Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

I would observe that we in the UK have 2 similar crimes defined, one is murder and the other is manslaughter. In both cases, the victim is just as dead. The difference between them is "the thoughts in the mind of of the perpetrators", yes? Do you think that this contrast indicates that our law(s) against killing people are lacking in some way?

Yes, strictly speaking, the only difference here are the thoughts in the heads of the perpetrators, true. But I think that one can find several things that distinguish this from hate crime laws:

That may be so, but I wasn't trying to compare murder and manslaughter with hate crimes, but with one another. I did so in response to your thought that:

If this is the premise that underlies our laws, then for something to be considered a crime it needs to be demonstrated to cause harm to others. And if this is the case, how can we criminalise one incident that is identical with another incident that isn't a crime, the only different being the thoughts in the minds of the perpetrators?

Now, you seem to be admitting a flaw in your original logic, so you're trying to re-jig it so that it can remain as an active argument against so-called hate crimes? [As the rest of your words, below, seem to indicate.]

1) The motivation/intention is not relevant to distinction between murder and manslaughter. i.e. either murder or manslaughter might be judged to be a hate crime if it was deemed that perpetrator was motivated by hate of a group identity. It's about whether they acted in a pre-meditated way (as opposed to the heat of the moment).

2) The murder/manslaughter distinction is universally applied (regardless of group identity).

3) The perception of third parties is irrelevant to the distinction between murder and manslaughter. Hate crimes on the other hand are determined by the perception of third parties.

Hate is essentially something that might be regarded as a motive. The investigators of a crime usually set about trying to ascertain motive when trying to establish the guilt of a suspect. But it is not normally regarded as the crime itself.

[Mounce574]

The United States also makes a distinction between murder and manslaughter. Murder falls within 2 main categories: Murder 1 is premeditated, Murder 2 is killing someone intentionally during the heat of the moment. Manslaughter i:s generally considered a lesser crime(thought death is death and the victim will still be dead) caused by the person's actions causing the unintentional death of another person.
Hate crimes - if you want to kill somebody, don't you already hate something about that person? And to say that any one class/religion/race has not experienced prejudice is not logical. For example, Catholics persecuted Protestants. White, black, brown, and whatever color you want define have all been victims of some injustice at one point in life. Currently, middle class white men are actively treated as though they are the cause of everyone's lack of something (money, priviledge, ambition to be better, etc).
I'm Native American and Caucasian descent. If somebody hates Native Americans but causes harm to me because I did something antagonistic, is their action a hate crime? I look like white because I am anemic, but I am a certified member of the Cherokee Nation. So I am considered a minority. Add on top of that I am also a female. So is it a hate crime?
Perception is always different to everyone. What I see isn't necessarily what another person sees. So, in my opinion, perception shouldn't be part of the equation used for judgement.

[Fried Egg]

Now, you seem to be admitting a flaw in your original logic, so you're trying to re-jig it so that it can remain as an active argument against so-called hate crimes?

My original logic is a four point argument laid out in my opening post in this thread. You were responding to a remark I made later in the thread that is not central to my original argument(s) other than, perhaps, point 2. Where I stated that crimes should be judged solely on the impact on the victim(s).

Perception is always different to everyone. What I see isn't necessarily what another person sees. So, in my opinion, perception shouldn't be part of the equation used for judgement.

Indeed, I completely agree. It is one of the reasons why I think hate should not be a crime.

[Pattern-chaser]

The United States also makes a distinction between murder and manslaughter. Murder falls within 2 main categories: Murder 1 is premeditated, Murder 2 is killing someone intentionally during the heat of the moment. Manslaughter i:s generally considered a lesser crime(thought death is death and the victim will still be dead) caused by the person's actions causing the unintentional death of another person.
Hate crimes - if you want to kill somebody, don't you already hate something about that person? And to say that any one class/religion/race has not experienced prejudice is not logical. For example, Catholics persecuted Protestants. White, black, brown, and whatever color you want define have all been victims of some injustice at one point in life. Currently, middle class white men are actively treated as though they are the cause of everyone's lack of something (money, priviledge, ambition to be better, etc).
I'm Native American and Caucasian descent. If somebody hates Native Americans but causes harm to me because I did something antagonistic, is their action a hate crime? I look like white because I am anemic, but I am a certified member of the Cherokee Nation. So I am considered a minority. Add on top of that I am also a female. So is it a hate crime?
Perception is always different to everyone. What I see isn't necessarily what another person sees. So, in my opinion, perception shouldn't be part of the equation used for judgement.

If someone does something to you, in response to something you did to them, that can't be a hate crime.

But if they probably wouldn't've done it if you hadn't been female, that's heading in the direction of a hate crime.

And if they did it to you specifically because you are a woman, *that* is a hate crime.

