# Is this a hate crime?



## Tom (Nov 15, 2007)

Alright so there was a temple in New Jersey where the janitor found a bunch of encyclopedias in the parking lot laid out in the shape of a swastika.  http://www.baristanet.com/2007/05/synagogue_gets_message_of_hate.php  Looked like this:  http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd131/_tootalltommy/swastika_headlineimage.jpg  Is this a hate crime?   I thought that for something to be a hate crime there had to be a crime. I DO NOT THINK THIS IS A GOOD THING!! but I can't say its a hate crime.


----------



## MJS (Nov 15, 2007)

Yes, I'd say this falls into the hate crime category.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html

http://www.ojp.gov/ovc/assist/nvaa2002/chapter22_1.html


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 15, 2007)

Littering is a crime, isn't it? 

One would hope that the participants would have read the encyclopedias. They might have gotten more out of it.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 15, 2007)

Encyclopedias?  WTF?  Is the price of oil driving up the cost of spray paint?  I think the police are going to want to have a word with this guy.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Nov 15, 2007)

If my understanding of a hate crime is correct then this falls under that category. I understand a crime to be any act, physical or psychological, towards someone based of gender, race, religion or sexual preference. This would be a psychological in my opinion.

B


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 15, 2007)

Littering is a crime, vandalism is a crime, but I don't think that is a hate crime.  What's next?  Thought crime?  I personally think the whole "hate crime" concept is absurd!  Crime is crime!  Just my opinion.


----------



## Ray (Nov 15, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> Littering is a crime, vandalism is a crime, but I don't think that is a hate crime.  What's next?  Thought crime?  I personally think the whole "hate crime" concept is absurd!  Crime is crime!  Just my opinion.


I agree with you on the concept of "hate crime."  I also have a problem with the concept of "hate speech."  I agree with previous posters that a crime was committed.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 15, 2007)

Ray said:


> I agree with you on the concept of "hate crime."  I also have a problem with the concept of "hate speech."  I agree with previous posters that a crime was committed.




Agreed. It was a psychological attack.


----------



## stephen (Nov 15, 2007)

MA-Caver said:


> Agreed. It was a psychological attack.




Harrassment is a crime. 

But, hate crime = thought crime.


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 15, 2007)

stephen said:


> But, hate crime = thought crime.



I would agree that it can be a form of thought crime.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 15, 2007)

If Im correct, isnt a "Hate Crime" just a classification of a specific crime? For example, I spray paint your car its vandalism/criminal mischief which is a crime. If I spray paint it with racial slurs directed at you, its still criminal mischief, but because it was done based on race its now classified as a "hate crime" which can either result in a stiffer sentence locally, or turn it into a federal case. 

If thats right, what is the crime committed here? If it was directed at a particular person it would be a harassment I would think, but if not I dont know....neo-nazis can walk around with them everywhere as protected speech, what is different here?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 15, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Littering is a crime, isn't it?
> 
> One would hope that the participants would have read the encyclopedias. They might have gotten more out of it.


Hate littering is a growing problem.
Sean


----------



## theletch1 (Nov 15, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> If Im correct, isnt a "Hate Crime" just a classification of a specific crime? For example, I spray paint your car its vandalism/criminal mischief which is a crime. If I spray paint it with racial slurs directed at you, its still criminal mischief, but because it was done based on race its now classified as a "hate crime" which can either result in a stiffer sentence locally, or turn it into a federal case.
> 
> If thats right, what is the crime committed here? If it was directed at a particular person it would be a harassment I would think, but if not I dont know....neo-nazis can walk around with them everywhere as protected speech, what is different here?


The difference here would be that the books were displayed in the shape of a symbol designed to scare/harrass/intimidate those who attended the temple.  I think it would fall into the category of hate crime even though I'm with the group that believes a crime is a crime is a crime.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 15, 2007)

So it would be a harassment? I dont think you actually get charged with a "hate crime". Its a "crime" with a "hate motivation". But you still need a crime.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 15, 2007)

NYS view of what constitutes a hate crime
http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/ch107_hate_crimes_2000.htm


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 15, 2007)

Thats about how I thought it went.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 15, 2007)

Books arranged in the form of a swastika in the parking lot of a synagogue?  Yes, I'd say it's a hate crime.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Nov 15, 2007)

Its clearly a case of intended threat or intimidation.

