Talk:Hate crime/Archive 1

Incorrect Information
"The U.S. Congress defined in 1992 a hate crime as a crime in which "the defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals" (HR 4797)." -from hate crime wikipedia article

-But this is the text of HR 4797 from the Library of Congress online http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c103:1:./temp/~c103OAXo1R:: 103d CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 4797 To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for a hopper barge.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 19, 1994 Mr. LANCASTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for a hopper barge.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883) and section 12106 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel known as hopper barge E-15 (North Carolina State official number 264959).

= more errata for you

Second, it must be shown that the defendant was motivated, in whole or in part, by the victim’s minority status.

I don't see anything in the earlier text or letter of the law indicating that the victim must be a minority.

''As of October 2001, the federal hate crime law 18 USC 245 (b)(2), passed in 1969, protects religion, race and national origin, and applies only if the victim is engaged in one of six protected activities. ''

Hate crime laws were not passed in 1969. I think Title 18 USC 45 refers to civil rights legislation, not hate crime legislation. 03:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

where is the "against" argument?
I notice that there is no "against" argument for hate crimes under the ""arguments for and against hate crimes."

THis, to me, is just one more example of the left-wing bias here on Wikipedia. SO, for all the people here talking about how there's no bias in the hate crime argument, we need to look no further than this wikipedia entry to discover that nobody can even come up with an argument against it. And this does not mean there ISN'T one, there's always another point of view. I think people here simply don't want to give any credence to the other side of the argument.

I think hate crime legislation is deplorable. Regarding some of the comments here: I've never heard of minorities being accused of hate crimes against whites. Could the 9/11 event be considered a hate crime? Or the recent (04/06) attack on an NYU student by a gang of black youths who shouted "get the white guy!", chased him into the street where he was hit by a car, then stood around and laughed while he lay there dying?

How is it possible to criminalize a FEELING?

The whole hate crime movement is simply a farce staged by politicians courting a minority vote.

An assault is an assault. A robbery is a robbery. Let's not get too emotional or read into things too much. If you want to separate church and state (distinguishing between irrational and rational, scientific vs. superstition) then let's see things objectively, and not penalize a person for what's in their heads. Let's punish their actions, not their motivations.

If a minority group decides to boycott a certain business becuase they hate the race of the owner, and the business fails as a result, is that considered a hate crime? If a black man is caught robbing a bank, and later admits that he hates white people, should we add the hate crime charge? Was his crime predicated on his contempt for a "white" bank's riches?

Could we conclude that the omission of any argument AGAINST hate crime on Wikipedia constitutes a hate crime in itself? I think there is no "against" entry because of people's racist and contemptuous attitudes toward the majority. Therefore, are their feelings of hate a CRIME???

''I agree with this. In my opinion, this article deserves the NPOV tag. I'm going to add it to this article, and recommend it stay there until this article is cleaned up or someone can present a better argument. I'm only seeing 1 side presented in this article.'' --JOK3R 18:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like it, then fix it. There are 'against' arguments at one of the links on this page. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat5.htm Stop whining about it and edit the article. 03 May 2006

'''-- These generalised attacks on the 'left' are spurious and unhelpful, as are comparisons between a lack of a piece of writing and bigotted attacks on people. Obviously hate crimes against white people are still hate crimes, and considered as such in law, so it would be sensible to check facts before making such blatently biased comments.'''

I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong! Read the article! I quote: "Thus, commission of a hate crime requires that two elements be proven. First, it must be shown that the defendant committed an enumerated predicate offense, such as assault, robbery, manslaughter, or kidnapping. Second, it must be shown that the defendant was motivated, in whole or in part, by the victim’s minority status." (my emphasis). White people are in the majority in America. Therefore, following the text of this article, crimes commited against whites by non-whites would not be considered hate crimes! Is there a reason no against has been added yet? If I find time tonight I will add it myself, however I would appreciate others inputs on this matter. Help plz 21:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because the legal defenition of something is A, does not meant that the thing is A. There is probably (although I haven't researched it and it is purely speculation) a group, or groups, that feel that all hate-motivated crimes should me classified as hate crimes.  If such a group exists, it should be mentioned.Emmett5 03:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