[Pattern-chaser]

My original logic is a four point argument laid out in my opening post in this thread. You were responding to a remark I made later in the thread that is not central to my original argument(s) other than, perhaps, point 2. Where I stated that crimes should be judged solely on the impact on the victim(s).

This only begs the question, who are the "victim(s)"?

If you limit "victim" to the person who was stabbed, and do not count the bystander who never again leaves her flat unaccompanied, out of fear, then aren't you (i.e. we) missing the point of victimhood?

[Lagayascienza]

The difficulty with hate laws is that, like hate, they are irrational. No law will stop people from hating. It is simpler to just ensure equality under the current law, which involves ensuring that laws are fairly and equally policed and prosecuted, than to make special laws for the protection of particular groups who are the subject of hate.

If the assault laws, for example, were equitably policed and prosecuted, there would be no need to legislate special hate laws with special sentencing provisions. Assault as defined in law should be treated as a crime no matter who commits it and no matter their motivations. Everyone deserves the protection of the law and all who commit assault deserve prosecution under the law.

Unfortunately, policing and prosecution have often not been fairly applied. For example, assaults against African Americans and gays were not prosecuted as vigorously as assaults against heterosexuals and whites. However, it is hard to see how making special laws for so called hate crimes against these particular groups will address this problem because such laws do not address the underlying cause. That underlying cause is hate. Humans often hate difference. Can humans learn not to hate difference? That is the question. Can hate crime laws help people not to hate? I’m not sure that they can.

I don’t think minority groups need or should want special hate law protection. What they should want and what they need is equal protection under the laws that currently exist. That would entail equitable policing and prosecution.

[Count Lucanor]

I have been pondering the concept for some time and I am becoming increasingly sceptical that the concept of hate crimes should have a place in law.

So what exactly is a hate crime? The legal definition might vary from place to place but here in the UK it is defined as:

Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.

And what is the effect of something being deemed a "hate crime"? It can lead to one of two outcomes:

1) A heavier sentence being awarded than would otherwise have been the case had the crime not been regarded as hateful. i.e. if you were convicted of assault, you might get a longer sentence if it is also judged that you targeted your victim because you hated their protected group identity.

2) Something that would not otherwise have been a crime may be treated as a crime if it is regarded as hateful. Such as verbal abuse or incitement to hatred.

Now, let me be clear. I am not condoning hateful behaviour or justifying it in any way. I think it is usually morally reprehensible. But I think it is problematic to incorporate it into law and the criminal justice system.

Firstly, I do not think the criminality of an action should in anyway rest on the perception of the victim (or even a random passer by). It should be an objectively measurable fact.

Secondly, why is the impact of a crime really greater on the victim if it happened to have been hateful? If someone murders me, it doesn't make me any more dead if they did it because of my race.

Thirdly, it is only certain characteristics that are "protected", certain group identities. Someone might attack me because they hate me on a personal level but that's not considered a hate crime. They might do it because they hate ginger people but still that's fine. But if it's the wrong kind of hate, such as for being gay, that makes it much worse?

Fourthly, if an action (or something that is said) is not considered a crime in the absence being considered hateful of a particular group, it should not be considered a crime at all. It becomes a multi-tiered justice system that treats people differently based on their group identities (or the group identity of their victims).

And of course there is the code of practice that police have (in England and Wales) to record and retain information pertaining to Non Crime Hate Incidents (NCHI's) whereby incidents are reported to the police of incidents that are perceived to be (by anyone other than the subject) as actions (or speech) that are considered to be motivated by prejudice or hostility towards persons with a particular characteristic. They do not themselves meet the criteria for being treated as a crime but the incidents may be recorded and retained for later use, perhaps as supporting evidence in a future prosecution of a hate crime of that individual. If such an incident is recorded and retained by the police, they must contact and notify the individual in question, but they will not tell them who made the complaint nor what the alleged incident was.

I agree with you and I think you have presented reasonable arguments. These laws appear to be contradictory and defy common sense, but of course, it is because that’s how it looks from the view of objective discourse, as it used to be when secular society embraced the ethos of modernity and its pretensions of universality, equality, progress, and so on. Postmodernity fragmented all of that and questioned it with a new narrative of systemic oppression and identity politics, taking distance from the old analysis of economic forces and class struggles and replacing it with symbolic, cultural struggles. A new categorization is employed, based on abstract and diffuse notions of community, an ambiguous and subjective term. “Community” used to be those who lived together, so it pointed to something concrete in space and time, but now community is any classification under selected criteria, based on biopolitics, such as race, ethnicity, sex, etc. In theory, one could invoke the rights of a community of “left-handed people”, even point to some sort of historical systemic oppression of left-handed people, but of course, that is of no interest for biopolitics, not until left-handed people manage to organize as a legitimate political group that fights for its perceived common interest. “Hate” in hate crime does not point to a concrete feeling and personal motivation (which is what used to matter in a system of objective, universal laws), but to “systemic hate”, that is, hate simply becomes the supposedly internalized rejection of the other tribe by one tribe, based on their cultural differences and the power hierarchies, a rejection that is said to operate even independently of the subject’s consciousness. If you fall within the criteria of classification that puts you in a given tribe, you are guilty as charged just by being part of that set. All it takes is that the other tribe (some selected group) calls for being offended or having being historically oppressed (no need for concrete individuales having being oppressed, but the class to which they belong to), that constitutes your “crime”, which then aggravates any other traditional transgression such as murder.