I want to know why it was done with encyclopaedia.  Was someone walking down the street with an armload of books and just thought, "Ah a temple, I'll just try to intimidate them with these books."  Or did they come from the temple itself?  If that was so then there is a case of burglary involved.


----------



## JBrainard (Nov 15, 2007)

Don't flame me for this, but I can't help but wonder: Are all of the people on this thread who are saying "hate crime = thought crime" or "a crime is a crime," white males? If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I've just found through personal experience that it's far harder to "walk in another's shoes" than you realize.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 15, 2007)

Heres a good link on California hate crime law.

http://da.co.la.ca.us/hate/hcdefined.htm


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 15, 2007)

There are also things known as "bias incidents":

http://www.ocanational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=130&Itemid=


> What is a bias Incident?
> Bias or hate incidents are any acts, conduct, speech or expression that are bias motivated, but not punishable under the law. These can range from verbal harassment, ridicule, threats(verbal or written), and slurs. Bias incidents are more likely to happen than hate crimes but one should always respond whether or not the law recognizes that a crime has occurred. Bias incidents left unchecked, can create an environment for hate crimes to occur.



Which if you read the OP. The responding officers filed a "bias report" regarding this incident, so I dont think that this incident met the threshold of a "hate crime" in their state.


----------



## BrandiJo (Nov 15, 2007)

I would have to go with hate crime. The shape of a swastika at a synagog (err totally killed the spelling) (Jewish church) is very anti-semitic act.  I would say crime because of the littering, trespassing, and the fear it may spark.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 15, 2007)

Littering isnt a "crime". A crime is typically a misdemeanor or a felony. You cant really trespass on property that anybody can legally drive or enter onto unless they have been expressly told to stay away. If anything I would think a harassment of some sort occurred, but if you read any of those legal mumbo jumbo links upthread you are hard pressed to find any crime that fits that standard there. If they spray painted it on the building it looks like it would qualify. Here I dont know. If there are any attorneys out there with some insight Id be curious to find out how this would fare in court.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 15, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Littering isnt a "crime". A crime is typically a misdemeanor or a felony. You cant really trespass on property that anybody can legally drive or enter onto unless they have been expressly told to stay away. If anything I would think a harassment of some sort occurred, but if you read any of those legal mumbo jumbo links upthread you are hard pressed to find any crime that fits that standard there. If they spray painted it on the building it looks like it would qualify. Here I dont know. If there are any attorneys out there with some insight Id be curious to find out how this would fare in court.


Littering IS a crime; in VA it's a Class 1 Misdemeanor (up to 12 months jail and/or $2500 fine).  Most states are similar.  Trespass gets trickier; it depends on what's posted or if the offender had been told not to enter the property.  Of course, destruction of the books could be an offense, too.  (Destruction of private property)

Is this a hate crime?  Depends.  Can you show the intent was to inflict harm or cause fear, targeting or motivated by the temple?  That's where things get trickier.

In a generic sense, I'm leary of many of these sorts of laws.  When we start differentiating crimes by the victim, not the offense, enforcement becomes inherently unfair.  I'm not Jewish, so if you draw a swastika on my door, it's "just" vandalism.  But if my neighbor is... it's a hate crime.  What if they got my house by mistake?  We do differentiate crimes by motivation; murder (the deliberate killing of human with malice aforethought) is punished more severely than manslaughter (killing a human under situations that a reasonable person would have foreseen as highly dangerous).  Burglary requires the intent to commit a larceny or a felony (under the Common Law).  But, like I said, I start getting uncomfortable when we start sorting victims.  I mean -- is it a hate crime when an 18th Street gang member attacks an MS member?  What about a member of the Aryan Brotherhood attacking a Gangster Disciple or Sur 13 member?  Which victims qualify as important enough for hate crime protection?


