may want to prove their commitment against fighting racism

Ahem… That’s not what I meant. “To”.

That Blacks receive longer penalties hardly disproves my points, as assult is not the same as assault+hate crime.

Also, the decision to bring up hate crime charges or not is made by prosecutors, who I would not expect to be a very fuzzy-liberal group on the whole.

No, but prosecuters often have political ambitions and may want to prove their commitment against fighting racism to non-white voters.

But as it is difficult to make a constitutional law with double standards, the resulting laws won’t reflect such double standards, altough the opinions of people may (of course, most of the time, bias is aginst non-whites, but I suspect the difference in whites making comparatively more hate crimes [that is, crimes that white make are far more likely to be classified as hate crimes] reflects a bias that holds whites as ones who should know better, whereas black crime is seen more as a result of bad social policies, and the outcome of racism against blacks).

Do you have any supporting evidence for this theory?

There’s strong evidence that blacks systematically receive longer sentences than whites for the same crimes (I could provide you with a couple of citations, if you like). I don’t find that consistent with your theory that whites are held more responsible than blacks for their crimes by the justice system. (Although it’s also possible that I’ve misunderstood your theory).

Also, the decision to bring up hate crime charges or not is made by prosecutors, who I would not expect to be a very fuzzy-liberal group on the whole.

But as it is difficult to make a constitutional law with double standards, the resulting laws won’t reflect such double standards, altough the opinions of people may (of course, most of the time, bias is aginst non-whites, but I suspect the difference in whites making comparatively more hate crimes [that is, crimes that white make are far more likely to be classified as hate crimes] reflects a bias that holds whites as ones who should know better, whereas black crime is seen more as a result of bad social policies, and the outcome of racism against blacks).

My best guess is that you’re saying that Rachel shouldn’t have pointed out something so obvious. But this is the internet. You can’t assume that people you don’t know well, who you’re talking to in comments, will know even basic and obvious points.

Damn. You are correct on both counts. I got pissed off at what seemed like a patronizing point to make.

Huh. I suppose I do owe an apology to Rachel.

Should read:

I admit my mistake when it comes to how hate crime statures work.

I do think a certain amount of scepticism on my part considering the motives of hate crime statures is well-justified: I distinctly remember the argument I had with some folks regarding the issue whether non-whites can be racist. It seems that left-leaning answers therein to that question are “no, if they are, it is just internalized racism”, and “yes, but not against whites”.

I’m really not sure what point you’re making. My best guess is that you’re saying that Rachel shouldn’t have pointed out something so obvious. But this is the internet. You can’t assume that people you don’t know well, who you’re talking to in comments, will know even basic and obvious points.

However, the “pathetic” comment was rude, and the point could have been made in a more civil manner, but really, the “whites commit more hate crimes because there are more whites” -comment is pointless — about as relevant as the “Chinese commit more murders than Swedes because there are more of them!”

In other words, it’s okay to disagree, but you should be able to disagree without treating other people like crap.

Yes, but are they charged of hate crimes when they target people that do not belong into a “Protected Minority” (women are not actually a minority, but for legal purposes, they are)? That is, is it even possible?

Tuomas, the “protected minority” language you’re using is not present in any hate crime statute that I know of.

Yes, because these crimes are defined in a certain way (as being specifically crimes against minorities).

To the best of my knowledge, this model of hate crimes - that they establish certain “protected minorities,” and hate crimes cannot be committed against anyone outside of those groups - has no basis in reality. I don’t think the model of hate crimes you describe could even be constitutional, in the US.

Let’s put some facts into this discussion. Here’s the text of Wisconsin’s hate crime statute - which is a very typical example, as far as I know. The relevant passage:

If a person does all of the following, the penalties for the underlying crime are increased as provided in sub. (2):

(a) Commits a crime under chs. 939 to 948.

(b) Intentionally selects the person against whom the crime under par. (a) is committed or selects the property that is damaged or otherwise affected by the crime under par. (a) in whole or in part because of the actor’s belief or perception regarding the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person or the owner or occupant of that property, whether or not the actor’s belief or perception was correct.

There is not a single word there about “protected minorities.” There is not a single word there which says that racially-motivated crimes against white people aren’t hate crimes. Rachel is completely correct when she says that people can be charged with hate crimes for racially-based attacks on whites; you’re completely mistaken to think otherwise.

I really think you owe Rachel an apology.

Tuomas, you are sadly mistaken. Many people charged with hate crimes are people of color. Recently in my country a Black man was convicted of killing a White woman in a hate crime attack.