'''I would like to make it known that laws are vague and flawed which is the reason they are constantly being changed and amended. Hate crimes are not defined by minority status they are defined by an act of violence toward a group of people: race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic extraction etc. As for there being no argument against, instead of crying about it and blaming it on left-wing bias (which is ridiculous considering anyone can edit this site) how about doing a little research and finding the argument. I'll start off with the legislation is not needed. All crimes covered by the hate crime legislation are already illegal under existing federal and state laws. Also one of the major arguments pertaining to hate crimes is homosexuality being protected in the definition. Some say it should only protect characteristics that can not be changed such as gender, race and so forth because "homosexuality is a chosen act." Obviously there are rebuttals to these statements because there are multiple studies with evidence showing that sexual orientation is not chosen. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm''
 * I'm glad that someone finally stated that hate crimes are crimes motivated by hatred toward an individual because of his or her actual or perceived membership in one of a number of groups (race, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender). I don't know if jok3r is aware that intent is a significant part of a crime: when an individual commits a crime motivated by hatred, he/she is not only committing the primary criminal act, but is also intentionally issuing an assault towards all members of a group. He/she is establishing a contingency that IF one is a member of this group, THEN people like me will cause them physical harm. He/she is intending to commit assault: it's not just an unfortunate side effect of a hate crime. It's essentially the purpose of a hate crime. How do you attach a legal sanction to such a huge and detrimental statement? Hate crimes are not the same as non-hate motivated crimes- they are far more severe, and have many more victims. For this reason alone, it is sensible enough to institute enhanced penalties. Would I be going out in left field to ask unqualified partisan hacks to leave it to actual criminologists and other scholars to resolve this dispute? Asarkees 13:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "criminologists and other scholars" have any more right to the interpretation and enactment of our laws than the common citizen. This is a society of equals, not one of subjects and elites. But basically, on the hate crimes issue, I think we have to explore the true motive of such legislation and recognize that such laws are political in nature and have no place in our society.

First Amendment = free speech = free thought = (including) the right to have and to express unpopular ideas and opinions

Hate crime (thought crime) legislation infringes upon this right. Hate crimes = "thought" crimes.

For example:

If Person A assaults Person B, and the typical sentence is 10 years, we should not tack on additional 5 years because Person A is a racist. Not unless we're willing to legislate thought.

We do not need "thought" crime legislation. If you look at any of the recent major incidents of alleged hate crime activity (the poor guy dragged behind a truck in Texas, or the homosexual beaten to death in Wyoming), the communities involved came down very hard on the perpetrators without the need to uphold hate crime statutes. In each case, I believe the perpetrators got a mix of life sentences or death penalties.

Bottom line: our system works without injecting politics into our penal code.

Remember, Hate Crimes = Thought Crimes

Bold textI have to agree with whoever started this blog right here... I have always felt that the wikipedia is riddled with liberal clout. Hate crimes are a savage hypocrisy! A vast majority of hate crime convictions go to white males. This is because racsism is tolerated by non-caucasion races in the main stream public. So I agree with you on this matter but I'll tell you, you are wasting your time. Leftist won't listen to reason, they don't seek to eliminate the double standard, just replace it with one of thier own.


 * Asarkees, I think you are mistaking intent for motive.
 * Intent:
 * "Did you mean to drive your car off the road?"
 * "Yes, I did."
 * Motive:
 * "Why did you drive your car off the road?"
 * "Because the passenger was attacking me, and I thought I could stop him by hitting a tree."
 * Intent is a legitimate factor to consider in determining the crime of which a person may be guilty (murder or manslaughter?), but motive is an entirely different issue. --AndrewSaint 22:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

51 states?
From the article: "Seven states have no hate crime laws, twenty states have hate crime laws that do not protect sexual orientation, and twenty-four states have hate crime laws that do include sexual orientation."

This adds up to 51, but the US only has 50 states!!!


 * We have other stuff, like the district of columbia, guam, puerto rico, etc... Sam [Spade] 13:49, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, so DC must be the 51st.


 * Yeah, probably. Anytime they list 51, DC is the 51'st. They want to be a state too, but whatever. Sam [Spade] 13:00, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually DC is not the "51st state" there is a wiki article about how part of southern Oregon and part of Northern California planned to create a state called "Jefferson". But typically when you hear that its because someone screwed up and referred to DC as a state when in fact it is a federal territory. Alkivar 01:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POV and Un-PC

 * "Another argument sometimes advanced by supporters of hate-crime laws is that violent acts motivated by political or similar reasons are characteristic of less-civilized, Third World countries, and must not be tolerated in a developed country, lest the developed country sink to their level."

