Dolphins LB Victim of Hate Crime?

[MililaniBuckeye]

grad, see my PM...

 

[ysubuck]

Originally Posted by sandgk

I thought that Moby was all about being peaceful and eating fruits and vegetables. Man, he's got a dark side!!!!

 

[zincfinger]

For once nobody can blame Tibor, but I'm sure he'll get blamed anyway.

Well personally, I blame Tibor for this. Seriously, though, I agree with stx: for once, Tibor had he clearest reasoning in this thread. Why is it that, if one man assaults another, his punishment should be greater if he did it on the basis of the victim's skin color, than if he did it because he wanted what was in the victim's pocket? It is unprovable and has nothing to with justice.

 

[Bucklion]

Well personally, I blame Tibor for this. Seriously, though, I agree with stx: for once, Tibor had he clearest reasoning in this thread. Why is it that, if one man assaults another, his punishment should be greater if he did it on the basis of the victim's skin color, than if he did it because he wanted what was in the victim's pocket? It is unprovable and has nothing to with justice.

I think the major reason behind hate crime legislation is to be able to keep violent racists in jail for longer, and to demonstrate that targeted violence will not be tolerated. I'm no expert, but I imagine hate crime laws carry mandatory minimums, thus preventing judges from a wink-and-a-nod light sentencing (like there seems to be with child predators in certain cases) because the judge himself might be racist, for example. Now the effectiveness of these tactics are debatable, certainly, but I think that's probably what the goal is.

 

[zincfinger]

I think the major reason behind hate crime legislation is to be able to keep violent racists in jail for longer, and to demonstrate that targeted violence will not be tolerated.

That sounds good until you consider the question, "keep them in jail longer than whom?" Of course violent racists belong in jail, but so do those who are simply violent. Nobody argues that racially-targeted violence should be tolerated. But equally so, violence targeted on the basis of any other criterion should not be tolerated.

Now the effectiveness of these tactics are debatable, certainly, but I think that's probably what the goal is.

Usually the goal of legislation is fairly easy to understand. But as you say, the effectiveness is debatable, and I would say that the principle is as well. And both principle and effectiveness are more important than the stated goal. Who cares what the goal is if the principle and effectiveness are lacking?

 

[tibor75]

Hate crimes do cause more angst to minority groups as whole.
For example, an Indian doctorb from Sharon, PA was murdered last year on the Ohio Turnpike. At first, Indians were likely worried if this was a hate crime. Then, details emerged that his wife and him were having problems and her new boyfriend was some guy w/ a violent criminal record. To be honest, I'm not sure if they had enough evidence to arrest him (I lost track of the case and I'm not sure how it ended up), but clearly the police did not feel this was a hate crime and I'm sure many Indians and Asians were relived.

But, should the person who killed him get a less severe sentence than if he killed him because he was a minority? Of course not.
Obviously hate crime legislation exists purely for political purposes and should really have nothing to do with law.

It's the same reason I hate the fact that victims of a crime (or family members) get to testify in the sentencing phase of a trial. So, if you killed a homeless man, that's one thing - oh, but you killed the father of a family with 3 small children, so now you get a worse penalty? Makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Deety]

Hate crimes do cause more angst to minority groups as whole.
For example, an Indian doctorb from Sharon, PA was murdered last year on the Ohio Turnpike. At first, Indians were likely worried if this was a hate crime. Then, details emerged that his wife and him were having problems and her new boyfriend was some guy w/ a violent criminal record. To be honest, I'm not sure if they had enough evidence to arrest him (I lost track of the case and I'm not sure how it ended up), but clearly the police did not feel this was a hate crime and I'm sure many Indians and Asians were relived.

But, should the person who killed him get a less severe sentence than if he killed him because he was a minority? Of course not.
Obviously hate crime legislation exists purely for political purposes and should really have nothing to do with law.

It's the same reason I hate the fact that victims of a crime (or family members) get to testify in the sentencing phase of a trial. So, if you killed a homeless man, that's one thing - oh, but you killed the father of a family with 3 small children, so now you get a worse penalty? Makes no sense whatsoever.

