Crime Why the narrative that a "hate crime" is somehow worse?

[Fox by the Sea]

Because with hate crimes you can build NGOs and give people with intersectional lesbian poetry diplomas a place to work.

 

[Koro_11]

I'm not sure it relates to hate crimes but

United States​

US federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on the following nine protected classes: sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity[3]), race/color, age, disability, national origin, religion/creed, or genetic information (added in 2008).[clarification needed] Many state laws also give certain protected groups special protection against harassment and discrimination, as do many employer policies. Although it is not required by federal law, state law and employer policies may also protect employees from harassment or discrimination based on marital status.[1] The following characteristics are "protected" by United States federal anti-discrimination law:

• Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
• Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • Sexual orientation and gender identity as of Bostock v. Clayton County – Civil Rights Act of 1964[4]
• Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
• Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Prohibits discrimination for having children, with an exception for senior housing. Also prohibits making a preference for those with children.
• Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
• Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
• Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

Individual states can and do create other classes for protection under state law.

Presidents have also issued executive orders which prohibit consideration of particular attributes in employment decisions of the United States government and its contractors. These have included Executive Order 11246 (1965), Executive Order 11478 (1969), Executive Order 13087 (1998), Executive Order 13279 (2003), and Executive Order 13672 (2014).

Yeah again, to me this is just pointless.

By their definition if you decide to kill a non disabled person who has never been in the army, is the same sex, religion, age and ethnicity as you and happens to not be pregnant, then it's somehow more acceptable?

Are we giving such a person a lesser prison sentence for this crime just because he happened to dodge all the trip wires they listed there? I hope not, it's still murder (or whatever other crime they happen to commit) at the end of the day, and none of those factors should play any role in how we judge them in my opinion.

 

[The_Renaissance]

Ok, and what if I want to kill pedos and rapists. That would be considered a hate crime since they are a specific group. So you think that would be worse than if I just killed random people?

It will be soon enough, once they normalise paedophilia as being a sexual preference and make them a protected group.

 

[ThaiSexPills]

Ok, and what if I want to kill pedos and rapists. That would be considered a hate crime since they are a specific group. So you think that would be worse than if I just killed random people?

You would just be viewed as anti government for your hatred of politicians

 

[Mack Yancy]

Why tho, why is killing multiple people due to prejudice worse than killing multiple random people without prejudice?

You say no one describes a "hate crime" as worse, but you just did in your last sentence.

I know you're pretty slow. But check out my thread on the front page regarding the killing of Scott Jenks. He was beaten to death for 79 mins by a racist simply because he was a white man. Now are you telling me if you remove the 'hate' from this crime the outcome would be exactly the same?

Crime - “F*ck you! F*ck your white life! White motherf*cker !” Man was told as he was beaten to death for 79 mins.

Kristoff A. King (36) beat father of one Scott Jenks (48) for over an hour before he died outside of St Petersburg bar. Audio from security footage captured the details of the killing. King can be heard kicking Jenks on the ground for an hour and 19 minutes while Jenks begged for his life...

forums.sherdog.com

 

[Anewt]

Gotta agree. I'd much prefer the penalties for those fucked up crimes be more than enough.

I don't care if someone killed someone for being white. Or you hate the individual or it was a thrill kill.

I care more they killed someone

And feel the punishment should be based on the crime. Not the why

[ of course this changed with certain individual situations ]

 

[Koro_11]

I know you're pretty slow. But check out my thread on the front page regarding the killing of Scott Jenks. He was beaten to death for 79 mins by a racist simply because he was a white man. Now are you telling me if you remove the 'hate' from this crime the outcome would be exactly the same?

Crime - “F*ck you! F*ck your white life! White motherf*cker !” Man was told as he was beaten to death for 79 mins.

Kristoff A. King (36) beat father of one Scott Jenks (48) for over an hour before he died outside of St Petersburg bar. Audio from security footage captured the details of the killing. King can be heard kicking Jenks on the ground for an hour and 19 minutes while Jenks begged for his life...

forums.sherdog.com

Yes that's what I'm telling you.

