The murder of Ahmaud Arbery

[Gandalf]

Emmett Till agrees that tilted justice is not equal justice. Fifteen year old kid murdered for allegedly whistling at a white woman. I can post the before and after pics if you like.

I live in a town where a group of blacks were massacred because one black man dared to vote, exercising his right as an American citizen.

I probably shouldn’t bother drawing parallels between what used to be excused as justifiable homicide as the foundation as to why hate crime legislation exists today. You can disagree if it’s necessary or not.

But make no mistake, there was a legal double standard in this country with regards to civil rights that was corrected less than 60 years ago.

Where is all that righteous indignation of yours when it comes to the multitude of black people stalked beaten and murdered every week BY OTHER BLACK PEOPLE in Dem run cities? Go get me some stats on who is the most likely person to kill you if you are black (for that matter, even if you are white or other. If you are Asian, its almost guaranteed to be black)

 

[tvolsfan]

Where is all that righteous indignation of yours when it comes to the multitude of black people stalked beaten and murdered every week BY OTHER BLACK PEOPLE in Dem run cities? Go get me some stats on who is the most likely person to kill you if you are black (for that matter, even if you are white or other. If you are Asian, its almost guaranteed to be black)

Pretty sure that's a crime too.

 

[Gandalf]

Hate is still legal. We can't criminalize it and shouldn't try. There are other ways to address it.
We can and have legislated against actual harm to others which may or may not be manifestations of hate.

Absolutely right! There should never be an attempt to criminalize what someone believes. What they DO based on that belief, however, specifically where it acts upon another person, is the place for the law. The whole idea of "hate crime" is repugnant. IF someone is proven to have murdered someone, then they should be executed. What does it matter what color the victim or the perps skin is or whether one hated the other? Only what that person did to another. Im not talking about using mindset to establish mens rea but rather trying to criminalize the very thought.

 

[RockyTop85]

Hate is still legal. We can't criminalize it and shouldn't try. There are other ways to address it.
We can and have legislated against actual harm to others which may or may not be manifestations of hate.

Nearly every crime in every jurisdiction includes a mental state component. Murder has usually (always?) been graded by the mental state or culpability (negligent homicide, manslaughter, second degree murder, and intentional/malice murder). Other criminal motivations may enhance or supersede the culpability element (felony murder). Sometimes the motivation can also excuse what would otherwise be a crime (justification, defense of others, self defense).

Similarly, various defendant traits or characteristics of crimes are commonly used as enhancements. In Tennessee, if a crime can be shown to have been gang activity or committed by a group, those can be used as enhancing factors. Likewise if the crime involved a firearm. For a time, Carjacking was treated slightly differently than aggravated robbery, even though they’re essentially the same crime. Also in Tennessee, your prior felony record determines the range of your sentence.

I don’t see a functional difference between “hate crimes” and any of these things. It’s not like being hateful is sufficient to get you locked up. It’s usually either an enhancement, a substitute for an element of the underlying crime, or an a new crime that involves an additional element added to existing crimes (which seems functionally the same as an enhancement, to me).

The bottom line is that, as a society, we determined that crimes motivated by the victim’s race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability are especially offensive and those who commit them are deserving of harsher punishment.

I don’t see how that is any different than determining that someone who murders unintentionally as part of an inherently dangerous felony like a robbery or kidnapping, should be confined longer than somebody who kills in the heat of passion that is prompted by sufficient provocation.

These laws are constitutional. They exist to some extent in around 48 states, so it seems like it’s undoubtedly a reflection of a societal determination that had broad support. The defendants still have to be found guilty by a jury. The prosecutor has to prove additional elements. It also seems undeniably prudent to confine people for whom those immutable characteristics are a sufficient motivator to do violence.

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

Where is all that righteous indignation of yours when it comes to the multitude of black people stalked beaten and murdered every week BY OTHER BLACK PEOPLE in Dem run cities? Go get me some stats on who is the most likely person to kill you if you are black (for that matter, even if you are white or other. If you are Asian, its almost guaranteed to be black)

Nothing better than defending some po dunk redneck racists murdering someone. All because “BuT BlaCK pEOpLe KiLl BlACk PeOpLe toO!!!”.

