NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.physorg.com/news102591950.html

Nearly four in 10 gay men and about one in eight lesbians and bisexuals in the United States have been the target of violence or a property crime because of their sexual orientation, according to a new study by University of California, Davis, psychology professor Gregory Herek.

“This is the most reliable estimate to date of the prevalence of anti-gay victimization in the United States,” Herek said. “The data demonstrate that crimes against sexual minority adults, especially gay men, are disturbingly widespread.”

Herek’s findings were based on a survey he conducted in the fall of 2005 with a nationally representative sample of 662 self-identified gay men, lesbians and bisexuals. The study will be published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

Overall, 21 percent of the people in the survey reported being the victim of violence or a property crime -- including physical assault, sexual assault, theft and vandalism -- because of their sexual orientation. In addition, 49 percent said they had been verbally abused because of their sexual orientation, 23 percent reported being threatened with violence, 12.5 percent reported having objects thrown at them, and 11 percent reported housing or job discrimination.

“These data highlight the continuing need for criminal justice programs to prevent and deter anti-gay crimes, as well as the need for victim services that will help to alleviate the physical, economic, social and psychological consequences of such crimes,” Herek said.

The study found significantly different rates of victimization among gay men, lesbians and bisexuals. More than a third of the gay men said they had experienced violence or property crime because of their sexual orientation, or about three times the proportion of lesbians and bisexuals. Gay men also reported the highest rates of harassment and verbal abuse. And gay men and lesbians reported two to four times more housing and job discrimination than bisexuals. The disparities persisted after Herek controlled statistically for age, race, ethnicity and education.

“Men are generally more likely than women to be the targets of most kinds of violent crime, and this pattern seems to hold in anti-gay hate crimes as well,” Herek said. “The gay men and lesbians in the study were much more likely than the bisexual men and women to be open about their sexual orientation. Their greater visibility probably also makes them easier targets for discrimination than bisexuals.”

Survey respondents were randomly selected from a panel of more than 40,000 U.S. households maintained by Knowledge Networks, a survey research firm. The firm recruits panel members via standard telephone sampling methods; in return for regularly completing online surveys, the panel members receive free Internet equipment and access.

Previous studies of anti-gay hate crimes have relied on samples that were smaller or not representative of the U.S. population, Herek reported.

In the new study, survey respondents had an average age of 39. Most had attended some college. Two thirds were white, 16 percent black and 12.5 percent Hispanic.

Source: University of California - Davis

Four out of ten homosexual men and one out of eight homosexual women and bisexual people are the target of hate crimes in the United States...I had no idea it was this bad. It's really quite sickening and it disgusts me how people can hate so easily. For a while I was on the fence on the hate crimes law stuff, because while I dislike crimes based in hate I'm not sure they should be treated as something harsher than a normal crime.

But now, I see quite differently...the severity is so shocking and disgraceful...I'm sure there are plenty out there who would say this makes them proud to be an American...and right now, I am ashamed of my country.

I'm no statistician, but doesn't 662 seem a bit small to be a nationally representative sample size?

I'm no statistician, but doesn't 662 seem a bit small to be a nationally representative sample size?

Depends on how they were chosen.

Yes we need the hate crime laws but we also need to look at each crime individually before assuming it is a hate crime. That's the core problem between regular criminal law and hate law - when does it become a "hate" crime?

Some guy pulls a knife on two females and demands their wallets. They two happen to be lesbians. They give them the money and he leaves.

Is this a hate crime or just plain theft?

Yes, it's important to have those kinds of laws but when enforcing them we need to apply them to situations that are truly "hate" crime situations and not just normal crime where the victim happens to fit into a group that is a popular target for hate crimes.

Depends on how they were chosen.

True, the number just struck me as, well, small when considering the national population of homosexuals.

Yes we need the hate crime laws but we also need to look at each crime individually before assuming it is a hate crime. That's the core problem between regular criminal law and hate law - when does it become a "hate" crime?

Some guy pulls a knife on two females and demands their wallets. They two happen to be lesbians. They give them the money and he leaves.

Is this a hate crime or just plain theft?

