Hate Crime Laws in NM

[haas mark]

http://www.ngltf.org/news/release.cfm?releaseID=528

Some of you might not care, or even agree, but it's a major step in New Mexico. Hate crime laws were passed in regards to sexual orientation and gender identity.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, it would nicer if instead of tossing people in jail for longer because they harmed homosexuals, they would let us marry each other and eliminate various other social conformity laws. The first one fringes on the grey area with a thought crime - How can you tell if someone hated someone else? - while the second would be real progress towards acceptance.

[haas mark]

This is true, but some progress is better than none, yes?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

This is true, but some progress is better than none, yes?

Is it really progress in the right direction? Why should someone get extra time in prison for attacking a homosexual individual? How can we know when a crime against homosexuals is committed out of hate as opposed to, say, fear? Aren't we punishing people for a state of mind when we institute such laws?

[haas mark]

This is true, but some progress is better than none, yes?

Is it really progress in the right direction? Why should someone get extra time in prison for attacking a homosexual individual? How can we know when a crime against homosexuals is committed out of hate as opposed to, say, fear? Aren't we punishing people for a state of mind when we institute such laws?

I think it would rather be fair time in jail rather than extra time, but who knows? All I am really concerened about is the discrimintaion policies... At least that much is headed in the right direction, I think. As for the hate crime laws, I am passive either way, but then we'll see how much discrimination and crime based on sexual orientation decreases with the new laws in effect.

[Edi]

This is true, but some progress is better than none, yes?

Is it really progress in the right direction? Why should someone get extra time in prison for attacking a homosexual individual? How can we know when a crime against homosexuals is committed out of hate as opposed to, say, fear? Aren't we punishing people for a state of mind when we institute such laws?

Not really. It's punishing an individual for acting illegally on that state of mind when said state of mind is the only motive to commit the illegal act.

I don't know about the particulars over there, but here it works that way. If you vehemently hate homosexuals and you beat the shit out of one in self-defense, no problem. If on the other hand you just go and beat a homosexual person to a pulp for being homosexual (thus demonstrating hate as the motive), you'll get an immediate 25% increase on whatever sentence you get (special incriminating factor), and the initial sentence will be from the higher end of the scale. If you attack homosexuals and then try to claim fear for yourself as a motive in order to get off free, there needs to have been a demonstrated actual threat to you that would have justified it.

Edi

[The Duchess of Zeon]

[
Not really. It's punishing an individual for acting illegally on that state of mind when said state of mind is the only motive to commit the illegal act.

I don't know about the particulars over there, but here it works that way. If you vehemently hate homosexuals and you beat the shit out of one in self-defense, no problem. If on the other hand you just go and beat a homosexual person to a pulp for being homosexual (thus demonstrating hate as the motive), you'll get an immediate 25% increase on whatever sentence you get (special incriminating factor), and the initial sentence will be from the higher end of the scale. If you attack homosexuals and then try to claim fear for yourself as a motive in order to get off free, there needs to have been a demonstrated actual threat to you that would have justified it.

Edi

How can you demonstrate hate as a motivate? How is hate defined? What if someone is afraid of homosexuals and thinks them a corrupting influence that must be "cleansed" (However disgusting, there are people that still think that way - especially fundamentalists). Those people may be genuinely afraid of homosexuals, and act in fear. How can you punish them, then, for hate? How do you differentiate between the two?

The idea of a hate crime is ridiculous, because you're trying to punish someone based on state of mind, Edi. Just increase all sentences by 25%. The idea of increasing a sentence because of what someone was feeling is not only stupid, it's also rather disturbing; we're turning our judges into psychoanalysts then.

Punishment should be based entirely on the known facts of a case - Whether or not someone was angry or feeling hate or feeling afraid, or envy or guilty or rage or whatever - These things are not known facts. They are perceptions. Or perceptions. Or labels we place on emotions we assume are felt when someone does something. Unknowables - Very disturbing things to base part of the justice system upon. The sooner they're eliminated from the legal code the better. I'd rather have stiffer penalties across the board - there are so many kinds of hate crimes it would hardly make a difference by this point in the U.S. - and work on more constructive ways of integrating threatened minorities into society, the one I belong to included.

[Edi]

How can you demonstrate hate as a motivate? How is hate defined? What if someone is afraid of homosexuals and thinks them a corrupting influence that must be "cleansed" (However disgusting, there are people that still think that way - especially fundamentalists). Those people may be genuinely afraid of homosexuals, and act in fear. How can you punish them, then, for hate? How do you differentiate between the two?