 

[Gandalf]

Nothing better than defending some po dunk redneck racists murdering someone. All because “BuT BlaCK pEOpLe KiLl BlACk PeOpLe toO!!!”.

Who is defending those idiots? and its not black people kill black people TOO, its 90% of black people are KILLED BY BLACK PEOPLE. Considering that black people are ~12% of the population, if you are black, you are around 7x more likely to be killed by another black person than a white person. SEVEN TIMES MORE LIKELY. Are they all racists too? People in the hood aren't stupid. They know who the real problems are.

Btw - the corollary is true as well - 81% of white homicide is committed by other white people. if you are a white person - Sure, that young black male in front of you is 2-3x more likely to be dangerous than your average white person BUT 8 times out of ten the person that gets you is white also. So the one you need to be more concerned about looks just like you do.

Granted the above could be even further skewed because many Hispanics are included in white statistics but its what we have to go on.

 

[EasternVol]

Nearly every crime in every jurisdiction includes a mental state component. Murder has usually (always?) been graded by the mental state or culpability (negligent homicide, manslaughter, second degree murder, and intentional/malice murder). Other criminal motivations may enhance or supersede the culpability element (felony murder). Sometimes the motivation can also excuse what would otherwise be a crime (justification, defense of others, self defense).

Similarly, various defendant traits or characteristics of crimes are commonly used as enhancements. In Tennessee, if a crime can be shown to have been gang activity or committed by a group, those can be used as enhancing factors. Likewise if the crime involved a firearm. For a time, Carjacking was treated slightly differently than aggravated robbery, even though they’re essentially the same crime. Also in Tennessee, your prior felony record determines the range of your sentence.

I don’t see a functional difference between “hate crimes” and any of these things. It’s not like being hateful is sufficient to get you locked up. It’s usually either an enhancement, a substitute for an element of the underlying crime, or an a new crime that involves an additional element added to existing crimes (which seems functionally the same as an enhancement, to me).

The bottom line is that, as a society, we determined that crimes motivated by the victim’s race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability are especially offensive and those who commit them are deserving of harsher punishment.

I don’t see how that is any different than determining that someone who murders unintentionally as part of an inherently dangerous felony like a robbery or kidnapping, should be confined longer than somebody who kills in the heat of passion that is prompted by sufficient provocation.

These laws are constitutional. They exist to some extent in around 48 states, so it seems like it’s undoubtedly a reflection of a societal determination that had broad support. The defendants still have to be found guilty by a jury. The prosecutor has to prove additional elements. It also seems undeniably prudent to confine people for whom those immutable characteristics are a sufficient motivator to do violence.

I do see a difference between the mental state component you mentioned and the principle behind hate crime laws. And I don't agree with the gang and firearm laws mentioned.
We know that many laws are passed less due to societal determination and more as pandering to special interests, be they corporate or social activist. I don't recall much of a debate on the subject before the laws were enacted.
We have laws against murder, auto theft, extortion, etc. We should use them.

 

[Gandalf]

Nearly every crime in every jurisdiction includes a mental state component. Murder has usually (always?) been graded by the mental state or culpability (negligent homicide, manslaughter, second degree murder, and intentional/malice murder). Other criminal motivations may enhance or supersede the culpability element (felony murder). Sometimes the motivation can also excuse what would otherwise be a crime (justification, defense of others, self defense).

Similarly, various defendant traits or characteristics of crimes are commonly used as enhancements. In Tennessee, if a crime can be shown to have been gang activity or committed by a group, those can be used as enhancing factors. Likewise if the crime involved a firearm. For a time, Carjacking was treated slightly differently than aggravated robbery, even though they’re essentially the same crime. Also in Tennessee, your prior felony record determines the range of your sentence.

I don’t see a functional difference between “hate crimes” and any of these things. It’s not like being hateful is sufficient to get you locked up. It’s usually either an enhancement, a substitute for an element of the underlying crime, or an a new crime that involves an additional element added to existing crimes (which seems functionally the same as an enhancement, to me).

The bottom line is that, as a society, we determined that crimes motivated by the victim’s race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability are especially offensive and those who commit them are deserving of harsher punishment.