Beating someone for 79 minutes that results in his death is the same outcome regardless of the reason.

I think it's you that's slow if you can't grasp this very basic concept.

 

[Mack Yancy]

Yes that's what I'm telling you.

Beating someone for 79 minutes that results in his death is the same outcome regardless of the reason.

I think it's you that's slow if you can't grasp this very basic concept.

Well stand on your words and tell them in the thread that his race doesn't matter, and it's just about violence.

But I know you won't, because not only are you slow, you're kinda scared.

 

[DiddlyDoodly]

Back in the 90's here in town, 2 black teenagers broke into some old white guy's house and he managed to catch one of them in his backyard. A neighbor called the police and helped the guy hold one of the teens down until the cops got there.

During this time, according to witnesses, the teen and old white guy talked shit back and forth and called each other all kinds of racial slurs.

In the end, the teen got off with nothing and the old white guy got charged with some kind of bullshit hate crime for calling the teen the "N-word" numerous times.

 

[andnowweknow]

Why tho, why is killing multiple people due to prejudice worse than killing multiple random people without prejudice?

You say no one describes a "hate crime" as worse, but you just did in your last sentence.

I think it has something to do with the race relations history in America. At worst, an easily understandable "overcorrection"....

 

[Koro_11]

Well stand on your words and tell them in the thread that his race doesn't matter, and it's just about violence.

But I know you won't, because not only are you slow, you're kinda scared.

What thread, wtf are you talking about, and who brought up race?

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

Was it actually random? Judging from the video in the OP, the shooter was black and the two victims I saw getting shot were either white or hispanic. Are there clear pictures anywhere of the shooter and all the victims?

 

[panamaican]

But prejudice could be anything, I think you're just assuming it's racial prejudice or something along those lines.

What about the example I pointed out earlier, what if I chose to target pedophiles... this is a specific group I might hate and therefore I'm committing a hate crime against this group. This would clearly be more understandable and less odious than just killing random people with no rhyme and reason.

If you think that example is too extreme, then you can even dial it back to something less obvious like political opposition. If one detests communists, or Trump supporters for example, and decides to kill one because of it, while it's still murder I can kinda wrap my head around this hate crime because the person doing the killing feels a strong negative emotion towards this group. While some psychopath who just decides to kill whoever on a whim just seems much more disturbing and wrong in my opinion... I can't relate to such a person in any way because there is no predictability to it.

I'm going to simply re-ask my prior question: Are you opposed to any differentiation in how we perceive criminal acts or only in the context of hate crimes?

I have follow up questions in either case (to explain the "why" you keep asking about) but I'll wait for your answer to that straightforward question first.

 

[Koro_11]

I'm going to simply re-ask my prior question: Are you opposed to any differentiation in how we perceive criminal acts or only in the context of hate crimes?

I have follow up questions in either case (to explain the "why" you keep asking about) but I'll wait for your answer to that straightforward question first.

There is obviously sometimes a need for differentiation... killing someone in self defence vs killing someone cause you caught him in bed with your wife vs killing someone in cold blood should clearly all be judged differently.

But when you get into calling something a hate crime, I think it becomes a bit pointless. Some white dude killing some black dude he had no previous contact with, should carry the same penalty as a white guy killing another white guy for no reason. Both are cases of unprovoked cold blooded murder, and both should have the same penalty. I don't see the need for the "hate" label, if anything as I previously said, hating the person you killed is more understandable to me than just killing someone for the hell of it, with no emotion... the latter is much more disturbing to me if I'm honest.

 

[panamaican]

There is obviously sometimes a need for differentiation... killing someone in self defence vs killing someone cause you caught him in bed with your wife vs killing someone in cold blood should clearly all be judged differently.