[Fried Egg]

The difficulty with hate laws is that, like hate, they are irrational. No law will stop people from hating. It is simpler to just ensure equality under the current law, which involves ensuring that laws are fairly and equally policed and prosecuted, than to make special laws for the protection of particular groups who are the subject of hate.

If the assault laws, for example, were equitably policed and prosecuted, there would be no need to legislate special hate laws with special sentencing provisions. Assault as defined in law should be treated as a crime no matter who commits it and no matter their motivations. Everyone deserves the protection of the law and all who commit assault deserve prosecution under the law.

Unfortunately, policing and prosecution have often not been fairly applied. For example, assaults against African Americans and gays were not prosecuted as vigorously as assaults against heterosexuals and whites. However, it is hard to see how making special laws for so called hate crimes against these particular groups will address this problem because such laws do not address the underlying cause. That underlying cause is hate. Humans often hate difference. Can humans learn not to hate difference? That is the question. Can hate crime laws help people not to hate? I’m not sure that they can.

I don’t think minority groups need or should want special hate law protection. What they should want and what they need is equal protection under the laws that currently exist. That would entail equitable policing and prosecution.

I am in full agreement with your post here. Nicely put.

If you limit "victim" to the person who was stabbed, and do not count the bystander who never again leaves her flat unaccompanied, out of fear, then aren't you (i.e. we) missing the point of victimhood?

Yes, I agree that crime impacts society in general because people can live in fear of crime that they see around them (although I reject the earlier arguments that hate crimes are unique in this regard). Indeed, the criminal justice system itself serves not only the immediate victims and perpetrators of crime, but sends a message to other would be victims and perpetrators. Seeing the law being rigorously and fairly applied reassures the community at large and it warns those considering committing a crime.

So yes, the criminal justice system is pre-emptive in this regard, in that it attempts to deter future crime and re-assure the public in their fear of crime. But I don't see where the concept of hate crimes come into this. I agree with Lagayascienza when he said that what the members of marginalised groups need is not special case protections, but rather to see that the law is universally and fairly applied to all. That they are protected under the law just as rigorously as everyone else is.

One might event say that "hate" crimes are to the criminal justice system what DEI is to employment. A misguided (if well intentioned) attempt to right past wrongs. Discriminating in favour of certain group identities now because these groups were discriminated against in the past.

[Pattern-chaser]

If you limit "victim" to the person who was stabbed, and do not count the bystander who never again leaves her flat unaccompanied, out of fear, then aren't you (i.e. we) missing the point of victimhood?

Yes, I agree that crime impacts society in general because people can live in fear of crime that they see around them (although I reject the earlier arguments that hate crimes are unique in this regard).

Yes, I agree that crime impacts society in general, but hate crime is a little more focussed than this. It impacts only the sub-communities who are hated. But yes, I also agree that hate crimes are not unique — all crimes affect much or all of society as a whole.

So yes, the criminal justice system is pre-emptive in this regard, in that it attempts to deter future crime and re-assure the public in their fear of crime. But I don't see where the concept of hate crimes come into this. I agree with Lagayascienza when he said that what the members of marginalised groups need is not special case protections, but rather to see that the law is universally and fairly applied to all. That they are protected under the law just as rigorously as everyone else is.

There is a feature that makes hate crimes a little different, just as there are (different) features that make many crimes different. In the case of hate crimes, it's that the victims are being targetted, not for anything that they have done, or randomly, but because they are members of the hated community. They are the subject of criminal actions because they are white, or Jewish, or women, or whatever. In other words, hate crimes are committed against people because of the group(s) they belong to. That is the difference between hate crimes and other crimes, I think?

One might event say that "hate" crimes are to the criminal justice system what DEI is to employment. A misguided (if well intentioned) attempt to right past wrongs. Discriminating in favour of certain group identities now because these groups were discriminated against in the past.

There is no discrimination, because the law against hate crime protects all members of society from being targetted by hate-mongers just because of the groups they beong to. It is not (extra) protection for any one group; hate-crime laws protect us all from being targetted in that hateful way.

[Fried Egg]

So yes, the criminal justice system is pre-emptive in this regard, in that it attempts to deter future crime and re-assure the public in their fear of crime. But I don't see where the concept of hate crimes come into this. I agree with Lagayascienza when he said that what the members of marginalised groups need is not special case protections, but rather to see that the law is universally and fairly applied to all. That they are protected under the law just as rigorously as everyone else is.