There is no difference as far as the motivation in this case is concerned. If you actively seek to preempt them by removing them because you fear their corrupting influence, without actually having a demonstrable basis for that, without any evidence of an actual, manifest threat, then clearly there are few motives left but hate. Hate and fear at the level we are talking about here are very much part and parcel of each other. If the legislators are anywhere near halfway competent, the definition of the hate crime is set with enough precision that a judge can make a sound interpretation of the statute.

The idea of a hate crime is ridiculous, because you're trying to punish someone based on state of mind, Edi. Just increase all sentences by 25%. The idea of increasing a sentence because of what someone was feeling is not only stupid, it's also rather disturbing; we're turning our judges into psychoanalysts then.

Before that increase can be applied, motive must be proven with enough evidence to back it up to convince the judge (or jury, as the case may be). The police are usually good at figuring out motives and intent. In many cases, the difference between a greater and a lesser title for what in the end result analysis is the same outcome is the motive and intent.

Let's take a hypothetical example and make it personal just to drive home the point. If I kill you in self-defense and if I meticulously plan out in advance how I'm going to murder you and dispose of the body for <insert fictitious reason here> and carry it out, the end result in both cases is you being just as dead, but in the first case I would have acted because you had attacked me while in the second I would have been the aggressor, with my motivation for killing you something else (e.g. I think you're a menace to the world for your political views, or maybe just because you're homosexual or whatever else). The difference in prosecution is manslaughter and 1st degree murder. Or second degree if I'd just up and decided in a fit of rage to off you instead of the premeditated planning part.

Just FYI, the above is entirely hypothetical, and does not reflect any reality of how I regard you. I dislike your political views, but not you as a person really, there is a huge difference there. I just used the two of us here to drive home how different cases with ultimately same outcomes can be in light of facts, those facts being motive, intent and circumstances.

Punishment should be based entirely on the known facts of a case - Whether or not someone was angry or feeling hate or feeling afraid, or envy or guilty or rage or whatever - These things are not known facts. They are perceptions. Or perceptions. Or labels we place on emotions we assume are felt when someone does something. Unknowables - Very disturbing things to base part of the justice system upon. The sooner they're eliminated from the legal code the better. I'd rather have stiffer penalties across the board - there are so many kinds of hate crimes it would hardly make a difference by this point in the U.S. - and work on more constructive ways of integrating threatened minorities into society, the one I belong to included.

Motive and intent are of this "unkowable", as you put it, category, but they make a hell of a lot of difference between the prosecution and sentencing. They must be factored in, but there must be supporting evidence to back them up, not just conjecture. And the supporting evidence must be enough to convince the court, remember that, which is no easy standard (or shouldn't be anyway). Given that the court must also ex officio take into account facts favorable to the accused, that's a pretty high threshold to manage.

Edi

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There is no difference as far as the motivation in this case is concerned. If you actively seek to preempt them by removing them because you fear their corrupting influence, without actually having a demonstrable basis for that, without any evidence of an actual, manifest threat, then clearly there are few motives left but hate. Hate and fear at the level we are talking about here are very much part and parcel of each other. If the legislators are anywhere near halfway competent, the definition of the hate crime is set with enough precision that a judge can make a sound interpretation of the statute.

I have to disagree. Trying to rigidly define hate as such seems to ignore the causation, and simply create another result. Legislating the definition of emotions, besides, is something highly disturbing to me.

Before that increase can be applied, motive must be proven with enough evidence to back it up to convince the judge (or jury, as the case may be). The police are usually good at figuring out motives and intent. In many cases, the difference between a greater and a lesser title for what in the end result analysis is the same outcome is the motive and intent.

One defined based on hate?

I just used the two of us here to drive home how different cases with ultimately same outcomes can be in light of facts, those facts being motive, intent and circumstances.

But why should the murderer of someone killed for a politically based reason get less time than someone killed for a "hate" based reason? Isn't someone killed for politics, in the scheme of things, probably more important, anyway, since they had great ideas and were trying to drive them forward, no matter what they are? If you're going to differentiate sentences based on who the victim was, why shouldn't killing a political activist get you more time than some member of an ethnic minority?

Motive and intent are of this "unkowable", as you put it, category, but they make a hell of a lot of difference between the prosecution and sentencing. They must be factored in, but there must be supporting evidence to back them up, not just conjecture. And the supporting evidence must be enough to convince the court, remember that, which is no easy standard (or shouldn't be anyway). Given that the court must also ex officio take into account facts favorable to the accused, that's a pretty high threshold to manage.

Edi

But it's ultimately playing word games around an emotional state of being.

[Edi]

There is no difference as far as the motivation in this case is concerned. If you actively seek to preempt them by removing them because you fear their corrupting influence, without actually having a demonstrable basis for that, without any evidence of an actual, manifest threat, then clearly there are few motives left but hate. Hate and fear at the level we are talking about here are very much part and parcel of each other. If the legislators are anywhere near halfway competent, the definition of the hate crime is set with enough precision that a judge can make a sound interpretation of the statute.