I don’t see how that is any different than determining that someone who murders unintentionally as part of an inherently dangerous felony like a robbery or kidnapping, should be confined longer than somebody who kills in the heat of passion that is prompted by sufficient provocation.

These laws are constitutional. They exist to some extent in around 48 states, so it seems like it’s undoubtedly a reflection of a societal determination that had broad support. The defendants still have to be found guilty by a jury. The prosecutor has to prove additional elements. It also seems undeniably prudent to confine people for whom those immutable characteristics are a sufficient motivator to do violence.

I am perfectly fine with using mental state as an enhancement/qualifier to an actual criminal ACT. Where I have issues is trying to criminalize the mental state on its own. Again, you can think what you want but doesnt mean you can DO what you want, especially as it affects other people.

 

[RockyTop85]

I am perfectly fine with using mental state as an enhancement/qualifier to an actual criminal ACT. Where I have issues is trying to criminalize the mental state on its own. Again, you can think what you want but doesnt mean you can DO what you want, especially as it affects other people.

I can’t recall that I’ve ever seen or even heard of a law that criminalizes a state of mind without an actus reus.

 

[EasternVol]

The problem is that you can and do visit the successes of the grandfather on the grandson. You can't say "we acknowledge that things have never been equal, but from this point forward things are going to be equal - now try and catch up with those who have benefited for generations from the inequality."
That's like saying, we know that the first 3 legs of the relay race cheated, but the fourth leg is not going to cheat - now go and catch up with the cheaters.

That would be an argument for affirmative action but not for penal codes.

 

[RockyTop85]

I do see a difference between the mental state component you mentioned and the principle behind hate crime laws. And I don't agree with the gang and firearm laws mentioned.
We know that many laws are passed less due to societal determination and more as pandering to special interests, be they corporate or social activist. I don't recall much of a debate on the subject before the laws were enacted.
We have laws against murder, auto theft, extortion, etc. We should use them.

What is that difference?

 

[EasternVol]

What is that difference?

As you broke it down, intentional / malice murder exists. The hate crime is why it was intentional / with malice so that's different. The penalty should be the same regardless of whether an intentional / malice killing was for money, love, hate, or whatever, all other factors being equal.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Emmett Till agrees that tilted justice is not equal justice. Fifteen year old kid murdered for allegedly whistling at a white woman. I can post the before and after pics if you like.

I live in a town where a group of blacks were massacred because one black man dared to vote, exercising his right as an American citizen.

I probably shouldn’t bother drawing parallels between what used to be excused as justifiable homicide as the foundation as to why hate crime legislation exists today. You can disagree if it’s necessary or not.

But make no mistake, there was a legal double standard in this country with regards to civil rights that was corrected less than 60 years ago.

 

[Lawrence Wright]

Where is all that righteous indignation of yours when it comes to the multitude of black people stalked beaten and murdered every week BY OTHER BLACK PEOPLE in Dem run cities? Go get me some stats on who is the most likely person to kill you if you are black (for that matter, even if you are white or other. If you are Asian, its almost guaranteed to be black)

My righteous indignation in this particular case was reserved for Emmett Till’s killers, who after abducting him, torturing and disfiguring him, and ultimately murdering him and tossing his body in a river, were never brought to justice.

 

[Gandalf]

My righteous indignation in this particular case was reserved for Emmett Till’s killers, who after abducting him, torturing and disfiguring him, and ultimately murdering him and tossing his body in a river, were never brought to justice.

Well then we share that indignation toward Bryant and Milam who admitted this heinous crime after having escaped justice in this life but have since gone on to face it in the next. If anything good can be said to have come of it, however, is that it sparked the civil rights movement that changed many of the unjust laws that were then in force.

 

[82_VOL_83]

One would think that the black male of the race is becoming endangered.

 

[RockyTop85]

As you broke it down, intentional / malice murder exists. The hate crime is why it was intentional / with malice so that's different. The penalty should be the same regardless of whether an intentional / malice killing was for money, love, hate, or whatever, all other factors being equal.

Sorry, that’s not quite what I meant.

I think what you’re referring to is the discussion of felony murder. I did say that was a type of hate crime law, but, in hindsight, I can’t think of any examples of a hate crime that substitutes for another element of a crime, except for felony murder, which would be fairly rare.