There is a feature that makes hate crimes a little different, just as there are (different) features that make many crimes different. In the case of hate crimes, it's that the victims are being targetted, not for anything that they have done, or randomly, but because they are members of the hated community. They are the subject of criminal actions because they are white, or Jewish, or women, or whatever. In other words, hate crimes are committed against people because of the group(s) they belong to. That is the difference between hate crimes and other crimes, I think?

One might event say that "hate" crimes are to the criminal justice system what DEI is to employment. A misguided (if well intentioned) attempt to right past wrongs. Discriminating in favour of certain group identities now because these groups were discriminated against in the past.

There is no discrimination, because the law against hate crime protects all members of society from being targetted by hate-mongers just because of the groups they beong to. It is not (extra) protection for any one group; hate-crime laws protect us all from being targetted in that hateful way.

Well, on this particular point of fact your are wrong; there is discrimination because only only certain group identities are protected from hate crimes. If I am victimised because I am white, or because I am ginger, etc. it is not considered a hate crime. This is one of my original arguments against the concept of hate crimes (found in the OP).

However, I am not really arguing that the targeting of any group identities should be regarded as a hate crime (although that would be better than only benefitting certain groups), I think it is not useful at all and should be dropped entirely.

[Pattern-chaser]

Well, on this particular point of fact your are wrong; there is discrimination because only only certain group identities are protected from hate crimes. If I am victimised because I am white, or because I am ginger, etc. it is not considered a hate crime. This is one of my original arguments against the concept of hate crimes (found in the OP).

However, I am not really arguing that the targeting of any group identities should be regarded as a hate crime (although that would be better than only benefitting certain groups), I think it is not useful at all and should be dropped entirely.

I tend to agree. The title "hate crime" should be dropped permanently. The crime itself should be retained, I think, and all loopholes sealed. Perhaps we could call it member-ism? For we can all agree — can't we? — that to attack someone who has done nothing, except belong to the hated group, is a criminal act?

[Mounce574]

What I wonder is why any of the"protected groups" should be afforded more rights than anyone else? Obviously, if someone attacks someone else, they can't claim that they liked that person (unless you count certain serial killers who have something wrong morally and mentally). Most people won't hurt another person without a reason. Both people did something , just the other took it to an extreme. There is also the question that arises. Scenario: I am heterosexual Native American female. If I kill somebody who happens to be a homesexual Native American female- is that a hate crime? Both of us would be considered part of the "protected" group status. Does one cancel the other?
I believe a crime should be based on the fact that the perpetrator and victim are human. It shouldn't matter what they identify as, sleep with, skin color, and all the other characteristics that make us an individual.

[Good_Egg]

There is no discrimination, because the law against hate crime protects all members of society from being targetted by hate-mongers just because of the groups they beong to. It is not (extra) protection for any one group; hate-crime laws protect us all from being targetted in that hateful way.

I think you're right to perceive that this needs to be true in order for "hate crime" laws to be just.

Does it really protect us all equally, give us the equal rights under the law that justice requires ?

If a white man is mugged, is it more wrong if the perpetrator is a black man ? If a black man is mugged, is it more wrong if the perpetrator is a white man ?

I think the honest proponent of "hate crime" laws has to say that no, all four possible combinations are inherently equally wrong, but that any crime is worse if motivated by hatred than if the victim is randomly-chosen or chosen for some rational reason (*).

Where injustice creeps in is if the threshold of proof of hateful intent is lower in one case than the others.

The dishonest proponent argues the above position when the law is being put forward, but then when it is being applied sees every case of white perpetrator and black victim as hate-driven by default. If you believe that our Western culture is inherently and structurally racist, how can there not be some element of racial antagonism in every white-on-black crime ?

So that people are in practice mo longer equal under the law...

(*) someone asked why they robbed a rich man might reply "because that's where the money is"...

[Lagayascienza]

The legislation reads as follows:

Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.

This can only mean that the race of the victim or perpetrators are irrelevant under the law. Thus, if a bunch of black guys set upon and assaulted a white guy because he was white, then the hate crime legislation would apply to the black guys and they could, if prosecuted, expect a harsher sentence, if convicted, than they would have received without the hate law legislation. This legislation applies to all applies to all. If that is not what the legislature wanted or intended when it passed legislation (unlikely), then the legislature would need to revisit and reword the legislation.

However, whichever way the legislation is worded, I think legislating for hate crime is misguided and will be ineffective for the reason I gave previously. Better to stick with the current law for assault, for example, and ensure that it is fairly policed and prosecuted without fear or favor.

[Lagayascienza]

Typo in first sentence. It should read ...is irrelevant...
Apologies.