Agree with most of this... the last point is thought-provoking. It should be considered just as evil to kill one person as another, and making the punishment dependent on the victim's family connections suggests otherwise. On the other hand, those children would have been deprived of a father, which makes them injured parties in the crime.

 

[zincfinger]

On the other hand, those children would have been deprived of a father, which makes them injured parties in the crime.

This is true, but I would argue that it is not the job of the justice system to make that sort of subjective evalution. To attempt to do so would lead to all sorts of ugly determinations of how much a crime victim's life is worth. Having no children should not make a person legally more murderable. Neither should having the same skin color as one's murderer.

 

[Bucklion]

Hate crimes do cause more angst to minority groups as whole.
For example, an Indian doctorb from Sharon, PA was murdered last year on the Ohio Turnpike. At first, Indians were likely worried if this was a hate crime. Then, details emerged that his wife and him were having problems and her new boyfriend was some guy w/ a violent criminal record. To be honest, I'm not sure if they had enough evidence to arrest him (I lost track of the case and I'm not sure how it ended up), but clearly the police did not feel this was a hate crime and I'm sure many Indians and Asians were relived.

But, should the person who killed him get a less severe sentence than if he killed him because he was a minority? Of course not.
Obviously hate crime legislation exists purely for political purposes and should really have nothing to do with law.

It's the same reason I hate the fact that victims of a crime (or family members) get to testify in the sentencing phase of a trial. So, if you killed a homeless man, that's one thing - oh, but you killed the father of a family with 3 small children, so now you get a worse penalty? Makes no sense whatsoever.

I agree with this tibs, with the giant caveat that the perpetrator and his family shouldn't be allowed to testify then either, because you can also ask, in additon to your question:

"So the guy murders 3 people, but because he had a 'bad' childhood (whatever the hell that means), he deserves a lighter sentence?"

If the victim's family can't plead for a tougher sentence, then the perpetrator shouldn't be able to use outside factors to get a lighter sentence either.

 

[Deety]

This is true, but I would argue that it is not the job of the justice system to make that sort of subjective evalution. To attempt to do so would lead to all sorts of ugly determinations of how much a crime victim's life is worth. Having no children should not make a person legally more murderable. Neither should having the same skin color as one's murderer.

Thus my first point... what would make more sense would be for the family to have separate legal recourse, aside from the murder count.

 

[zincfinger]

what would make more sense would be for the family to have separate legal recourse, aside from the murder count.

But is this not essentially the same thing? My argument was that the criminal liability for murdering a father should not be greater than that for murdering a childless man (as one example). Your argument appears to be that it should be, just so long as the additional penalty is split into a separate proceeding.

 

[Deety]

But is this not essentially the same thing? My argument was that the criminal liability for murdering a father should not be greater than that for murdering a childless man (as one example). Your argument appears to be that it should be, just so long as the additional penalty is split into a separate proceeding.

I was thinking civil liability, not criminal.

 

[Steve19]

I'm in here very late, but I agree with the sentiment that Tibor expressed. A crime is a crime. Whether it is a hate crime goes to premeditation and in that respect, I must agree with the point that Mili first expressed in the sense that we don't really have any indication that this was a hate crime.

It would seem that given that it was night, the attacker had no idea who was in the car coming up behind him. Rather, he may as well have attacked anyone.

I agree with LoKy, he's probably gonna get what coming to him.

 

[zincfinger]

I'm in here very late, but I agree with the sentiment that Tibor expressed...It would seem that given that it was night, the attacker had no idea who was in the car coming up behind him.

It seems to me that the sentiment which you start out agreeing with, proposes that it is completely immaterial whether the attacker knew whom he was attacking.

 

[Bucklion]

It seems to me that the sentiment which you start out agreeing with, proposes that it is completely immaterial whether the attacker knew whom he was attacking.

Couldn't this go towards premeditiation in certain cases though? I imagine that if you get in a spontaneous bar fight, knock some dude down and he hits his head and dies, it's some type of manslaughter usually. However, if there is a black dude at a bar, and you stalk him and then go over and jump him and start knocking him around for no other reason than because he's black and he dies, couldn't you be charged with a premeditiated crime, whether you "meant" for him to die or not? It kind of goes towards intent if you go to a bar looking to beat up a black guy, doesn't it?