This to me sounds extremely un-PC, and sounds highly unlikely, moreover making supporters of hate-crime legislation supporters petty and racist. Chewyman 12:05, 11 Nov 2004 (NZT)

Sollog accuses Wikipedia of hate crimes
Shall we write in a section called "alleged hate crimes", "The seer Sollog or his fans accuse the website Wikipedia of hate crimes because of its inclusion of critical information in an article about him, which Sollog fans consider slanderous. "? Andries 23:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Non-notable. I tried adding detail about Sollog's interaction with us (and in particular with Jimbo) to Sollog's own article, and it was removed.  Pakaran (ark a pan) 03:01, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moving on -- POLL
Question: In 50 words, more or less, what do you object to, in the article in its present protected state?

Answers:
 * It's protected, I think protected articles are contrary to wikipedian principles. Pedant 21:13, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

It was protected against an anon IP who's been causing trouble on a number of articles for weeks using different IP address and user accounts. I've unlocked it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:40, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin  Show us exactly where that trouble is. That's a highly subjective decision that you made. Protected articles are contrary to wikipedian principles. 69.221.62.82 18:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * So is edit warring and POV editing, which is what protection helps diffuse. Jayjg (talk) 28 June 2005 16:11 (UTC)

-- "hate crimes" are bogus crimes from a criminal law perspective. E.g. in the case of vandalism hate crime, the crime is damage and the "hate" is the motivation of the crimes which is considered when the crime is prosecuted. "hate crime" is no criminal law term and "hate" is not the crime. You could argue that "hate" is an emotion and you are free to hate what you want. However, you are not permitted to commit a crime which is a different issue. In the case of swastika symbols on a grave you assume that "hate" is the motivating reason. It could well be some sort of disgusting humour or a troll phenonemon, that people want to provoke and they take what provokes. Provocation can also be art, not "hate crime". So it is complicated. "Hate crime" is based on assumptions about the personal motivation.
 * "Hate crimes are crimes that are motivated by feelings of hostility against any identifiable group of people within a society, such as violent crime, hate speech or vandalism."

Black on white rape - hate crime?
If you look at rape statistics it's pretty obvious that black men enjoy violating white women. I've always thought this should be considered a hate crime.

--Legislation that failed in Congress in 1999 tried to make rape, in general, a hate crime. Perhaps you should worry more about that.

--I believe it was Benjamin Disraeli who said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". Black men are not more likely to rape a white woman, they are only more likely to arrested and convicted. I'm afraid your argument is bunk.

--I believe it was me who said you're full of it, and can't even begin to prove your (implied) assertion. Of course black men are more likely to be arrested and convicted of rape than white men, but that doesn't support your (implied) assertion, that somehow there's a disparity between actual rapes and arrests and convictions for rape vis-a-vis race of suspect.

Check the victim surveys; blacks actually get away with rape more than whites.

--80-90% of rapes against women are committed by someone of the same racial background as the victim. (US Dept. of Justice 1994) This does not include Native American women, who are assaulted by caucasian males 78% of the time (Wikipedia, 2006).

We can banter back and forth with useless statistics some more if you'd like. Or you can tell me I'm "full of it" again, whatever that is supposed to mean. If you want to make a bigoted comment like that, at least be prepared to back it up.


 * You seem rather confused. Just because black men may possibily be more likely to rape white women then black women doesn't imply any sort of bias. Given that white women are the majority, it is what we would expect if the perps ignore race. If most black rapes are of black women, there is clearly some sort of bias...


 * In practice, it's a very complicated issue. A number of rapists appear to prefer richer women and white are on average richer then blacks. Also, even if blacks to specifically choose white women because of their race, this doesn't necessary imply it's a hate crime. They may do so because they feel white women are easier targets or because they otherwise prefer white women as targets. Unless their reasons are because of some degree of hatred towards whites or white women, their crimed cannot be considered hate crimes by definition. E.g. if they choose white women because they believe white women are bitches who deserve to be punished then it'll probably be considered a hate crime. If they choose white women because black women are bitches who are no fun this can hardly be considered a hate crime even if their actions and beliefs are disgusting. Of course, rapes that are hate crimes do occur and are prosecuted Nil Einne 19:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

-Yeah, this whole argument seems sort of uncomfortably bigoted. Also, a "black on white" rape could be a hate crime, given that the offender's motivation to rape the victim was that she was a caucasion, and was chosen due to the offender's evident and provable hatred towards caucasians. But that doesn't happen a lot. A simple mismatch of race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity or disability does not a hate crime make. Asarkees 14:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think the hate crime would really be black on white or white on black I think it would be more male on female. Rape is a very degrading assult that not only may physically damage a woman but psychologically as well. Men use fear and force to demean and degrade a woman they victimize. Also, no matter what the statistics say about whether it is blacks who rape whites more or vice-versa you must remember that a hate crime is motivate by hate for someone because of their race, ethnicity etc. Rape is usually motivated by mental instability, not so much to show hate for the person they are victimizing.