----------



## grydth (Nov 15, 2007)

There appear to be 2 very different concepts being debated on 1 thread here.... should there even be crimes defined as "hate crimes" ,and, does the act here meet the definition of one. Maybe this should be split.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 15, 2007)

Wow..here littering is a violation. Pretty steep fines but no crime and I believe it usually charged if you toss it out of your car window. I think our town code only has it as a violation as well. Can littering or trespass meet your states legal definition of "hate crime"?

I can understand wanting to punish someone more harshly if the motivation to commit the crime was based on "hate", but I agree. Id be pretty pissed if my case wound up with the guy getting a fine, but the neighbor getting him to go to jail because he was from a specific group and I was not.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 15, 2007)

In the same vein I just found this:

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/04/bacon-new-hate-crime.html



> According to the Clarksville Leaf Chronicle, two hours before the 1 p.m. Friday service, the Koran was found on the front steps of the Islamic Center. Someone had written &#8220;Mohammad pedophile&#8221; on the front, and an (unnamed) expletive was on the inside, smeared under two strips of bacon. Not only did the local police report it as a hate crime, but they said they would contact the FBI. Mosque representatives are meeting with the City Mayor Johnny Piper to see what he can do as well.





> The 2005 Department of Justice &#8220;Study of Literature and Legislation on Hate Crime in America&#8221;
> 
> Over the past 25 years, the federal government and all but one state have passed pieces of legislation addressing hate crime in some way. Still, there remains no national consensus about whether hate crime should be a separate class of crime, and among those supporting hate crime statutes, there is disagreement about how these statutes should be constructed and focused. The keys issues in the debate include:
> 
> ...


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 16, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> Don't flame me for this, but I can't help but wonder: Are all of the people on this thread who are saying "hate crime = thought crime" or "a crime is a crime," white males?



If that were true, it might be safe to assume the opposite of those who support "hate crime".


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 16, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> Don't flame me for this, but I can't help but wonder: Are all of the people on this thread who are saying "hate crime = thought crime" or "a crime is a crime," white males? If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I've just found through personal experience that it's far harder to "walk in another's shoes" than you realize.


Why should it matter?

Yes, I'm a white male.  And I'm definitely part of "the establishment", since I'm employed as a cop.

But the reasons behind my concerns about hate crime laws or sentencing enhancements is simple.  Show me why the same crime committed against different victims should be punished so differently.  In some cases, we do have objective reasons; certain crimes against children are considered much more serious because kids are less able to protect themselves.  But, outside of knee jerk responses, why should graffiti be punished differently based on who it's done to?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 16, 2007)

When I mentioned 'littering' in post 3, really, I was being hyperbolic, and ironic. I brought it up, because Tom insinuated that no actual 'crime' had been committed, only 'hate'.

We can not legislate people out of their bigotry and ignorance. Nor do I think we should try. We might, however, be able to educate people away from those beliefs; thus my comment about reading the books.

And, I do believe there are such things as hate crimes. I understand the argument a crime is a crime, and changing the adjective 'hate' into a noun of 'hate crime' is troubling to some; but I think they are wrong. There are a certain crimes where the motive should demand a more severe punishment. This is a very different thing than saying without a prejudicial motive, the crime is less criminal, and should be punished less severly.

Of course, nobody here is going to argue that our country has problems when it comes to administering severe punishments, are you?


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 16, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> But the reasons behind my concerns about hate crime laws or sentencing enhancements is simple. Show me why the same crime committed against different victims should be punished so differently. In some cases, we do have objective reasons; certain crimes against children are considered much more serious because kids are less able to protect themselves. But, outside of knee jerk responses, why should graffiti be punished differently based on who it's done to?


 
I agree with this, but I think it does matter in some (but not all) cases.  If somebody beats another person within an inch of their life, whatever punishment they receive for the attack should not be appended with a hate crime charge because the attack itself is terrible regardless of the motive.  Where the hate crime charge should be used is to augment the charges of smaller crimes which are motivated by hate.  