Felony murder basically boils down to: Defendant meant to commit some felony and, as a result, the victim died. The defendant’s intent to commit whatever felony is substituted for malice/intent/premeditation. Most places defendant receives a life sentence. Some places you could use a hate crime felony for that, but it would almost always be a strategic misstep for the prosecutor to charge it that way because the hate crime typically corresponds to some other existing crime.

So that leaves two basic types of hate crime laws that I’m familiar with:
1. Freestanding crimes, where the defendant’s crimes would probably (although not necessarily) constitute other crimes, but these statutes have a “hate crime” element. Presumably it would be punished more harshly than similar crimes.

2. Enhancements. In Tennessee, there are two types of enhancements.
A. Enhancements of classification. E.g. if a crime meets the definition of a gang crime, the classification of the crime is enhanced one classification. So a C felony becomes a B felony if the state proves that the characteristics of the offense meet the definition of gang activity. Obviously a B felony is punished more severely. Pretty sure some states do this with hate crimes.
B. Enhancements within a classification: a sentence is adjusted within the range for a given classification of felony. So that C felony has a sentence of 3-15 years, the range is subdivided into ranges based on the defendant’s criminal record and then the sentence moves within that range based on certain enumerated factors. The hate crime motivation can be a factor.

See (17), here:
2021 Tennessee Code :: Title 40 - Criminal Procedure :: Chapter 35 - Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989 :: Part 1 - General Provisions :: § 40-35-114. Enhancement Factors

For the average person, there’s only a whisker’s difference: if the gov’t can prove that you committed a crime because of the victim’s immutable characteristics, you will receive worse punishment.

I believe it is essentially the function of criminal law to create gradations of unacceptable behavior in order to ensure similar results for similarly situated people with proportionately worse results for worse conduct. Within that framework, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that society would deem “hate crimes” to be “worse conduct” worthy of worse punishment.

 

[EasternVol]

Sorry, that’s not quite what I meant.

I think what you’re referring to is the discussion of felony murder. I did say that was a type of hate crime law, but, in hindsight, I can’t think of any examples of a hate crime that substitutes for another element of a crime, except for felony murder, which would be fairly rare.

Felony murder basically boils down to: Defendant meant to commit some felony and, as a result, the victim died. The defendant’s intent to commit whatever felony is substituted for malice/intent/premeditation. Most places defendant receives a life sentence. Some places you could use a hate crime felony for that, but it would almost always be a strategic misstep for the prosecutor to charge it that way because the hate crime typically corresponds to some other existing crime.

So that leaves two basic types of hate crime laws that I’m familiar with:
1. Freestanding crimes, where the defendant’s crimes would probably (although not necessarily) constitute other crimes, but these statutes have a “hate crime” element. Presumably it would be punished more harshly than similar crimes.

2. Enhancements. In Tennessee, there are two types of enhancements.
A. Enhancements of classification. E.g. if a crime meets the definition of a gang crime, the classification of the crime is enhanced one classification. So a C felony becomes a B felony if the state proves that the characteristics of the offense meet the definition of gang activity. Obviously a B felony is punished more severely. Pretty sure some states do this with hate crimes.
B. Enhancements within a classification: a sentence is adjusted within the range for a given classification of felony. So that C felony has a sentence of 3-15 years, the range is subdivided into ranges based on the defendant’s criminal record and then the sentence moves within that range based on certain enumerated factors. The hate crime motivation can be a factor.

See (17), here:
2021 Tennessee Code :: Title 40 - Criminal Procedure :: Chapter 35 - Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989 :: Part 1 - General Provisions :: § 40-35-114. Enhancement Factors

For the average person, there’s only a whisker’s difference: if the gov’t can prove that you committed a crime because of the victim’s immutable characteristics, you will receive worse punishment.

I believe it is essentially the function of criminal law to create gradations of unacceptable behavior in order to ensure similar results for similarly situated people with proportionately worse results for worse conduct. Within that framework, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that society would deem “hate crimes” to be “worse conduct” worthy of worse punishment.

Thank you for the very complete and informative explanation. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't agree with enhancements including hate crime provisions.

 

[Lawrence Wright]