Intent vs. motive
In English law, the state of a person's mind has always been important in determining the fact or seriousness of a crime. The legal concept of mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") is required for most felony convictions.

If a murder is plotted with malice aforethought, this is classified as first-degree murder; if a murder is committed in the heat of a moment, this is classified as second-degree murder. Likewise, if the act resulting in death was recklessness or negligence, negligent homicide or manslaughter should be the finding. Similarly with illegal drugs, drug possession causes one level of crime; drug possession with intent to sell is more serious.

Hate crime legislation extends this principle. In addition to judging intent, motive is also considered. This extension is not limited to hate crime law; recent anti-terrorism legislation in many countries also considers motive.


 * I find this section a bit out of place and POV (altho persuasive). I personally support judgement of crime based on Intent and motive, but oppose "hate crime" laws. The reason why is that that as an attractive married male of North Euro ancestry, crimes against ME couldn't be punished in such a way. But if I got into a fight with a black guy, or a turkish guy or whatever, regardless of the reason why, and won, it might be called a hate crime. There shouldn't be another racist penalty for being a white male, and yet another legal advantage for "minorities" (who in reality are the majority worldwide). Sam Spade 22:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Sam Spade, if a crime was committed against you because of the perp's hatred or bias against your gender or ancestry, you would be protected by most hate crime laws. Hate crime laws are not penalties for being white and male, unless you mean to say that the default state of a white male is to commit crimes against an individual or group due to hatred of or bias against their gender/sexual orientation/etc. Which I sincerely doubt. lazy unregistered user, 19:08 Central time, 1 February 2006


 * I think Sam Spade's problem is he or she's getting confused. Predominantly hate crimes are committed by the majority against some minority. Therefore there is the incorrect assumption that hate crimes are only commited against minority. Hate crimes are NOT all crimes against minorities NOR only crimes agaist minories as some people seem to assume. Majorities can have hate crimes committed against them and these have been prosecuted. Hate crimes against heterosexuals (i.e. because they're heterosexuals) are very rare. Hate crimes against the majority race (generally whites in the US) are probably somewhat more common and a number of these have been successfully prosecuted.


 * BTW, Sam Spade, homosexuals are not the majority world wide. There are also a far greater number of North Europeans worldwide then there are Turks. You seem to have the problem of lumping minorities into one group. In practice, minorities aren't all the same. For example, Korean and Japanese are Chinese are all East-Asian minorities but their cultures are quite different and they don't always get along.


 * Finally I want to add that even if nowadays hate crimes (and I mean real hate crimes not crimes which people say are hate crimes simply because they're commited by a person of a different race or sex or sexual orientation) are far more likely to be successfuly prosecuted if they're commited by majorities then if they're commited by minories this doesn't necessarily imply a fault in the laws themselves. It seem far more likely to be a fault in the implementation. Note there is strong evidence that ordinary crimes are far more likely to be successfuly prosecuted if they're commited by poor people then by rich people. At best, you can perhaps try to argue that hate crime law prosecutions are always going be biased in favour of minorities but this seems a bit dubious to me.


 * Nil Einne 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you've moved it to Talk: It seems informative, NPOV, and accurate regarding the application of hate crime laws. Jayjg (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think its pretty obvious why I moved it to the talk page. Informative and accurate, maybe. But NPOV it is not. Sam Spade 10:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Two points (and I understand this is a long abandoned debate): 1. I think that there is an important diffrence here between the concept of mens rea and hate crimes. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that the use of mens rea in a murder case determines the extent to which a person is guilty, and thus the actual level of the crime they are charged with. Hate crimes are seperate from the actual act, making the actual state of mind as a motive illegal. Can people honestly tell me there is nothing disconcerting about that? 2. If whtie men are protected, then how is hate crime legislation not just an attempt to lengthen sentences in general? If every conceivable group is covered against every other group, if you want to, you can find "hate" motivation in a lot of places that would be surprising.

