Because to condemn the perpetrator "more" based on the perpetrator's identity is to, in effect, make suspect (and in some people's minds, condemn) all people with the same identity as the perpetrator.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2017 21:41:04 GMT -5
Oh, serial killers are often (I think usually) quite selective. E.g., Ted Bundy went specifically for young, pretty women with long dark hair parted in the middle. Women were dying and cutting their hair out of fear they'd be next. I saw a show about it -- the women he targeted bore a resemblance to his college girlfriend.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 22, 2017 22:12:02 GMT -5
Was "young female brunette" the motive for Bundy's murders?
I mean, I get the logic, but (1) most hate crimes aren't serial, as far as I know and (2) I seriously doubt serial killers wouldn't find a reason to kill, even if, for example, there were no young female brunettes around.
ETA: At any rate, compare "she reminded me of my ex-girlfriend/mother/whatever" with "that n****r/f****t." There's a difference, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jun 23, 2017 6:03:00 GMT -5
Was "young female brunette" the motive for Bundy's murders? I mean, I get the logic, but (1) most hate crimes aren't serial, as far as I know and (2) I seriously doubt serial killers wouldn't find a reason to kill, even if, for example, there were no young female brunettes around. ETA: At any rate, compare "she reminded me of my ex-girlfriend/mother/whatever" with "that n****r/f****t." There's a difference, I think. Serial killers operate often times on what's called a signature. That thing the do, that they must do, regardless of risk. The profile of Ted Bundy's victims was very important to him. He didn't get the sexual release if he killed someone that didn't fit it. Another serial killer, I forget his name, his signature was to pick up hitchhikers, women who he felt because he wasn't attractive would give him the time of day. Once he had a pretty girl in the car, who told him she was nervous. She needed the lift, but she'd heard about the serial killer who'd was around locally. He was so flattered that she knew of him, she bought herself a free ride. Serial killers have to kill in a certain way. Sometimes it involves a certain type of victim, other times it's a ritual. Often they target women, or a subset of women, say teenagers, or prostitutes. Now lets think about the last one.Prostitutes are easy targets because you can get them into places that make them easy prey. You have no tie to them. It's convenient. Is that the reason why their a target? Or is it part of his signature? In other words, would a serial killer get off killing a girl who they had access to even if they weren't a prostitute, but they still had them alone and had no ties to them? Or is that a necessary component to getting them off?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 23, 2017 8:59:42 GMT -5
From the ADL, noted above:
I get the reasoning, I understand why people think it makes sense.
But my issue with this all is that such enhancements don't always seem to be about intent, but rather about how a given crime makes others feel, others who are not the actual victims of the crime, per se.
Consider the case in question here. A guy beat a teenager to death with a baseball bat. That's horrific. If it happened, say, in the park near where I live, I would be a little, scared, especially for my kids who play in that park. But because I feel that way, because others feel that way, it shouldn't automatically mean that there was such intent to the act. In this case, the teen was a Muslim, and from what I see, that is the sole basis of people wanting it to be a hate crime, even though the police are saying it appears to be road rage, more than anything else.
And that's a problem with hate crime legislation, as a matter of course: people are going to push for its use as a means to placate reactions to heinous actions. Moreover, I see a problem with it insofar as it represents a stick for police/prosecutors to use, a stick that they shouldn't have, imo.
If someone commits a crime against an individual or group with the intent to terrorize a group because of who they are--something that would need proof, of course--I think that should be a crime, over and above the initial crime. But bigotry/prejudice/animus on the part of a suspect in a crime isn't nearly enough. And certainly, mere membership in a marginalized group isn't enough. Yet the last appears to be the sole basis for adding "hate crime" to this particular crime.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 23, 2017 9:33:16 GMT -5
I get the reasoning, I understand why people think it makes sense. But my issue with this all is that such enhancements don't always seem to be about intent, but rather about how a given crime makes others feel, others who are not the actual victims of the crime, per se. Consider the case in question here. A guy beat a teenager to death with a baseball bat. That's horrific. If it happened, say, in the park near where I live, I would be a little, scared, especially for my kids who play in that park. But because I feel that way, because others feel that way, it shouldn't automatically mean that there was such intent to the act. In this case, the teen was a Muslim, and from what I see, that is the sole basis of people wanting it to be a hate crime, even though the police are saying it appears to be road rage, more than anything else. And that's a problem with hate crime legislation, as a matter of course: people are going to push for its use as a means to placate reactions to heinous actions. Moreover, I see a problem with it insofar as it represents a stick for police/prosecutors to use, a stick that they shouldn't have, imo. If someone commits a crime against an individual or group with the intent to terrorize a group because of who they are--something that would need proof, of course--I think that should be a crime, over and above the initial crime. But bigotry/prejudice/animus on the part of a suspect in a crime isn't nearly enough. And certainly, mere membership in a marginalized group isn't enough. Yet the last appears to be the sole basis for adding "hate crime" to this particular crime. Okay, hold on. I share your concern about arbitrarily calling any crime against a minority a hate crime, but while that kind of politicization is certainly possible, it does not seem to be happening here. "People" (i.e., the victim's family) may be wanting it to be labeled a hate crime, but it does not appear that the police are treating it as one. And honestly, while whenever there is a violent crime with a racial angle, people start invoking the phrase "hate crime," police and prosecutors don't usually jump to that conclusion without any basis beyond the identities of perpetrator and victim.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 23, 2017 9:43:50 GMT -5
Okay, hold on. I share your concern about arbitrarily calling any crime against a minority a hate crime, but while that kind of politicization is certainly possible, it does not seem to be happening here. "People" (i.e., the victim's family) may be wanting it to be labeled a hate crime, but it does not appear that the police are treating it as one. And honestly, while whenever there is a violent crime with a racial angle, people start invoking the phrase "hate crime," police and prosecutors don't usually jump to that conclusion without any basis beyond the identities of perpetrator and victim. Oh, I agree. In this case, I think the police are doing what they should be doing: going with the facts and not succumbing to pressure to label the crime a "hate crime." But police are people, too. And sometime they do succumb to such pressures, imo. Moreover, the immediate attempt to reframe some crimes as also hate crimes is one of the problems with having such legislation to begin with. It leads to ridiculous--imo--things like the other thread I linked to, where crimes against cops could have hate crime enhancements. As to what police and prosecutors jump to, I'm sorry but if you give them a stick that they can legally use, they're going to use it, imo. Maybe Mark might stop by and tell me I'm wrong, but I think prosecutors will use the potential of a hate crime enhancement to get a better plea bargain, even if the enhancement might be a stretch.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jun 23, 2017 11:46:44 GMT -5
Everything you guys are bringing up are the reasons I'm on the fence about this issue. I'm not sure if I'll ever make up my mind on it.
|
|