Graffiti, for example, is a minor crime with a small penalty, often a fine.  If somebody paints their street name on your garage, it's annoying.  If they paint a swastika, it becomes something completely different.  And if you charge them at the graffiti level, you're treating the crime as vandalism when the intent was to harrass or terrorize.  Fining them isn't giving them a sufficient incentive to stop.

But again, I think it's been misused.  A lot of times it seems like the hate crime charge is added on to existing serious charges like the topping on a sundae.  And then you get an inequity in which someone can get more jail time for killing this person rather than that person.


----------



## Kreth (Nov 16, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> Show me why the same crime committed against different victims should be punished so differently.


I agree. And it's not just hate crimes. I've used this example before, but why should it more of a crime to shoot a cop than a single mom?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 16, 2007)

Why does crack coccaine have higher sentences than powder coccaine?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 16, 2007)

Kreth said:


> I agree. And it's not just hate crimes. I've used this example before, but why should it more of a crime to shoot a cop than a single mom?


 

If the cop is on duty and identified as such I support capitol punishment...if the bad guy didnt know he was a cop and/or he was off-duty and didnt identitfy himself, I would be for treating the case like any other. Its meant to protect the entire system, not a particular class. Its intent is to prevent everybody who faces arrest from trying to kill the cop to escape.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 16, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> If the cop is on duty and identified as such I support capitol punishment...if the bad guy didnt know he was a cop and/or he was off-duty and didnt identitfy himself, I would be for treating the case like any other. Its meant to protect the entire system, not a particular class. Its intent is to prevent everybody who faces arrest from trying to kill the cop to escape.


 
Exactly.


----------



## JBrainard (Nov 16, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> Show me why the same crime committed against different victims should be punished so differently.





CoryKS said:


> Graffiti, for example, is a minor crime with a small penalty, often a fine. If somebody paints their street name on your garage, it's annoying. If they paint a swastika, it becomes something completely different. And if you charge them at the graffiti level, you're treating the crime as vandalism when the intent was to harrass or terrorize. Fining them isn't giving them a sufficient incentive to stop.


 
jks, I believe Cory just did.


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 16, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> There are a certain crimes where the motive should demand a more severe punishment. This is a very different thing than saying without a prejudicial motive, the crime is less criminal, and should be punished less severly.


 
I don't think any group of people should have a "special" label affixed to them.  Which is in essence what "hate" crime laws do, IMO.


----------



## Kreth (Nov 16, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> If the cop is on duty and identified as such I support capitol punishment...


Well, I'd support capital punishment in the case of the single mom being shot as well, but that's a different argument.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 16, 2007)

Kreth said:


> Well, I'd support capital punishment in the case of the single mom being shot as well, but that's a different argument.


 
Same here. But I understand the difference as it currently applies.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 16, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Why does crack coccaine have higher sentences than powder coccaine?


Because Congress, in it's infinite wisdom and in knee-jerk reaction to the crack wars of the late 80s, established federal sentencing that was harsher.  There are some reasonable arguments that crack is more addictive than powder, but I don't know; I'm not a doctor.  The heart of it was that the rapid spread of crack fueled some very violent turf wars between narc gangs, and legislators pounced.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 18, 2007)

I just came across this law for New York:



> §240.31 Aggravated harassment in the first degree.
> 
> A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the first degree when with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, because of  a belief or perception regarding such person's race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct, he or she:
> 
> ...



So in NY this would probably be a "hate crime". If aggravated harassment is one of the enumerated offenses.


----------



## Guardian (Nov 18, 2007)

Tom said:


> Alright so there was a temple in New Jersey where the janitor found a bunch of encyclopedias in the parking lot laid out in the shape of a swastika. http://www.baristanet.com/2007/05/synagogue_gets_message_of_hate.php Looked like this: http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd131/_tootalltommy/swastika_headlineimage.jpg Is this a hate crime? I thought that for something to be a hate crime there had to be a crime. I DO NOT THINK THIS IS A GOOD THING!! but I can't say its a hate crime.


 
I think this country has gone crazy with this hate crime stuff.  Now a days, you get in a fight, just a simple fight between two people and that could be consider a hate crime if one is a minority, how rediculous is that?