It may help to look at the case of Vincent Chin (http://www.asian-nation.org/racism.shtml), who in 1982 was beaten to death simply because he was asian. He was thought to be Japanese, he was not. His assailants were automakers, or something in that line of work, and were in danger of losing their jobs due to a recession. The two men who killed Chin blamed him and Japanese automakers for the recession and beat Chin with a baseball bat. They referred to him as a "Jap". Are you willing to say that these two men would have beaten Chin regardless of his perceived race? I think that racial hatred/intolerance was the motivation for the murder. Chin was just a scapegoat for these men.

WorldNetDaily Article
I deleted the WorldNetDaily article because it's a biased conservative website that claims that most reported hate-crime victims are white - and the FBI's own information shows that anti-black hate crimes are over three times as likely as anti-white crimes. They might be getting that information by throwing in anti-Jewish or anti-gay hate crime victims, but if they are, it's misleading. They state that most hate crimes are racially motivated and whites are the primary victims- draw your on conclusions about what they're implying.

You can see those FBI statistics here: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/hctable1.htm


 * I would request that you re-insert the link to the article. You may not like what they write, but the No-Bias policy does NOT apply to external links. You are obviously biased against conservatives - great, I have no problems with that. But you won't be allowed to censor external links just because you don't like them.


 * I removed it because it was misleading. End of story. Liberal articles that are misleading should also be deleted from Wikipedia whenever they're found.


 * Additionally, it is absolutely pointless to request us to make up our own opinions - you took that possibility away by removing said link. Why should we trust you more than WorldNetDaily, whatever that is? --TheOtherStephan 14:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I meant make up your own conclusions (here in the talk page) as to why WorldNet put it up there and why it is inappropriate to include it in an encyclopedia. Blog it if you want. The article had to much spin to be included.
 * It would have taken yout wo seconds to find the article if you tried: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48898 --says white's more likely to be vicitms based on FBI stats, but the FBI says according to the FBI link above:

Anti white crimes: 829 Anti black crimes: 2,731 the only way they can say that white's are more likely to be victims of hate crimes is if they show that hate crimes motivmated by reasons other than race are the factor that caused the crime. The article makes no mention of that. It is either too biased or not written well enough to be included.

Why was "Distinguishing Features of Hate Crimes" Removed?
This section was removed, and I think it should be reinstated. Opinions? Edits?
 * Moroveus 19:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Moroveus

The Model Penal Code does not yet include a standardized statutory text for hate crime legislation. Despite the lack of any such standard, hate crime laws do not vary significantly between different jurisdictions. Most states have approached hate crime legislation by creating penalty enhancements for pre-existing crimes when those crimes are committed because of the victim’s protected minority status. Thus, commission of a hate crime requires that two elements be proven. First, it must be shown that the defendant committed an enumerated predicate offense, such as assault, robbery, manslaughter, or kidnapping. Second, it must be shown that the defendant was motivated, in whole or in part, by the victim’s minority status. While the hate crime definition used by the FBI for purposes of crime statistics includes sexual orientation, disability, and gender as protected categories, this is not the case for all hate crime laws. Most jurisdictions include race, religion, ethnicity, and gender as protected classes for purpose of hate crime statutes, while some states also include disability and sexual orientation. As of October 2001, the federal hate crime law 18 USC 245 (b)(2), passed in 1969, protects religion, race and national origin, and applies only if the victim is engaged in one of six protected activities. Seven states have no hate crime laws, 20 states have hate crime laws that do not protect sexual orientation, and 24 states have hate crime laws that include sexual orientation. There have been two attempts in 2001 and in 2004 to amend the current federal hate crime law to include homosexuals. Currently, these attempts have been unsuccessful. ________________________________________________________________________________________________

"The Model Penal Code does not yet include a standardized statutory text for hate crime legislation. Despite the lack of any such standard, "

I have removed the first sentence of section. The Model Penal Code has not been updated since 1981, and is an abhorant source to cite for some areas of the law (for example, under the MPC's "recommendation" for rape law, any man and woman living together as husband and wife, regardless of legal status, and regardless of violence involved in the offense, cannot constitute a rape offense). Furthermore, the Model Penal Code is NOT a "standard." It is merely a suggested text published by the American Law Institute - and in this case, which has not been republished since 1981. (Anonymous, Philadelphia, PA)


