re: #187 elbruce

The thing is, as with organized crime, there are other causal factors connecting groups of hate crimes together. In either case, there are other people out there increasing certain types of crime. That makes it harder to fight those crimes unless there’s more money available for both investigation and prosecution of those crimes. In terms of organzied crime, that’s RICO and racketeering laws. If every hate crime is treated as an isolated incident, then they’re not likely to get enough attention to stop the potential wave of violence it can lead to. Think “Mississippi Burning” for an example of how things can get when hate crimes are treated as if they were run-of-the mill crimes.

As I mentioned, the main intent of such laws is to make more money available for investigation and prosecution. But (at least when applied concurrently) hate crime charges set a higher minimum for sentencing than may otherwise be applied. For instance, there isn’t much jail time for just punching somebody. But if you punch them because of their race or religion, it doesn’t only hurt them, but also helps to foster a climate of violence against people of that race or religion. That can lead to more violence, e.g. “Cletus got two weeks in jail for punching a [insert epithet here], that sounds like a fair trade to me…”

And hate crime charges aren’t solely based on what you’re thinking. In order to apply, the person has to indicate that their bigotry is a factor at the time of the attack, by doing or saying something that makes the connection clear.

You make some excellent points and I hadn’t thought about the attention/funding angle. That being said, I’m not sure that I am completely comfortable with jerry-rigging the legal system to increase funding like that. I would also submit that with RICO and Racketeering those are extensions of conspiracy-type charges, they make it easier to extend the net of a single crime to a larger group, or to extend the punishment to a larger set of assets.

I think a reverse way of looking at my objection might be to ask ‘why is one murder worth more punishment than another’? Isn’t that really devaluing the life of the person not hated because of their creed?

I’m not vehemently opposed to hate crimes, certainly, and you make a perfectly compelling argument for the statutes.