Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
thank you. Say you have a bitter fight with your friend, a gay guy.
as punches start flying you may call him a fag and he may call you a wop and the reason you're beating each other up has little to do with those catagorizations.

Wouldn't the fact that they were friends be more probative of the fight not being a hate crime than things they said in the heat of combat that both later disavow as motive?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by taxwonk
How do you determine motive in any situation? If the only way a prosecutor can prove you motive was racism in your hypothetical is by pointing to things you said in the past, then perhaps the prosecution can't prove it was a hate crime.

I'm not as up on evidence of past conduct as proof of motive rules as I should be, perhaps, but isn't that sort of proof generally frowned on in the courts? Why would it be more acceptable in a hate crimes context?

It's been awhile, but I'm pretty certain that past statements offered to prove motive for a hate crime are pretty likely to be admitted.

Motive in other situations is a whole lot easier to prove, and in any event doens't implicate such protected conduct.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
But you can burn a cross in a Madonna video and you can march down Market street during an ANSWER protest with big pictures of the President covered with swastikas.

Yes, I also have a problem with selective use of symbols as "hate crimes."

The problem with your examples isn't the selective use of symbols. Neither of your examples constitute criminal acts.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Before you bend over and blow yourself, you might consider that, if RT is right -- and I have no reason to think she isn't -- then the question you raised has been resolved and the answer is a pretty simple "no." Women are not a distinct minority and hate crime legislation has generally not been drafted to implicate the concern you raise, that any crime against a woman could be charged as a hate crime.

I thought his point (and what RT was getting at) was: if women aren't protected by hate-crime laws, despite the fact that women historically have been terribly abused and discriminated against and presently are criminally preyed upon frequently due to their status as women, then it becomes obvious that hate-crime laws are written, not to protect those segments of the population that are victimized and discriminated against because of their status, but instead to protect only certain favored groups that are selected based on some criteria other than the fact that they are routinely (and/or historically) targeted because of their membership in the group.

Or: including women highlights the inherent problems with hate-crime laws, but excluding them eviscerates the supposed justification for having the laws at all.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Yeah, that article really shows how Europeans are just so, so horrible and that we Americans would never, ever be like that.

Fine. So where do we go from here?

Kill everyone born with a birth defect?

Euthanize the elderly when diagnosed with a deadly disease?

Selective breeding?

Cloning the healthy?

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
The problem with your examples isn't the selective use of symbols. Neither of your examples constitute criminal acts.

Riddle me this.

Someone burns a cross on Blackacre to purportedly scare the local black family.

Unbeknownst to the arsonist, said family moved out 2 weeks ago and some Irish family - call them the McGills - bought the house.

Person gets caught.

How do you charge him?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Fine. So where do we go from here?

Kill everyone born with a birth defect?

Euthanize the elderly when diagnosed with a deadly disease?

Selective breeding?

Cloning the healthy?

That would be a discussion worth having. Turning it into a "Europeans are bad" slam is one way to avoid having it.

My understanding of the article, though, was that it was talking about babies born with terminal illnesses -- i.e., those with a few minutes, hours, maybe days to live. Going from killing a baby who will die after a few (excrutiangly painful) hours (or just not treating that baby and letting him or her suffer and die) to "selective breeding" or "kill everyone with a birth defect" is an enormous leap. And one that neither Europe nor America has made despite apparently engaging in the former practice for many years now.

If an elderly person wanted to be euthanized rather than live through a few months of terminal bone cancer, I wouldn't stop him.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why can't the sentencing take into account that the victim was selecting for his race, just as it would take into account that a little old lady was chosen?

Blakely now creates some problems for that approach.

Do hate crime statutes bar the possibility of an enhancement for killing someone because he's white (or Irish, Italian, etc.)?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Riddle me this.

Someone burns a cross on Blackacre to purportedly scare the local black family.

Unbeknownst to the arsonist, said family moved out 2 weeks ago and some Irish family - call them the McGills - bought the house.

Person gets caught.

How do you charge him?

It depends on the statute.

This isn't the only area of criminal law that gives rise to these sorts of issues (i.e., the sort of issues where a law school exam hypo can point out potential concerns).

Someone solicits a female on the Internet for sex, thinking she's 15 years old. Turns out she's a 44 year old FBI agent (or Not Me). How do you charge him?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Riddle me this.

Someone burns a cross on Blackacre to purportedly scare the local black family.

Unbeknownst to the arsonist, said family moved out 2 weeks ago and some Irish family - call them the McGills - bought the house.

Person gets caught.

How do you charge him?

I am resisting the temptation to respond with an Irish joke.

It is exceedingly difficult.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I thought his point (and what RT was getting at) was: if women aren't protected by hate-crime laws, despite the fact that women historically have been terribly abused and discriminated against and presently are criminally preyed upon frequently due to their status as women, then it becomes obvious that hate-crime laws are written, not to protect those segments of the population that are victimized and discriminated against because of their status, but instead to protect only certain favored groups that are selected based on some criteria other than the fact that they are routinely (and/or historically) targeted because of their membership in the group.

Or: including women highlights the inherent problems with hate-crime laws, but excluding them eviscerates the supposed justification for having the laws at all.

Of course, if I posted that eloquently, I couldn't get away with the Gilligan posts.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Blakely now creates some problems for that approach.

Not really -- it just prevents the judge from making the finding of motive. This could give a prosecutor a hard-on -- the ability to offer evidence of bias before the jury where it might otherwise not be relevant to a jury issue.

Do hate crime statutes bar the possibility of an enhancement for killing someone because he's white (or Irish, Italian, etc.)?

I hate to say this again, but it depends on the statute. My guess is, in most cases, no, they don't bar the charge/enhancement -- crime motivated by the bias against the victim based on race, etc.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
My understanding of the article, though, was that it was talking about babies born with terminal illnesses -- i.e., those with a few minutes, hours, maybe days to live. Going from killing a baby who will die after a few (excrutiangly painful) hours (or just not treating that baby and letting him or her suffer and die) to "selective breeding" or "kill everyone with a birth defect" is an enormous leap. And one that neither Europe nor America has made despite apparently engaging in the former practice for many years now.

Those were the 4 cases of children that they euthanized, yes.
But the story states that the panel is also to consider cases of "...the severely mentally retarded"

Tell me this doesn't open a Pandora's Box.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Wouldn't the fact that they were friends be more probative of the fight not being a hate crime than things they said in the heat of combat that both later disavow as motive?

Well simple answer is one of the 2 would be dead. But my real point was that most people, once they get into a fight, might drop some slurs even thought the target's status had nothing to do with the fight.

there was a well- publicized case here awhile back. white woman has her necklace stolen by black woman at an outdoor festival. White woman responds with "N-word give me back my necklace." If the white woman had proceeded to beat the black woman, it would seem evidence of having been a hate crime, when it wasn't motivated by race at all.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
It depends on the statute.

This isn't the only area of criminal law that gives rise to these sorts of issues (i.e., the sort of issues where a law school exam hypo can point out potential concerns).

Someone solicits a female on the Internet for sex, thinking she's 15 years old. Turns out she's a 44 year old FBI agent (or Not Me). How do you charge him?

Is entrapment a crime with which you could charge him, or is it just a defense (I haven't thought about criminal law since about five minutes before the end of my crim law exam first year)?