I have to disagree. Trying to rigidly define hate as such seems to ignore the causation, and simply create another result. Legislating the definition of emotions, besides, is something highly disturbing to me.

The trick is that the definition must not be a straightjacket, but not too loose either, and it cannot sideline other motives, otherwise it's just useless. We have a pretty well-working system here, but it also has to do with the way our justice system mechanisms operate, and can't just be transplanted to the US as is.

Before that increase can be applied, motive must be proven with enough evidence to back it up to convince the judge (or jury, as the case may be). The police are usually good at figuring out motives and intent. In many cases, the difference between a greater and a lesser title for what in the end result analysis is the same outcome is the motive and intent.

One defined based on hate?

Not just that. My comments are on the basis of the Finnish system, so it needs a little explaining. We have a quite clearly defined criminal code where the crimes are described, and there is a list of additional factors, incriminating and extenuating. Whether these apply is determined on a case-by-case basis, and they are cumulative, each being either an increase or decrease of 25% (cannot increase above maximum or decrease below minimum limits as described in the law). If one of the motives for a crime is hate and it is shown that this was the deciding factor in committing the crime, then it's an incriminating circumstance.

I just used the two of us here to drive home how different cases with ultimately same outcomes can be in light of facts, those facts being motive, intent and circumstances.

But why should the murderer of someone killed for a politically based reason get less time than someone killed for a "hate" based reason? Isn't someone killed for politics, in the scheme of things, probably more important, anyway, since they had great ideas and were trying to drive them forward, no matter what they are? If you're going to differentiate sentences based on who the victim was, why shouldn't killing a political activist get you more time than some member of an ethnic minority?

The beauty of the system here is that it does not make a difference between hate crimes against a member of an ethnic or sexual or whatever minority and hate crimes against political activists. The murder example is somewhat inconvenient in this case since murder tends to incur maximum punishment available in any given justice system anyway, but let's take assault. If I were to assault you and beat you up and rob you, I'd do time in jail for that. If my reason for picking you (instead of someone else) as victim was a hatred of homosexuals/people of your political persuasion it would increase my punishment, but the cops would first have to get enough evidence (witness statements, or whatever) to actually demonstrate the presence of such prejudice as a factor in the crime.

Hate crimes as such do not exist as their own separate category (excepting incitement against an ethnic and/or minority group or population segment, which is a specific crime), but if it can be demonstrated that hate was a determining factor (e.g. someone who only robs black people because he hates them), then it's grounds for increased punishment.

Motive and intent are of this "unkowable", as you put it, category, but they make a hell of a lot of difference between the prosecution and sentencing. They must be factored in, but there must be supporting evidence to back them up, not just conjecture. And the supporting evidence must be enough to convince the court, remember that, which is no easy standard (or shouldn't be anyway). Given that the court must also ex officio take into account facts favorable to the accused, that's a pretty high threshold to manage.

Edi

But it's ultimately playing word games around an emotional state of being.[/quote]
That last was not in relation to hate crimes specifically, but on the role of motive and intent in the justice system in general, and you can't just toss them out without wrecking the whole thing. It's not perfect, but then again, I'd like to see a better alternative.

We don't see this all that differently, it's just that the systems we're used to are so different that direct comparison and transplanting subsystems as is tends to be a little difficult. Just like we had something of an initial difference of opinion on prison systems in the Elections... thread, remember?

Edi

[Knife]

I am sorry but I am against the HCL's that are being enacted aroung the country. It is a matter of enforcment of current laws, if you beat the shit out of someone, it is hate. If you kill some one in a way that is considered murder, it is hate. The laws already accomidate what those who want HCL's want, if you want bigger sentences for offenders, the it is still an enforcment issue. I see HCL's as a feel good measure, a law passed that just reiterates things that are already said and has little effect on the problems at hand.

[haas mark]

Again, all I say is that I am for the discrimination laws... The hate crime laws are not really so viable, but the discrimination laws are something worthy, IMO.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The problem with anti-hate crime and anti-discrimination laws is that despite what the letter of the law says, they dont work both ways.

For instance, if I kill a strraight guy because he is straight, it is just a murder. If He kills me, it is a hate crime...That ist right

[haas mark]

The problem with anti-hate crime and anti-discrimination laws is that despite what the letter of the law says, they dont work both ways.

For instance, if I kill a strraight guy because he is straight, it is just a murder. If He kills me, it is a hate crime...That ist right

Actually, it does. It states, "based on sexual orientation or gender identity," meaning that if you kill someone for being straight (because "straight" is a sexual orientation), then you are equally as liable as someone who kills someone for being "gay," "bi," "lesbian," or transgendered/transsexual.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The problem with anti-hate crime and anti-discrimination laws is that despite what the letter of the law says, they dont work both ways.