 * Shouldn't this be considered "History of Hate Crimes," and distinguishing characteristics be things more along the lines of "a weapon is more likely to be used," "more likely to be perpetrated by a group of offenders" and "more likely to result in grievous bodily harm?" All of which are true, by the way. Link. Asarkees 14:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Aren't We Supposed to be Debating About the Article, Not Debating About the Issue?
You are entitled to your opinion, but you aren't supposed to argue it on the Editing Page. If you want to add the against section, go ahead, instead of coming to the Editing Page, where you are supposed to be figuring out what to put in the article, not declaring to the world your opinion

Adding a See Also section
At the moment there isn't a "See Also" section, I am adding one now (I am still working on my disadvantages section (trying to avoid directly copying my source is difficult)). I will be starting it off with Cartmans Silly Hate Crime 2000. Your thoughts? Help plz 21:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. This is Wikipedia, not Southparkepdia. We don't need to include a reference to South Park in every article which is about a subject mentioned in South Park. Or The Simpsons. Or Spongebob. Or whatever. The fact that South Park based an episode on hate crimes is totally unimportant to the subject of hate crimes. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see your point, but the episode in question does clearly outline some of the arguments against hate crimes, and some opinions based around it. Until this article is made balanced I think it should stay. Also, I know the wiki-page itself doesn't have much on this, the episode in question does, as such I felt a link was adequete. I mean whats the difference between a TV Show and a website illustrating the point with a form of fable? People just don't take TV seriously! Help plz 10:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Balanced"? If you think the article needs some "balancing" do it with fact, not parody. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical Situation
Say you found some incoming emails on your girlfriends e-mail acount from a guy that you know who looks hispanic. Is it a hate crime if you send an e-mail back with racial comments but are motivated by him hitting on your girl quite heavily. Replys or edits please. But, if it were, yes. Hate Crime refers primarily to motive. Kashami 06:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A crime must be committed for it to be considered a hate crime. Sending an e-mail with ethnic slurs in it is not a crime. Asarkees 14:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV the "Against" section
The "Against" section is non-NPOV (it doesn't actually mention the serious, contemporary criticism of hate crime legislation). Parts of it are near-nonsensical: "There are some scholarly arguments that provide reason for opposing "hate crimes" as currently imposed in some legislative forms in the United States. However, these arguments are largely theoretical and are not necessarily reflective of the respective philosophies cited for support." What on earth does that second sentence *mean*? jdb &#x274b; (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then, for god's sake, change it. This is Wikipedia. You can. Asarkees 14:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the author is referring to Kant and Bentham. Its been a while since I studied criminal law (public contracts practice now).

James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter, Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics (Oxford University Press, 1998) should probably be mentioned here as a scholarly critique.--Dashpsh45 14:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

THE "AGAINST" ARGUMENT: CONFLICTS WITH FIRST AMENDMENT
Besides the fact that hate crimes are mostly prosecuted against whites, while "black on white" crime is 96% of the cross-race crime in the U.S. (according to the FBI), the most obvious argument against hate crimes legislation is for preservation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Basically, "freedom of speech" is inclusive of "freedom of thought", and any hate crime legislation is an infringement upon both. Hate crimes legislation is "thought crimes" legislation, and an attempt at telling individuals what they can or cannot think; a legislation of societal behavior just outside the bounds of criminal activity.

Here's the basic scenario:

Person A commits a violent hateful crime. Person B commits a similar violent hateful crime, but is a known racist and perhaps shouted a few racist epithets during the commission of the crime. Assume both crimes show equivalent levels of malice and damage to innocent parties.

Person A gets sentenced to 10 years in prison. Person B gets sentenced to 15 years in prison, basically 10 years for the crime plus 5 years for being a racist. That extra 5 years is punishment for Person B's unpopular beliefs (i.e., "thought crimes").

Hate crimes (thought crimes) legislation is politically motivated and is an attempt to label people with opposing views and to use legislation to limit their views. This is not unlike the recent scenario of a British writer who landed 3 years in an Austrian prison for writing a controversial book on the Holocaust. He didn't support the popular view of what happened, so they tried and sentenced him to prison FOR WRITING A BOOK! Basically, the tenet behind "hate crimes" legislation is "think like we do or go to jail."

Perhaps just as the Left has attacked 2nd Amendment freedoms (with some progress), they have now turned their attention to limiting 1st Amendment freedoms.