Yes, but are they charged of hate crimes when they target people that do not belong into a “Protected Minority” (women are not actually a minority, but for legal purposes, they are)? That is, is it even possible?

And I’m not really sure what I should be sad about.

The reason more Whites are charged with hate crimes is because a) there are more White people

Pathetic. I have passed my elementary school maths classes, so I can do comparative analysis on groups of different size by simple division.

b)white people are more likely to commit such crimes.

Yes, because these crimes are defined in a certain way (as being specifically crimes against minorities). As black people commit more violent crimes compared to population (according to FBI statistics), it tells more about the said laws than about white people.

Yes, a hate crime may have a higher maximum sentence than a similar crime perpetrated for another reason, but those sort of crimes would have usually received near maximum sentences for ordinary crimes anyway, while they may be “typical” hate crimes, and hence receive less than maximum sentences in that context.

And, the proper analogy would really be not between burning a cross for heat and burning a cross for hate, but between threatening someone with a burning cross for a personal reason like having an affair with your spouse who is a minister, and threatening someone with a cross burning based hate for their ethnicity. Cross burning statutes generally expressly include, or are judicial interpreted to require, a threat element not present when burning a cross for heat. Cross burning is singled out because when used in a particular way it has acquired a well defined symbolic meaning (get out because I hate you), just like other non-verbal statements, like a red cross or a white flag or ambulance sirens have, over time.

But, the biggest issue is what evidence is relevant. Normally, in a case where someone threatens someone you are only allowed to introduce evidence tending to show that he did or didn’t do it. Character evidence about the Defendant is usually excluded. The jury isn’t told what groups the persons is a part of, or what nasty letters to the editor unrelated to this particular incident and containing no threats, that the person wrote.

But, in a hate crime case, evidence that a crime was motivated by hate will often be admissible, usually in the same trial as other evidence, even though it amounts to little more than evidence of bad character, for example, of associations with racist organizations.

The concern is that even if the jury would otherwise have a reasonable doubt concerning whether or not the defendant committed a crime, that the jury might either: (1) determine that someone who is associated with a racist group is more likely to commit crimes generally, or worse (2) decide that even if he might not have committed this crime, that he deserves to be punished anyway since being a member of a racist group is itself a bad thing. The second option is particular a concern because (2) could not legally be made a crime due to the First Amendment.

There is also a concern about hate crimes laws providing juror backlash (e.g., “I won’t convict because I agree with the Defendant’s anti-gay views and don’t think he should receive extra punishment for that”), and because they may provide an appearance that the prosecutors office is not even handed. In contrast, usually in an ordinary crime case the prosecutor might often say: “Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the Defendant’s views, we can all agree that everyone who does X needs to be punished with Y crime.”

No doubt Mr. Neiwert would argue that hateful motives constitute an aggravating circumstance, inasmuch as he asserts that hate crimes are “quantifiably” more harmful than ordinary crimes, but — and I admit that I have not read his book — that strikes me as a pretty hard row to hoe. A person murdered out of hate is just as dead as a person murdered out of, say, jealousy or rage.

It shows a misunderstanding of the issues to focus exclusively on major crimes, like murder. You’d understand why “domestic terrorism” laws are needed better if you look at relatively minor crimes.

Take two cases of vandalism. In one case, some paints “Frank was here” on the side of a synagogue. In the other case someone paints a swastika on the side of the synagogue.

Would you honestly say that the latter case is no more harmful than the former? Are the two crimes exactly the same, in your eyes?

Mr. Neiwert also misunderstands the crime of voluntary manslaughter, which in most jurisdictions is what you’re convicted of when you commit a murder under some sort of mitigating circumstance. No doubt Mr. Neiwert would argue that hateful motives constitute an aggravating circumstance, inasmuch as he asserts that hate crimes are “quantifiably” more harmful than ordinary crimes, but — and I admit that I have not read his book — that strikes me as a pretty hard row to hoe. A person murdered out of hate is just as dead as a person murdered out of, say, jealousy or rage.

The reason more Whites are charged with hate crimes is because a) there are more White people b)white people are more likely to commit such crimes.

False comparison; the two criminal acts aren’t the same. The analogy is burning a cross on Woody’s lawn because you were cold and the cross was the only wood you had, and burning a cross on his lawn to tell the Jews to get out of town.

Not intending to derail your argument; just pointing out that your supporting anecdote isn’t helpful.