The obvious reason they report it as a “hate” crime is to illustrate the level to which we (people) succumb in order to desecrate one another in the name of difference. Try as we might, race will always be some sort of factor in all that we do (or at least we’ll perceive it to be that way) and most of us just eat it up!

For example, in NY, for a person to be charged with 1st degree murder there have to be “special circumstances”; these include the murder of a police officer, judge, fireman or witness to a crime; multiple murders; and torture or especially heinous murders.

As far as the Shepard case goes, you are mistaken. Shepard’s sexual orientation was the key component of the defense’s argument that the killers were reacting to unwanted sexual advances. Not only did they know, they based their entire defense on that knowledge.

Gabe, I agree that the entire concept is “mushy” and while I support hate crime legislation in general, I agree that hate crime legislation, as currently written is in desperate need of clarification.

Click through to find out who did the rest….

Al, the motive is based on who the victim is, so they are not subjects that can be divorced from each other in this discussion. But the equality of hate crimes legislation you speak of is only such that it exists within the idea of a hate crime in the first place. But how is a hate “crime” different than a “regular” crime of the same type? On one side of time, someone is assaulted because of their race. And on the other, I am assaulted because someone hates me personally. How is the crime against me less of an assault than the one that occurred across town? If a man is a misogynist who beats his wife for burning his dinner, is that a hate crime?

This is far too mushy a concept to be a part of the law, which is already sorely in need of MORE precision, not less.

What I’m wondering about in these charts is the 6% of the right hand chart that is supposed to designate hate crimes by Latinos against Latinos. How are they coming up with that? What other criteria are coming into play, and doesn’t that throw the entire evaluation into a cocked hat?

Thus, the only result of hate crimes legislation is to create protected classes in violation of the equal protections clause of the Constitution.

I don’t see hate crime legislation as creating protected classes. When defined as a crime committed on the basis of a person’s race, color, religion, or nation origin it is pretty inclusive. It isn’t the victim that matters, but the motive.

When someone is murdered, the state takes on the role as the injured party and requires some measure of ‘payment’ in the form of prison time or death. Killing a cop constitutes two injuries against the state, requiring a punishment that can cover both – thus the enhancement.

In the case of hate crimes legislation, the government seems to have decided that it must take on some manner of extra injury for an exclusive list of subsegments of the population unrelated to itself and its function. There is no reason for it.

As it stands, crimes already come with a wide array of sentences. It is precisely for the existence of varied circumstances that they exist. Outside of specified hate crimes legislation, a judge and jury are fully capable of giving out harsher sentences to those who commit crimes out of anything from racial hatred to psychopathic antipathy for all of humanity.

Thus, the only result of hate crimes legislation is to create protected classes in violation of the equal protections clause of the Constitution.

The same justification can be applied to hate crime legislation. When a group or individual is victimized on the basis of race, creed, or sexual orientation the damage to society is greater.

Overreaching is certainly an issue and some white thug taking out some black thug should not be quantified as a hate crime solely on the basis of race. However, when one person or group targets another person or group, solely, on the basis of race, gender, or creed the consequences need to mirror the harm to society.

The Supreme Court was pretty clear on this back in 1993.

You have every right to hate anyone or anything in the world you like. And if you act on that hatred in a way that runs afoul of another’s rights, you are penalized for that action. Somehow “enhancing” the punishment or the designation of your law-breaking does not make your crime any more or less illegal. Now, motive CAN be used by the state to prove its case, but from whence comes the idea that hatred for someone of another race is somehow worse than the hatred someone had for their spouse?

Further, the choice of who and what is covered under “hate crimes” is made an issue simply by the existence of the legislation. Those people ON the list are suddenly “protected classes” of citizens. ALL classes should be protected equally under the law.

The case for a higher inherent penalty for cop-killers is purely related to the victim’s status as the people’s representative on the streets. Assaulting and/or killing a cop is a direct assault on the authority given him or her to act as our protectors. So there must be a penalty for taking a human life, AND for the insubordination against the authority of the people.

When it comes to thugs stealing wallets I certainly agree. However, when a crime is motivated solely by bias I believe that the “hate crime” designation is appropriate.

I have no doubt that this is applied with far too broad a brush, hence my use of the word “solely”, but as with any crime, motive is certainly a factor. This is why killing a police officer is a capital crime in many jurisdictions while killing your neighbor isn’t. Circumstances matter.

What’s more disturbing is this interaction, which is repeated in Philly, Baltimore, D.C., and Camden, from what I know, isn’t mentioned by those pushing this angle. The Black vs. Latino gang war is a story but not putting the full context on it is race baiting.

This has always been a “PC” type of “crime” with hysterical reactions whenever the % change is up, and serious doubt as to its validity whenever it goes down.

And BIGDODDY, the LAPD is much more professional than you give them credit for. They are just the big target for protests and lawsuits out here. Probably because they are #1 and an easy mark. Their measure of complaints vs citizen contacts is very impressive, compared to any PD in the country.

“By the way, can we get a pie chart breakdown of the ethnicities of your circle by any chance?? That’s probably way more illuminating than what you posted. I’m real curious to know how many Hispanics you know real well.”

That would have no bearing whatsoever on what she wrote. In fact, that’s called a logical fallacy. Specifically this would be a circumstantial ad hominem. La Shawn’s circle of friends is irrelevant to the issue at discussion or the points of the argument she is making.