---End unsigned user comment---


 * Agreed. If you remove the variables of intent, malice and damage as noted above then nothing remains of 'hate crimes' except 'thought crimes'. There has yet to be a solid counter-argument that 'hate crimes' (removed from the context of the physical act itself) are any more a crime than offensive speech is. Tolerance is a good thing, but you can't have tolerance without understanding. You can't have understanding without debate. How can you have debate with restrictions of free speech? The 1st Amendment does NOT outlaw speech based purely on offensiveness. I hope that most of the people in this discussion are aware of the 'proper time, place and circumstance' considerations. Be that as it may, 'hate crimes' and other such feel good laws are having a crushing effect on free speech. There are many countries in the Western world that will get you thrown in jail for debating Holocaust authenticity/statistics, questioning the morality/sustainability/whatever of homosexuality and so on. Why not debate these concepts in the marketplace of ideas instead of saying "we can't talk about that". Hate crime laws, while placed on the books with good intentions are landing people in jail for simply 'thinking' thoughts contrary to popular trends.

[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/06/28/cstillwell.DTL SF Gate article on hate crimes, free speech and other 1st Amend. issues]

Free speech is intended to protect the controversial and even outrageous word; and not just comforting platitudes too mundane to need protection. - General Colin Powell (I don't endorse or condemn Powell, but this is an excellent point he makes.)--Saintlink 13:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This Christian blogger's comments are worth mentioning. Jesus Loves You (But We Hate You)


 * ''"I’m very disturbed by the effort to paint this legislation as a 'thought control' bill. The 'thought control' meme has been picked up by various conservative organizations (see, e.g., Concerned Women for America’s webpage on the issue). I think this is extremely misleading. It is not at all unusual or for the law to impose different penalties depending on a person’s state of mind. In fact, state of mind is an element of many crimes. Murder, for example, as every first-year law student learns, traditionally is defined as 'the intentional killing a human being with malice aforethought.' 'Intent' and 'malice aforethought' are states of mind. This doesn’t make the prohibition of murder some kind of black helicopter 'thought control' law.


 * "I could give hundreds of other examples in which state of mind is relevant either to the elements of a crime or civil claim or to the penalty or damages to be imposed. Indeed, it’s fair to say that both the criminal and civil law routinely address a party’s mental state. To suggest that hate crimes legislation is unique in this regard is false." Vordabois 08:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

-

For instance this scenario is untrue:
>>>>>Once more you are debating hate crimes, not the content of the article of hate crimes. Most people on here are not actually debating what is a hate crime versus what is not; they are instead debating what they 'think' is a hate crime in their mind, then creating scenarios that are untrue based on hate crime definitions.

For instance this scenario is untrue:

Person A commits a violent hateful crime. Person B commits a similar violent hateful crime, but is a known racist and perhaps shouted a few racist epithets during the commission of the crime. Assume both crimes show equivalent levels of malice and damage to innocent parties.

Person A gets sentenced to 10 years in prison. Person B gets sentenced to 15 years in prison, basically 10 years for the crime plus 5 years for being a racist. That extra 5 years is punishment for Person B's unpopular beliefs (i.e., "thought crimes").

It should read more like this example:
Person A commits a violent hateful crime against a man who happens to be gay. Person B commits a similar violent crime, specifically against the man because he is gay. Assume both crimes show equivalent levels of malice and damage to innocent parties.

Person A gets sentenced to 10 years in prison. Person B gets sentenced to 15 years in prison, because the crime was against both the individual and a 'societal' group.

Specifically relating to a current situation: Say a US-born radical fundamental Muslim American decides he is angry against the United States, and then he takes out his rage by attacking a person on their way to church, specifically because they were, or he believed them to be, a Christian. Regardless of the charges for the crime, he would additionally be charged for a hate crime. This situation specifically where a Christian is not a minority, and the attack was against a group though perpetrated on an individual.

--141.154.80.243 06:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)--141.154.80.243 06:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Super creepy follow-up to my previous post. This news story hit the Reuters wire today that illustrates my example.

SEATTLE (Reuters) - Police stepped up security at Seattle synagogues and mosques on Saturday, a day after a Muslim man who said he was angry at Israel shot dead one woman and wounded five others at a Jewish center.

Naveed Afzal Haq, 31, burst into the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle on Friday afternoon. He surrendered without a struggle and police arrested him on charges of murder and five counts of attempted murder with bail set at $50 million.

Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske said authorities are treating the shooting as a hate crime based on conversations with police during the rampage.

"He said that he wanted the United States to leave Iraq, that his people (Muslims) were being mistreated and that the United States was arming Israel," said Kerlikowske, who thinks Haq acted alone and is not part of any terrorist groups.