For instance, if I kill a strraight guy because he is straight, it is just a murder. If He kills me, it is a hate crime...That ist right

Actually, it does. It states, "based on sexual orientation or gender identity," meaning that if you kill someone for being straight (because "straight" is a sexual orientation), then you are equally as liable as someone who kills someone for being "gay," "bi," "lesbian," or transgendered/transsexual.

[haas mark]

Actually, it does. It states, "based on sexual orientation or gender identity," meaning that if you kill someone for being straight (because "straight" is a sexual orientation), then you are equally as liable as someone who kills someone for being "gay," "bi," "lesbian," or transgendered/transsexual.

You were saying.....? :P

[The Duchess of Zeon]

What I was going to add to that before something screwed up - I can either blame IE or the board - was that: "It might be a nice idea in theory, but it doesn't work that way - Ignoring the implication of sentencing based on hate, you have the wording of the law, which does not including straight people, or certain other categories for that matter."

[Alyrium Denryle]

The problem with anti-hate crime and anti-discrimination laws is that despite what the letter of the law says, they dont work both ways.

For instance, if I kill a strraight guy because he is straight, it is just a murder. If He kills me, it is a hate crime...That ist right

Actually, it does. It states, "based on sexual orientation or gender identity," meaning that if you kill someone for being straight (because "straight" is a sexual orientation), then you are equally as liable as someone who kills someone for being "gay," "bi," "lesbian," or transgendered/transsexual.

I know what the law states..but will it bbe enforced that way? I thnk that is what most people have issues with.

[haas mark]

What I was going to add to that before something screwed up - I can either blame IE or the board - was that: "It might be a nice idea in theory, but it doesn't work that way - Ignoring the implication of sentencing based on hate, you have the wording of the law, which does not including straight people, or certain other categories for that matter."

Why would it not include straight people? In the definition of sexual orientation, or preference, if you will, I think it means that whichever way you define yourself as attracted to someone sexually, namely, of the opposite person's sex. In other words, if you define yourself as sexually attracted to members of both sexes, you are therefore bisexual, and that is your sexual orientation. If you define yourself as attracted to solely members of the opposite sex, that would make you straight, or heterosexual. If you define yourself as attracted to solely people of the same sex, that would make you gay/lesbian, or homosexual. It is my understanding that you define your sexuality (or sexual orientation/preference) by what sex you are attracted to. Meaning, then, that the sex(es) that you are attracted to define your sexual orientation.

In that instance, then, someone killing someone else for being straight/gay/bi/lesbian would not matter under the circumstances.. Hate crimes are defined by the reasoning (which, in itself, is semi-unjust) that it is BECAUSE of the other person's [insert ___ here]. That could be for race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, sex, age, etc.

Now, then, if I were to kill, say, Larz, for example, for being straight here in New Mexico, I would therefore be defined as having committed a hate crime because I killed him for his sexual orientation (because he was straight). At least, this is how I would presume it works.

[haas mark]

I know what the law states..but will it bbe enforced that way? I thnk that is what most people have issues with.

This is obviously indeterminate.. we'll have to see.. In any case, considering it IS New Mexico (and the law only got passed last Friday), it will more than likel be harsher for someone GLBT killing someone straight to have a harsher sentence than the opposite, but also far, far rarer.

I think, though, that in the event that it does happen, someone GLBT committing the crime will be looked down upon, because it's the GLBT people that are getting the laws.. What straights don't understand is that it applies to them, too.

In any case, more than likely, things will be dismissed here when a straight commits a crime for the same reasoning that whites are prosecuted less in the Deep South for racist crimes and non-whites more harshly... it just happens that way because it is the Southwest US and because of moral teachings and standings, as well as what people are used to.

[Alyeska]

The Constitution gives equal protection under the law. That is a constitutional right. Hate Crime laws give importance to certain victims and make other victims less important. Thus hate crime laws are unconstitutional.

That and the sole point behind hate crime laws is to punish people for what they are thinking when they comit the crime. That is thought control and is wrong. If they murder someone, send them to prison for life. Punish them for the crime they comit, don't make some bullshit excuse to increase the punishment based on mind control.

[haas mark]

The Constitution gives equal protection under the law. That is a constitutional right. Hate Crime laws give importance to certain victims and make other victims less important. Thus hate crime laws are unconstitutional.

That and the sole point behind hate crime laws is to punish people for what they are thinking when they comit the crime. That is thought control and is wrong. If they murder someone, send them to prison for life. Punish them for the crime they comit, don't make some bullshit excuse to increase the punishment based on mind control.

And this would be why I prefer the discrimination laws as opposed to the hate crime laws.