This is a really good breakdown of what this data can say the limits of what it can say. Thank you. It really deserves to be seen by more readers. Go figure ;)
I agree on some level but on another level it might be useful to track criminal motivations. They attempt to classify homicides by motives, for example robbery, drugs, gang, assault, sexual, romantic jealousy, etc.. and those trends are interesting to look at over time.
There's also an element of hate crimes that is almost unique in that they can have a terror element. When I lived in Pasadena some of the nearby cities had some Hispanic street gang violence, but mostly it was gangsters shooting each other so most regular people I knew weren't too scared to visit or even live there.
But there was an era in the early 2000s where the gangs were specifically shooting / firebombing Black people with the purpose of running them out of town. Not just gang-related Black people (there were no Black gangs in that area anyway) but Black people just living normal life.
Murder is murder, but that kind of shit had an impact way beyond the specific. If a drug dealer gets shot I can maybe shrug it off because I don't deal drugs, but if I was Black I couldn't shrug off a legitimate anti-Black terror campaign. So I feel like that's a case where extra-harsh penalties could be justified based on what it does to the community.
Motives are not additional crimes, a hate crime is a second crime because it’s the motive for the first crime. I don’t think motives should be a reason to use just to load up a penalty. Use the underlying crime for the sentence…
I don't think you can have a reasonable criminal justice system without motive playing a role in sentencing. There's no way you'd support it, either, if you consider it a bit more. Cold, calculated, premeditated murder is always going to get a worse sentence than a guy who shoots his wife's lover after he catches him in the act.
"Motives are not additional crimes". Agreed. But legally, motives are commonly used to load up or reduce a penalty. When they load it up, they are called enhancements. Gang-related crimes are a motive that get commonly get enhancements. If the victim was a senior citizen or a handicapped peson that can also be an enhancement. Enhancements seems ok to me.
Terrorism also usually bring enhancements. If you commit a crime with the purpose of sowing terror in the name of some cause, you'll almost certainly get a stiffer penalty than if it was for personal, emotional or economic reasons. Hate crimes (stupid name for it aside) are just a version of that.
Maybe in practice hate crime law isn't being applied or counted very well, but the general trend has been for way less criminals to be in prison, so anything halfway reasonable that counters that trend might be good, imo
In sentencing, yes. Hate crimes are separate crimes. You’re making my exact point. The judge/jury can make the determination, there’s zero need for something called a hate crime…
I think there's just a simple misunderstanding then, because hate crimes are being used as enhancements, not as separate crimes. The example Jeff-alytics is giving are of things like shoplifting (with hate crime enhancement) and wire fraud (with hate crime enhancement).
I don't know enough about criminal cases to know if judges rely on law enforcement for motive evidence, but otherwise I agree they can determine if the motive warrants extra time. That said, nothing wrong with LEO categorizing and counting motives so people can track if certain kinds of crime are rising and falling, the same way they do with gang crimes, spree crime, terrorism, etc
This is a really good breakdown of what this data can say the limits of what it can say. Thank you. It really deserves to be seen by more readers. Go figure ;)
There’s no such thing as a “hate crime”, there’s crime…
I agree on some level but on another level it might be useful to track criminal motivations. They attempt to classify homicides by motives, for example robbery, drugs, gang, assault, sexual, romantic jealousy, etc.. and those trends are interesting to look at over time.
There's also an element of hate crimes that is almost unique in that they can have a terror element. When I lived in Pasadena some of the nearby cities had some Hispanic street gang violence, but mostly it was gangsters shooting each other so most regular people I knew weren't too scared to visit or even live there.
But there was an era in the early 2000s where the gangs were specifically shooting / firebombing Black people with the purpose of running them out of town. Not just gang-related Black people (there were no Black gangs in that area anyway) but Black people just living normal life.
Murder is murder, but that kind of shit had an impact way beyond the specific. If a drug dealer gets shot I can maybe shrug it off because I don't deal drugs, but if I was Black I couldn't shrug off a legitimate anti-Black terror campaign. So I feel like that's a case where extra-harsh penalties could be justified based on what it does to the community.
Motives are not additional crimes, a hate crime is a second crime because it’s the motive for the first crime. I don’t think motives should be a reason to use just to load up a penalty. Use the underlying crime for the sentence…
I don't think you can have a reasonable criminal justice system without motive playing a role in sentencing. There's no way you'd support it, either, if you consider it a bit more. Cold, calculated, premeditated murder is always going to get a worse sentence than a guy who shoots his wife's lover after he catches him in the act.
"Motives are not additional crimes". Agreed. But legally, motives are commonly used to load up or reduce a penalty. When they load it up, they are called enhancements. Gang-related crimes are a motive that get commonly get enhancements. If the victim was a senior citizen or a handicapped peson that can also be an enhancement. Enhancements seems ok to me.
Terrorism also usually bring enhancements. If you commit a crime with the purpose of sowing terror in the name of some cause, you'll almost certainly get a stiffer penalty than if it was for personal, emotional or economic reasons. Hate crimes (stupid name for it aside) are just a version of that.
Maybe in practice hate crime law isn't being applied or counted very well, but the general trend has been for way less criminals to be in prison, so anything halfway reasonable that counters that trend might be good, imo
In sentencing, yes. Hate crimes are separate crimes. You’re making my exact point. The judge/jury can make the determination, there’s zero need for something called a hate crime…
I think there's just a simple misunderstanding then, because hate crimes are being used as enhancements, not as separate crimes. The example Jeff-alytics is giving are of things like shoplifting (with hate crime enhancement) and wire fraud (with hate crime enhancement).
I don't know enough about criminal cases to know if judges rely on law enforcement for motive evidence, but otherwise I agree they can determine if the motive warrants extra time. That said, nothing wrong with LEO categorizing and counting motives so people can track if certain kinds of crime are rising and falling, the same way they do with gang crimes, spree crime, terrorism, etc
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/overview-hate-crime
Maybe a lawyer can step in here but it seems from this the DoJ considers them separate…