"He pointedly blamed the Jewish people for all these problems."

Police officers circled Seattle's Seward Park area, the city's traditional Jewish neighborhood and home to three major synagogues. Uniformed guards stood outside Bikur Cholim-Machzikay Hadath and Sephardic Bikur Holim synagogues.

"There is high security," said Robin Boehler, chairwoman of the Jewish Federation. "This is the thing we dread the most happening." She added three of the victims were not Jewish.

>>>Person A gets sentenced to 10 years in prison. Person B gets sentenced to 15 years in prison, because the crime was against both the individual and a 'societal' group.

A crime is always punished because of the damage it does to society - you just can't have people walking around beating and killing someone because they don't like him. Since all social groups are a part of society hate crimes are like punishing the person twice - once for the damage done to society, and once for the damage done to the part of society he did not like.85.130.30.213 07:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Information in this article
"Hate Speech" is not a crime in the United States of America. It is constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. This portion of the article should be changed.


 * Certain kinds of hate speech are deedmed illegal in certain parts of the US...


 * '''California, USA laws may declare hate speech is protected in public, but allows easy prosecution for alleged hate crimes, in verbal form as well in physical form. California law claims hate speech at the workplace does not constitute as "protected speech" and employers have the right to terminate or discharge those who committed hate speech on workplace grounds.;;;


 * ...And outside of the US, hate speech is illegal in a great many forms in a large number of countries. The opening sentence gives a number of types of hate crime, and hate speech can indeed be a hate crime. Crimsone 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. There isn't a single place in the United States in which "hate speech" is illegal. And any attempts to create such laws have been soundly beaten down by the first court that they confronted. The California law that you meant regards a civil matter, not a crriminal matter. And while I do understand that this article refers to world-wide laws, I feel that it is important to point out that "hate speech" is only a hate crime in some of them. - Lewis Ranja

White Power is Redundant > Refer to Racisim Link
User:Ya_ya_ya_ya_ya_ya has reverted back to added in White Power to the see other links. Racism already addresses White Power, Black Power, Asian Power and so on. I don't see the point of dumping in all of the other "power" movements into this Hate Crime page, so leaving in just the White Power one is either slanted or incomplete. At the risk of starting an edit war I wish to state my intention of removing the White Power and any other "Power" movements from the See Other section. It is already amply covered under racism and is repetitive.--Saintlink 10:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Crap
As an Italian, I think this "hate crime" garbage is racism. What about if some black panther members decide to go out at night and murder a white lady? Is that just murder? Seems like hate to me. If we want to become a unified nation, first we must throw one sided racism like this in the garbage! Anyone ever think that a white guy or whoever is "white" in your false categorization in the US can be a murderer that happened to murder blacks? Everyone is so quick to point to race as the factor, but when it's the other way around, you can be called a racist for voicing that perhaps black panther members murdered this white lady because of her race. This is why I think it's unfair to Americans as a whole, trash it. "Latinos" aren't even a race, the US and their political correctionism is very laughable, LOL! First you consider south Americans a race when they are nothing but south Americans with some euro blood, then you call them "latino" to bluntly insult my ancestor Romans? Very nice. Crud3w4re 08:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello. What suggestions do you have to improve the article? (Wikipedia article talk pages are not general discussion forums; they are reserved for discussing the article, not the subject of the article.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ohhh I was going to say that there should be a "Critic" section that some believe this to be racism. Crud3w4re 19:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you'll need to find a verifiable reliable source making such an assertion; the section entitled "Arguments against hate crimes legislation" should be the correct place to record it, once you've found it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out this source Here. Crud3w4re 03:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And what aspect of that is a reliable source? -jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Hate crimes (also known as bias crimes)"

Hate Crime? Hm. From my knowledge, "hate crime" refers to a crime against someone you hate, so how can it only be against certain people? I agree that it should be noted that popular opinion deems "hate crimes" only refer to people having their free speech supressed, to so-called "minorities", also should be noted that this term is only in use in the US. Crud3w4re 19:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there supposed to be an answer to my question regarding reliable sources, or just more personal opinion? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What a lousy article. How about saying what a hate crime is instead of filling the article with legalism? Gordon, don't belittle Crud's points. That is a fine source, better than the zero you have. So-called mainstream media won't criticize hate crime legalisms because they dont want to be boycotted. Who would be dumb enough to criticize laws outlawing "hate"? No one likes hate.