But when you get into calling something a hate crime, I think it becomes a bit pointless. Some white dude killing some black dude he had no previous contact with, should carry the same penalty as a white guy killing another white guy for no reason. Both are cases of unprovoked cold blooded murder, and both should have the same penalty.

First, what you're describing isn't a hate crime but I won't belabor that point.

More relevantly, you're fine with differentiation, you simply disagree with differentiation based on this type of prejudice - race, gender, age, nationality, citizenship?

Do you oppose those exceptions in all aspects or only in the criminal justice system?

 

[Koro_11]

So, you're fine with differentiation, you simply disagree with differentiation based on this type of prejudice - race, gender, age, nationality, citizenship?

Do you oppose those exceptions in all aspects or only in the criminal justice system?

What I'm fine with is common sense. Cold blooded murder seems like the worst kind, like "I have no emotions whatsoever about killing this person" seems to me like the most disturbed and most irredeemable human being because it's impossible to predict their behaviour and you or I could easily be next cause he'll just kill someone on a whim.

A person who killed killed someone because of their religion, skin colour, sexual orientation or whatever, at least one can rationalize and say "well ok, I'm not (insert whatever group) so he probably won't kill me.

So yeah he's still a murderer and should go to jail, but at least there is some rationale behind it and their behaviour is more predictable.

Both should get the same prison sentence or death penalty or whatever... I don't need someone to tell me "but this was a hate crime" to make it seem worse somehow.

 

[panamaican]

What I'm fine with is common sense. Cold blooded murder seems like the worst kind, like "I have no emotions whatsoever about killing this person" seems to me like the most disturbed and most irredeemable human being because it's impossible to predict their behaviour and you or I could easily be next cause he'll just kill someone on a whim.

A person who killed killed someone because of their religion, skin colour, sexual orientation or whatever, at least one can rationalize and say "well ok, I'm not (insert whatever group) so he probably won't kill me.

So yeah he's still a murderer and should go to jail, but at least there is some rationale behind it and their behaviour is more predictable.

Both should get the same prison sentence or death penalty or whatever... I don't need someone to tell me "but this was a hate crime" to make it seem worse somehow.

I'm trying to keep my questions pretty straightforward so that I can address what your specific concern is, which is about what makes hate crimes "worse" and to do that, I'm trying to nail down what specific differences you're concerned about in the context of our entire legal jurisprudence. I don't need examples, I'm asking about your impression/understanding of the legal concepts.

So, once again (with a little clarity):

You're fine with differentiation in the criminal justice system, but you disagree with differentiation based on this type of prejudice - race, gender, age, nationality, citizenship?

Do you oppose those exceptions in all aspects or only in the criminal justice system?

 

[deviake]

Because it's targeting specific people, and the groups targeted tend to be ones that were oppressed/discriminated against and suffered violence by those around them in the past which has shaped the present, thus the reasoning makes it noteworthy in a way that random targeting or a general disputes/crimes aren't.

 

[EndlessCritic]

I've never heard anyone describe a "hate crime" as worse than killing a random person unless it was mass shooting based hate crime which combines the random killing component with a prejudicial element, essentially doubling the bad.

The way I've always heard the news is that killing multiple people is always worse than killing 1 person. Targeting children is worse than targeting the elderly which is worse than targeting people in the middle. Prejudicial driven killing is worse than non-prejudicial killing. Targeting random people is worse than targeting someone intentionally.

Killing multiple people randomly is always worse, on the news, than one prejudice driven killing, while killing multiple random people due to prejudice is worse than killing multiple random people without prejudice.

In Canada, something being a hate crime is an aggravating factor on sentencing under s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code. In other words, you absolutely get a harsher sentence for a hate crime than a random attack.

718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

• (a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
  • (i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,
    

 

[PBAC]

crimes that are premeditated are much scarier for the general public than those that are random.

E.G the criminal in the pandemic must be some shadowy sinister organization plotting to over throw the world, as opposed to admitting that pretty much everyone was clueless. They have to rally against the big bad because admitting stupidity and accountability is not scary enough.