people aren’t allowed to focus on systemic violence against a specific demographic.
I honestly don’t understand why there needs to be segregation (pardon the pun) of effort based on immutable characteristics of the victim. Police brutality, for example, is a problem regardless of the victim, and it takes equal effort to call out and protest etc. against it as a whole as to do so with only one demographic of victim in mind.
When it comes down to it, the action is really what matters, not the motive. Let’s say a white guy is murdered by unjustified ‘overzealous policing’, and a black guy is murdered the same way, but only the latter was motivated by racism. Well, they’re both dead for no good reason, and I don’t see how one can objectively consider the former case as somehow less atrocious than the latter just because there wasn’t racism involved.
The behavior is the true problem, and the only thing focusing on specific motivations for that behavior does, is divide people against each other, that should be in solidarity.
It’s because the behavior disproportionately affects certain demographics, and it’s more efficient to focus on one. Plus, depending on the demographic you might tailor your approach to the issue specifically to it.
It’s kinda like saying, “Why donate to breast cancer research instead of general cancer research?”
Also, hate crime charges exist because the driving force behind them is ideologically based. They exist to try to combat that ideology.
And motive is absolutely a factor in what charges get brought.
You wouldn’t charge someone who lost control of a car and killed someone the same as you would someone who planned and murdered their spouse, even though the end result is someone died. Motivation is a key factor.
it’s more efficient to focus on one [demographic].
No, it literally is not.
Explain how this supposed efficiency manifests, since you disagree. How does focusing on one race of victim reduce police brutality more than focusing on police brutality itself, which takes the exact same amount of effort?
It’s kinda like saying, “Why donate to breast cancer research instead of general cancer research?”
This is a false analogy, because cancers are too different to be accurately described as having a single shared fundamental cause to ‘attack’ with research.
A better analogy would be if someone was arguing for gun control by focusing on only cases where the bullet hits a certain body part. In this analogy, I am the one saying “why aren’t we just focusing on the guns themselves, who cares where people are getting shot, the important thing is that they’re getting shot!”
Also, hate crime charges exist because the driving force behind them is ideologically based. They exist to try to combat that ideology.
But there is no conclusive evidence that a criminal charge being ‘enhanced’ as being a hate crime, versus a non hate crime, has had any measurable impact at all on the incidence of said crimes, it’s basically just an ego stroke that doesn’t actually accomplish anything.[1]
What’s the difference between a murder that’s a ‘hate crime’ versus one that isn’t, really? Is the latter victim any less deceased? Is the latter perpetrator any less deserving of punishment?
And motive is absolutely a factor in what charges get brought.
It should be a factor insofar as whether the crime is deliberate or happenstance, but not beyond that (i.e. whether there IS motivation, but when there is, not WHAT the motivation is). Hot Fuzz satirizes (maybe not deliberately, but coincidentally at least) this well, I think—the townspeople are murdered by the cult for absurdly trivial reasons, like having an annoying laugh. Should that triviality lessen the severity of the crimes?
You wouldn’t charge someone who lost control of a car and killed someone the same as you would someone who planned and murdered their spouse, even though the end result is someone died. Motivation is a key factor.
Right, hence my clarification that the existence of motive makes a difference, but within the umbrella of ‘motivated crimes’, what the motive is should make no difference. I say all ‘motivated’ murders are equally heinous, whether the victim was killed because the murderer is bigoted against their race, or because they hate how the victim laughs.
In fact, it arguably makes things worse, as it gives bigotry within the justice system a stealthy tool of discrimination. I did some cursory poking around that seems to show that black people charged with violent crimes are more likely to have ‘hate crime enhancements’ attached to their charges than white people are. All other factors being equal for the sake of argument, this leads to longer average sentences for black convicts than white, for the same crime. ↩︎
I honestly don’t understand why there needs to be segregation (pardon the pun) of effort based on immutable characteristics of the victim. Police brutality, for example, is a problem regardless of the victim, and it takes equal effort to call out and protest etc. against it as a whole as to do so with only one demographic of victim in mind.
When it comes down to it, the action is really what matters, not the motive. Let’s say a white guy is murdered by unjustified ‘overzealous policing’, and a black guy is murdered the same way, but only the latter was motivated by racism. Well, they’re both dead for no good reason, and I don’t see how one can objectively consider the former case as somehow less atrocious than the latter just because there wasn’t racism involved.
The behavior is the true problem, and the only thing focusing on specific motivations for that behavior does, is divide people against each other, that should be in solidarity.
It’s because the behavior disproportionately affects certain demographics, and it’s more efficient to focus on one. Plus, depending on the demographic you might tailor your approach to the issue specifically to it.
It’s kinda like saying, “Why donate to breast cancer research instead of general cancer research?”
Also, hate crime charges exist because the driving force behind them is ideologically based. They exist to try to combat that ideology.
And motive is absolutely a factor in what charges get brought.
You wouldn’t charge someone who lost control of a car and killed someone the same as you would someone who planned and murdered their spouse, even though the end result is someone died. Motivation is a key factor.
No, it literally is not.
Explain how this supposed efficiency manifests, since you disagree. How does focusing on one race of victim reduce police brutality more than focusing on police brutality itself, which takes the exact same amount of effort?
This is a false analogy, because cancers are too different to be accurately described as having a single shared fundamental cause to ‘attack’ with research.
A better analogy would be if someone was arguing for gun control by focusing on only cases where the bullet hits a certain body part. In this analogy, I am the one saying “why aren’t we just focusing on the guns themselves, who cares where people are getting shot, the important thing is that they’re getting shot!”
But there is no conclusive evidence that a criminal charge being ‘enhanced’ as being a hate crime, versus a non hate crime, has had any measurable impact at all on the incidence of said crimes, it’s basically just an ego stroke that doesn’t actually accomplish anything.[1]
What’s the difference between a murder that’s a ‘hate crime’ versus one that isn’t, really? Is the latter victim any less deceased? Is the latter perpetrator any less deserving of punishment?
It should be a factor insofar as whether the crime is deliberate or happenstance, but not beyond that (i.e. whether there IS motivation, but when there is, not WHAT the motivation is). Hot Fuzz satirizes (maybe not deliberately, but coincidentally at least) this well, I think—the townspeople are murdered by the cult for absurdly trivial reasons, like having an annoying laugh. Should that triviality lessen the severity of the crimes?
Right, hence my clarification that the existence of motive makes a difference, but within the umbrella of ‘motivated crimes’, what the motive is should make no difference. I say all ‘motivated’ murders are equally heinous, whether the victim was killed because the murderer is bigoted against their race, or because they hate how the victim laughs.
In fact, it arguably makes things worse, as it gives bigotry within the justice system a stealthy tool of discrimination. I did some cursory poking around that seems to show that black people charged with violent crimes are more likely to have ‘hate crime enhancements’ attached to their charges than white people are. All other factors being equal for the sake of argument, this leads to longer average sentences for black convicts than white, for the same crime. ↩︎