I think that you’re correct that the young and the elderly are protected by the administration of stiffer justice to those who prey upon them.

However.

Studies show that black-on-black violence is far more prevalent than white-on-black violence. So can we really say that blacks are more vulnerable to being victimized by whites?

I realize that the history of slavery and oppression cast white-on-black crime in a harsher light and do more psychological damage on a societal level, but is a perpetrator of such a crime legally responsible for these effects, or just for the crime committed against the victim?

As for Reginald Denny, the white truck driver that was attacked in the wake of the Rodney King verdict, I don’t think it matters if he was attacked because he was white, or because the attackers wanted his truck. There should be harsh penalties for beating someone in that manner, regardless of race, color, or creed. And there are.

Thanks for commenting,
Dan

I don’t doubt that there is politicizing going on in enacting such specific laws, but really, I can’t think of a single law whose sponsor or supporters aren’t hoping to gain some kind of cache by backing it. It’s the nature of the beast.

Dan, I see what you’re saying about the Matthew Shepherd case (I was going to refer to him in my first post but I could not remember his name–my fingers would only type “Hilary Swank”), but I’m not suggesting, nor supporting the notion that people be punished for agreeing with the crime, however sick their endorsement might be.

Remember when the group of black men randomly picked out a truck driver after the Rodney King verdict and beat the crap out of him? That was pure hatred against that innocent man because he was white. If the understanding that those guys would be punished more because of the brutality, senselessness and probability that their actions could incite others to do the same might actually deter other sheep from following, I think the law is a good one, no matter what politicians stands atop it claiming victory.

I agree with what you’re saying about crimes based on bigotry having the potential to incite further crimes, both by those who share the same bigoted attitudes and retaliation by members of the aggrieved group. But can we really punish someone to a greater degree because their actions “may” spark a copycat-type crime?

I’m sure there were a lot of people who heard about the Matthew Shepherd case and thought the “homo” got what he deserved. As barbaric as this attitude is, it’s not against the law to feel that way. Hate is not a crime. Murder, rape, and battery are crimes. And we already have laws against them.

If there’s evidence that people who commit crimes against minorities as a result of bigotry are more likely to commit further crimes than those who choose victims randomly, then I’m all for locking them up for a longer period of time. I suspect, however, that M.B is correct that these laws are based on appeasement, not a fair administration of justice.

Thanks for commenting,
Dan

I’m actually torn on this issue too. I have often wondered if hate crime penalties were established because crimes committed against particular groups of people because of whatever characteristic, might be more likely to be mob- or group-influenced, making it more likely to happen, with increased frequency, and with more “damage”?

A random murder or random vandalization is probably usually done by one or two individuals out of boredom, a personal vendetta, or just out and out rage. But crimes against minority groups BECAUSE they are minorities might maybe be more dangerous because of the power in numbers. Not that more people participate in the crime, but that more people might support the criminal action because of the victim(s) and be inspired to copycat.

The Jena 6 example,I have read, has inspired other racists to hang nooses as a “joke”. But did the black kid beating up a specific white kid because of the issues at that high school provoke a different black kid across the country to beat up a random white kid because he is white? I don’t know.

This, to me, makes hate crimes even more random….if the perpetrator knows only that its target belongs to a particular race, class, or creed, rather than a personal beef gone too far. For this reason, I would support almost any gang activity being classified as hate crimes, since it is my understanding that they are usually directed at rival gangs.

I agree with M.B.(that’s right- I said it!) that hate crime enhancements probably don’t serve much purpose in deterring serious crime, but I’m not ready to call them useless just yet.

I am probably not telling you anything you don’t already know but the “Hate Crime” designation is nothing more than political pabulum. It was designed to pacify.

I suppose it could have some impact if applied in the right situations. For instance, in the swastika painted on the garage scenario, if the perpetrators’ sentence was enhanced a considerable amount due to it qualifying as a “Hate Crime” it may deter a repeat offense. But you are right; applying it to a serious felony case is nearly useless.

Almost anytime the legislators create “enhancements” in penalties for criminal acts it is nothing but political posturing. People know right from wrong. They either care or don’t care and adding enhanced penalties has little effect. The only thing that has real deterrent effect is the surety of being caught and punished, and since most criminals don’t think they will be caught, what is the point of enhancements?……..I think.