Is this a hate crime?

[Blotan Hunka]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 “Mohammad pedophile” 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 “Study of Literature and Legislation on Hate Crime in America”

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:

(1) the necessity of considering hate or bias motivation when the core offenses(e.g., assault, vandalism) are already covered by criminal law;

(2) whether there is a danger in basing additional penalties for crimes upon the thoughts motivating offenders, rather than keeping the focus of criminal law on the behavior itself;

(3) whether it is possible to determine with legally-acceptable levels of certainty the motive behind a person’s criminal acts;

(4) whether, in practice, hate crime laws result in crimes against certain groups of people being punished more severely than equivalent crimes committed against other groups, and if so, whether that is fair and legally defensible;

(5) whether having hate crime statutes deters potential offenders; and

(6) whether having these statutes hinders law enforcement’s ability to investigate and prosecute crime.

 

[Bigshadow]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Why does crack coccaine have higher sentences than powder coccaine?

 

[Blotan Hunka]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.