I would not consider this a hate crime, no individual(s) were caught, so what crime has taken place if you specifically clarity a crime with having a body to go with that crime, sort of like is it murder if no body is found, sometimes, but mostly not.

Just my view on things.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 18, 2007)

I think this is the sort of activity that hate crimes legislation is perfect for. Essentially, it's a covert act of bullying -- property hasn't been defaced, only an implied threat has been made. I also don't have a problem with charging someone with promoting hate against member of a group.

However, I am uncomfortable with the idea that a murder, for instance, can be deemed a hate crime. Hatred of the group that the victim belongs to may indeed be a factor, one worth discussing in court; however, a murder is a murder. I don't believe that there are special murders. The fact that such a crime is motivated by hate may make it more distressing to the victim's family and the community. In the eyes of the law, it should be treated for what it is.


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 18, 2007)

Gordon Nore said:


> I think this is the sort of activity that hate crimes legislation is perfect for. Essentially, it's a covert act of bullying -- property hasn't been defaced, only an implied threat has been made. I also don't have a problem with charging someone with promoting hate against member of a group.
> 
> However, I am uncomfortable with the idea that a murder, for instance, can be deemed a hate crime. Hatred of the group that the victim belongs to may indeed be a factor, one worth discussing in court; however, a murder is a murder. I don't believe that there are special murders. The fact that such a crime is motivated by hate may make it more distressing to the victim's family and the community. In the eyes of the law, it should be treated for what it is.


 
But the circumstances surrouding the killing of another person, as well as the motive is always taken into account. If the sole reason for the murder is because of the victim's race, religion, sex it becomes a hate crime because that is the motive.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Nov 18, 2007)

CanuckMA said:


> But the circumstances surrouding the killing of another person, as well as the motive is always taken into account. If the sole reason for the murder is because of the victim's race, religion, sex it becomes a hate crime because that is the motive.



There ya go.

But... it has to be proven...


----------



## Doc_Jude (Nov 18, 2007)

Also, the Swastika doesn't mean "Nazi". "Swastika" or Svastika comes the Sanskrit word svasti, meaning good fortune, luck and well being.
There are very specific reasons why Hitler used this ancient symbol, or rather, a perversion of it. 

There's a difference between this....







...and this.


----------



## Kacey (Nov 18, 2007)

Doc_Jude said:


> Also, the Swastika doesn't mean "Nazi". "Swastika" or Svastika comes the Sanskrit word svasti, meaning good fortune, luck and well being.
> There are very specific reasons why Hitler used this ancient symbol, or rather, a perversion of it.
> 
> There's a difference between this....
> ...



While it is, historically, true that the swastika was originally based on the svasti, I seriously doubt that the person(s) who placed the encyclopedias in the temple's parking lot intended to wish the members of the congregation good luck.  

Having been in the receiving end of a hate crime, I see no purpose in trying to excuse those who commit them.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Nov 18, 2007)

Kacey said:


> While it is, historically, true that the swastika was originally based on the svasti, I seriously doubt that the person(s) who placed the encyclopedias in the temple's parking lot intended to wish the members of the congregation good luck.
> 
> Having been in the receiving end of a hate crime, I see no purpose in trying to excuse those who commit them.



Absolutely True. Hate Crimes are both totally ignorant and reprehensible. 

Though, encyclopedias... that is kinda weird.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 18, 2007)

CanuckMA said:


> But the circumstances surrouding the killing of another person, as well as the motive is always taken into account. If the sole reason for the murder is because of the victim's race, religion, sex it becomes a hate crime because that is the motive.



Agreed. However, should the crime be tried or the perpetrator be punished differently. Is hatred of a group, as a motive, different from hatred of the individual in a murder trial?


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 19, 2007)

Gordon Nore said:


> Agreed. However, should the crime be tried or the perpetrator be punished differently. Is hatred of a group, as a motive, different from hatred of the individual in a murder trial?


 
Yes it should be. How many murdrs are essentially random? A murder falling under the hate crime category is the murder of a random person simply because of race, color, religion, etc. It is very disturbing in a society and should be punished accordingly.


----------

