From: mes@scutum.ece.cmu.edu ()
Subject: Hate-Crimes Law (was Re: "Gay-Bashing")
Organization: Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:24:48 GMT

In article <BxyCuE.AB@nic.umass.edu> 
	quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi) writes:
>In article <Bxv7wx.Dx5@acsu.buffalo.edu> 
>	pfohl@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Anne Pfohl) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov12.193724.22309@tc.cornell.edu>,
>>	shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes...
>
>>..and since, in fact, CO #2 *does* legalize discrimination, how 
>>would one go about prosecuting an incident of gay bashing in 
>>Colorado now?  Would it have to be tried as assault, with no 
>>reference to it being a hate crime, or motivated by hatred of 
>>gays?
>>
>>If that's the case, gay bashing wouldn't exist in Colorado, 
>>because the crimes could not be identified as such in order to be 
>>prosecuted.
>
>There seems to be a tricky issue here, which I would like to bring up.
>It's a different thread, I know, but it's also a different subject
>line:  
>	I really don't think there SHOULD be specific laws against
>"gay-bashing," nor any of the other "hate-crimes" type laws which are
>popping up relative to other categories victims (race, sex, religion,
>etc.).  To me, laws against "hate-crimes" only serve to try someone on
>The basis of their ideological beliefs, rather than on their criminal
>behavior.  This seems like a fundemental abridgement of rights to free
>expression of belief, or even to simply BELIEVE a belief.  As
>abhorrent as it is for someone to HATE someone on the basis of their
>sexuality, race, sex, or whatever -- I for one most certainly do not
>want THE STATE stepping in to regulate and illegalize such BELIEF.

I'm not a lawyer, (standard disclaimer,) but...

It is my understanding that the law *does* consider the the motivation
behind a criminal behavior, as opposed to just the actions itself.  A
good example would be a case where a person pointed a gun with no
firing pin at someone and pulled the trigger.  If the person believed
that the gun would fire, then they are guilty of attempted murder.
However, if they knew the gun would not fire, then (as I understand
it) they could probably only be charged with something like assault.
In both cases, the behavior and even the results (the gun doesn't
fire) is the same, but the intent of the person performing the action
is different, making it a different crime.

The rational behind hate-crimes law is that a person performing an
assault based on the race/sex/religion/etc of the victim is attempting
to harrass the community identified with the victim through fear, in
addition to the criminal act that was performed.  It is this
additional harassment of a target group that society (in this case,
the law) deems worthy of greater punishment than the isolated act of
physical abuse of one person.

One thing you said was that hate-crime laws attempt to "regulate and
illegalize" belief.  This is not true.  Hate-crime laws do *not*
outlaw belief.  People are allowed to express these beliefs in
appropriate, non-violent ways.  They do, however, indicate that
society disapproves harshly of people who choose to act violently
based on their beliefs. The most that can be said of the government in
these cases is that the government is "encouraging" belief in
tolerance.  It is hardly making other beliefs illegal.

>That is, if someone discriminates, and
>then it is shown that they ALSO had discriminatory intent, there is --
>and SHOULD BE -- no additional liability for damages (one is
>already responsible for lost wages, loss of property, etc, either
>way).  The analogy with "hate-crimes" I mean to be drawing is just
>that, where "hate-crime" laws exist, if one is found guilty of
>assault, then later shown to have a "hateful-intent" behind the
>assault, one IS LIABLE for additional criminal penalties! Talk about
>"double jepardy!"
>-- 

When refering to discrimination, if it can be show that discrimination
was performed with *intent*, then if I am not mistaken, the person
discriminated against will most likely be able to collect damages and
penalties over and above lost wages/property/etc.  Whereas if no
intent is shown, merely correcting the discrimination would suffice.
(I can't verify the legal presidents involved in discrimination
decisions.  This is my best guess as to ways that discrimination suits
are settled.)  So even in the case of discrimination, intent plays a
role in the possible penalty of the perpetrator.

And please don't use phrases like "double jeopardy" incorrectly.  That
only means you cannot be tried for the same crime twice.  I assume you
were just being cute, but it doesn't apply at all in this situation.

Newsgroups: soc.motss