Hacker News Reader

Comment by bun_terminator | Hacker News Reader

there is no such thing as hate crime

Explain more. Are you suggesting that hate cannot be a motivator for a crime? That hate cannot cause a crime to be committed that would otherwise not be committed?

Or that we should not punish people who commit crimes purely out of hate any more severely than, say, out of random chance?

I believe that it's patently absurd to suggest hate crimes don't exist, and ignorant of objective facts and reason, so I'd like you to explain more in case I misunderstood.

The term is commonly used to either make a crime out of something just because of the constellation between the offender and the victim. Or to aggravate the punishment. I don't think the constellation should play any role at all.

Same for other constellations that exist and modify punishment, like children being punished less (or not at all). Or drunk/drugged people getting massively less punishment. Or harassment against politicians getting punished a lot harsher. Or "sick" people being punished less or not at all. (Many of these examples only exist in my country I think). It's all abused either by the offender, the victims or third parties.

Is it a hate crime if you attack someone because you hate that they're rich? Is it a hate crime if you attack someone because you hate blue shirts and he was wearing a blue shirt that day?

What exactly is a hate crime and how is it precisely defined such that it's more serious than crime in general?

If you punch someone in the face vs Punch them because they are a woman vs Punch them because they are white vs Punch them because they are black vs Punch them because they are gay vs Punch them because they are a nazi vs Punch them because they are a commie

Which of these is a hate crime and which is a "normal" crime. Which get punished more harshly and how to decide the motivation other than in the absolutely most obvious cases of the person confessing why they did it.

>I believe that it's patently absurd to suggest hate crimes don't exist, and ignorant of objective facts and reason, so I'd like you to explain more in case I misunderstood.

How do you even prove a crime was committed due to "hate"? And why is that any better or worse than a generic criminal offense?

Punishing someone more or less because of their personal justification of the crime seems batshit insane to me and how it came to pass boggles the mind.

But I agree, the original comment was confusing.

> out of random chance?

we already differentiate accidents to deliberate intent.

intent to commit crime, kinda implies hate, so the prefix of "hate" to the word crime, is, pointless

Perhaps you're a freedom-of-speech fundamentalist, but to other people, who consider that this particular individual right does not automatically supersede all the others, hate crimes are a label for utterances and behavior that are likely to cause harm to groups or individuals.

It may not be easy to define, and that's what the cause for alarm is. It's one thing to shout "kill all the <minority of choice>", and quite another to say "xir is not a pronoun" or "the prime minister has committed fraud."

or you could say all crimes are hate crimes, as intent is usually considered in the aftermath, and accidents are usually less drastically sentenced.

I agree generally tho, the entire farce is a ploy to allow discrimination and vague laws to suppress l'homme du jour

in italy we often use as aggravation to senteces "futile reasons" to encompass a vast umbrella of reasons. "hate crime" alone is easily gameable term. Otherwise we would need to put all the leftists in prison for they hate towards the wealthy

Reply on news.ycombinator.com