That's a ridiculous assumption. When is the last time you saw a black guy in the news for perpetrating a hate crime? I personally have never seen it.

There was a "hate crime" that occurred in my hometown about 8 years ago. In a bar, a black guy grabbed the butt of a white guy's girlfriend. Three white guys then got in a fight with the black guy and his three friends. The white guys were charged with a "hate crime". It was plead down tho, so nothing to worry about.

most hate crimes are bs what is the difference between beating up a black guy and yelling racial slurs then beating up a fat guy and yelling " you fat piece of sh*t" while you are pounding his head in..

Although vandalazing places of worship or any spray painting with racial slurs and cross burning should definently be a hate crime.

as far as the gays go ,they do not deserve any special rights, what special rights do i have for being tall dark and handsome?

Wisconsin v. Mitchell, for one.

But, hey, that's only one case and you've still never seen anything in the news, so I'm pretty sure that's conclusive evidence that these laws aren't being applied uniformly.

quick question is it a bigger penalty if a man assuaslts a woman or is it the same as assualting another man?

Hate crimes do not give the targets of the crimes any special rights.

Well, the latter is far less likely to incite the L.A. riots.

what if fat people decide to riot

No, but they treat the "perp" differently.

IIRC the black community has been pissed at crack crimes being treated different powder cocaine crimes..... how exactly are hate crimes different?

Try to rephrase whatever idea you have here into something that makes sense. Different from what?

Oh come on, it's perfectly reasonable to make the presumption that the overwhelmingly white justice system is going to apply these laws in a manner biased towards the interests of poor and politically disfavored 12% of the population.

I am not sure what this means?

My problem with hate crime legislation is that it appears to me(an obvious law layperson) that the government can use them to trump up charges on a person where they are not applicable just to get them to plea to a different charge.

I don't like hate crimes, but your point about "trumped up charges" doesn't seem to have any particular relevance here. Prosecutors usually charge the most severe crime possible, partly in order to secure pleas.

A big thing with hate crime legislation to me is to realize that the criminal justice system is based around the harm to society (The State vs. Smith, not Random Guy Who Got Punched in the Head vs. Smith). Now, that harm is often manifested in a harm to an individual (i.e. John got punched in the head.) The state punishes because it is harmed insofar as John is harmed as well as a general harm to the social order. Hate Crimes deserve greater punishment because the harm to society is greater. A simple assault, simply, does not create the same level of social disorder/unrest as an assault perpetrated because someone is black (or gay or a woman.) The net result to John my likely be the same (though I don't think that it is), but the net result to society is much worse, in my opinion, in the case of hate crimes.

If Wisconsin v. Mitchell is any indication, SCOTUS would seem to disagree with you.

Perhaps, I am just seeing a possibility of a DA seeing a race X on race Y crime and thinking he can throw the hate crime threat out there on top of it all just to assure a plea even if it's not applicable.

Good exercise

We'd have to get out of our chairs first, notes this overweight schlub.

He still has to prove racial motivation as an element of the crime. I mean, by your reasoning, a DA could always throw out the threat of some larger offense (e.g., B&E --> burglary), but it won't do him a lot of good if he has no evidence to support the greater charge and the defense attorney knows this (which he will).

This is a concern, but its not a much greater concern than a prosecutor saying that they will seek maximum penalties, or Murder 1 vs Murder 2, or the death penalty, or aggravated assault. Any time you have lesser included offenses you have this problem.

That's certainly true (that they would have additional elements to prove), but I think what Case Closed is saying is that having a potentially greater charge (even on weak evidence) can significantly change the plea negotiations in an unfair way to the state.

To see how this might work imagine the following (completely made up) example:
John is charged with Assault. He believes that there is a 50% chance that he will be convicted and spend 5 years in jail and a 50% chance that he gets off entirely. Prosecutor offers a 3 year plea. He might very well decline.

Now, John is charged with Hate Assault. He believes that there is a 10% chance he gets 50 years (under the hate crime law), 40% chance of 5 years (on the lesser charge of assault) and a 50% chance he gets off entirely. Now, the prosecutor offer a plea for 3 years, and might very well accept because of the off chance of the greater crime sticking.



You are right that this is the case with all crimes that have lesser included offenses.

The attackers would get Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton running to their rescue! Then John Conyers would hold hearings to investigate why the perpetrators were over charged in the case.

So, does this bill attempt to limit the 1st Amendment or is just limited to upping the penalties for existing crimes?

We had some good discussions in the past in this forum on hate crime laws. Basically I find them to be the closest thing we have to a "thought crime" in our country. For this reason I think they are probably some of the worst laws (that are still enforced,nits) that are on the books in the USA.