Hate Crime at Pace University...

[Silent A]

I don't have a problem with hate crime legislation if it takes the form of stiffer penalties for crimes committed with hate as a significant motive. I'm OK with this because people who commit random hate violence are inherently more dangerous.

However, I have a real problem with such legislation allows for prosecutions where no crime was actually committed. Since when did it become illegal to put a book in a toilet?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have a problem with hate crime legislation if it takes the form of stiffer penalties for crimes committed with hate as a significant motive. I'm OK with this because people who commit random hate violence are inherently more dangerous.

However, I have a real problem with such legislation allows for prosecutions where no crime was actually committed. Since when did it become illegal to put a book in a toilet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this is a really good point. Sentencing is based on "danger to society" and "rehabilitation," at least in theory. Criminalization is based on morality. The two have very little to do with each other.

[bluesbassman]

I think the person who was arrested should claim that, according to his sincerely held religious beliefs, placing a copy of the koran in a toilet is a divinely inspired ritual act of worship.

Then how can performing his religious rituals (which do not directly involve anyone else) be an act of "hate?" And how is that argument any less valid than that made by some followers of Islam who claim to be "victimized" by his act because it so deeply offends them?

I have seen Christians casually carrying the bible. Perhaps according to my religion, walking around in public holding the bible in such a way is an offense against god. By the logic of this "hate crime" prosecution, I should be able to have those Christians arrested.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is why "Hate" Crime statutes have no place in a free society. They punish the thought behind the act rather than the act itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

So there should be no difference considered legally between manslaughter and premeditated, first degree murder?

[/ QUOTE ]

Apples and oranges.

Your example differentes between killing someone in a spur-of-the-moment bar fight and coldly planning to kill someone.

My objection is to taking two situations where someone decides to harm someone and making *why* they decided to harm someone relevant to the severity of the crime.

The two are not analogous.

[tpir]

So where is the line drawn for claiming one's religion was violated? If someone was a Christian, they might say flushing the other books is out of reverence to their God.

Does the religion have to be a certain number of years old to gain this type of protection? If I started a Gozer-worshiping club whereby I had to scream a prayer to Zuul once on the hour every hour, I would not be allowed to do it without getting fired.

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have a problem with hate crime legislation if it takes the form of stiffer penalties for crimes committed with hate as a significant motive. I'm OK with this because people who commit random hate violence are inherently more dangerous.

However, I have a real problem with such legislation allows for prosecutions where no crime was actually committed. Since when did it become illegal to put a book in a toilet?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I agree with your hate crime analysis. The problem is most people do not use that argument when arguing for hate crimes. They generally talk about how disgusting the acts themselves make people feel which is a dangerous to use for sentencing.

Also I think the Koran guy should get fined. Assuming the toilet belonged to somebody else it could have caused an overflow and somebody had to clean it up so a fine of like 100 dollars would be fair.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is why "Hate" Crime statutes have no place in a free society. They punish the thought behind the act rather than the act itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

So there should be no difference considered legally between manslaughter and premeditated, first degree murder?

[/ QUOTE ]

Apples and oranges.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's more like Macintosh and Granny Smith.

[ QUOTE ]
Your example differentes between killing someone in a spur-of-the-moment bar fight and coldly planning to kill someone.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Coldly planning to kill someone" -- that's a thought, right? Why should he be punished more harshly for that?

[ QUOTE ]
My objection is to taking two situations where someone decides to harm someone and making *why* they decided to harm someone relevant to the severity of the crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

At a bar fight, someone decides to pull out his knife and cut the other guy's throat. After a marital affair, a husband decides to poison his wife and kill her. Both decisions. We punish the 2nd one more harshly because of the thoughts that went into making the decision.

Hate crimes should be punished more harshly because of the thoughts that motivated the crime: specifically, a hatred toward an entire class of people, regardless of any actions that specific victim did or didn't do. Hate crimes, therefore, affect the entire class of people that was subject to the hate. If I kill a black man because he took my seat at a bar, then that is not (necessarily) a hate crime. If I kill him while shouting racial slurs at him, and have voiced my bigotry at other times, it probably is. In other words, had it been a white person that took my seat, I would have let it go, or asked him to get up. Because it was a black guy, I killed him. I was motivated by my hatred of a class -- black people. The entire black community will feel victimized, as they should, since now they have to fear similar acts of violence toward them just for being black.

[MrMon]

All sorts of interesting links on the case here:

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/torch/#8287

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Hate crimes should be punished more harshly because of the thoughts that motivated the crime: specifically, a hatred toward an entire class of people, regardless of any actions that specific victim did or didn't do. Hate crimes, therefore, affect the entire class of people that was subject to the hate. If I kill a black man because he took my seat at a bar, then that is not (necessarily) a hate crime. If I kill him while shouting racial slurs at him, and have voiced my bigotry at other times, it probably is. In other words, had it been a white person that took my seat, I would have let it go, or asked him to get up. Because it was a black guy, I killed him. I was motivated by my hatred of a class -- black people. The entire black community will feel victimized, as they should, since now they have to fear similar acts of violence toward them just for being black.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to write a long post about how strongly I disagreed with this, but while I was typing it I realized that you had a strong point.

Violent crimes motivated by hate send a significant chill throughout the entire targeted group. There should be a significant punishment for this. It's clear to me that it's a form of terrorism, as are things like cross burnings.

I still feel that any hate motivated perpetrator is also inherently more dangerous than other criminals and so stiffer penalties should be applied for this reason as well.

That said, I have a real problem with the case in the OP because insulting someone's religious values cannot be construed to imply a threat to the security of anyone.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
A man is being charged with two felony counts-Criminal Mischief and Aggravated Harrassment, for throwing a quran in the toilet.

The media irresponsibly published his name and picture in the paper...his life is in some serious danger.

This is a severe overreaction and a serious infringement on free speech.

I do not support what he did, but this is insanity.

LINK

[/ QUOTE ]

The only hate crime being committed here is the hate crime being committed by the people pressing the charges.