Just plain theft. Not tough at all.

Yes we need the hate crime laws but we also need to look at each crime individually before assuming it is a hate crime.

are you under the impression that this is not done now?

I'm no statistician, but doesn't 662 seem a bit small to be a nationally representative sample size?

No. In fact, proportionally it's quite a bit larger than the normal sample size used for the U.S.

Were the criminals not prosecuted?

The only thing that can be reasonably implied by this is that they make easier targets.

First and foremost, I'd like to point out that it is nearly impossible to know exactly who is and is not a homosexual without being explicably told so. Granted, we can give educated guesses. But you can't definitively know unless the homosexual tells you so.

So if these homosexuals are being targeted, then they are probably active homosexuals, and having gay sex, and letting everyone know it, which is outright abhorrent in my eyes.

However, I do agree that such violence against them, or anyone, is quite detestable, especially in light of the Catechism verse 2358:

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.


However, I disagree with hate legislation in general. Hate legislation generally speaking only increases the penalties of already existent crimes. Why should someone who kills a gay recieve a stiffer punishment than someone who kills a straight?

That's reverse discrimination.

The only thing that can be reasonably implied by this is that they make easier targets.

I think you should look up the word "reasonably".

However, I disagree with hate legislation in general. Hate legislation generally speaking only increases the penalties of already existent crimes. Why should someone who kills a gay recieve a stiffer punishment than someone who kills a straight?

That's reverse discrimination.

Hate crimes do not work that way.

However, I disagree with hate legislation in general. Hate legislation generally speaking only increases the penalties of already existent crimes. Why should someone who kills a gay recieve a stiffer punishment than someone who kills a straight?

That's reverse discrimination.
Only if applied like that. If some one kills a gay person because they are gay, he committed a hate crime. Likewise if some one killed a straight person for the same reason. They should be punished more as an example.

Hate crimes do not work that way.
You forgot the picture of Morbo
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/8830/nothowitworkswp2.jpg

Were the criminals not prosecuted?

I believe the point is that these crimes happen to begin with so is the point of needing a hate crimes law. Of course I thought most states had one to begin with so I don't see what the problem is.

It's already a crime to physically hurt and threaten other people. These things don't need to be called hate crimes in order to be dealt with.

Only if applied like that. If some one kills a gay person because they are gay, he committed a hate crime. Likewise if some one killed a straight person for the same reason. They should be punished more as an example.

But why should "because they are gay" be a reason to punish someone more than absolutely any other motivation? I'm gonna have to side with South Park on this one, saying "every violent crime is a hate crime."

I don't see how "Hey, I don't like what he's doing in the bedroom" is any worse a reason than shoot someone in the face than "Hey, I want his money."

But why should "because they are gay" be a reason to punish someone more than absolutely any other motivation? I'm gonna have to side with South Park on this one, saying "every violent crime is a hate crime."

I don't see how "Hey, I don't like what he's doing in the bedroom" is any worse a reason than shoot someone in the face than "Hey, I want his money."
Because there is a difference.

The way I see it, if the victim can show that there was intent to cause harm to them due to a perceived notion of homosexuality, whether or not that person is actually homosexual, it becomes a hate crime. Simple and easy enough.

The reason I posted is that a lot of new hate crimes legislation is being heavily lobbied against by a lot of people, especially those who, like me, thought it might not have even been necessary, and so this thread was an attempt to inform such people that their perception was incorrect.

I believe the point is that these crimes happen to begin with so is the point of needing a hate crimes law. Of course I thought most states had one to begin with so I don't see what the problem is.

The fact that something is against the law is rarely a deterrent for criminals.

But why should "because they are gay" be a reason to punish someone more than absolutely any other motivation? I'm gonna have to side with South Park on this one, saying "every violent crime is a hate crime."

I don't see how "Hey, I don't like what he's doing in the bedroom" is any worse a reason than shoot someone in the face than "Hey, I want his money."

Well, if motive doesn't matter, let's stop differentiating from first and second degree murder. And between murder and manslaughter. And between murder and justifiable homicide. And between murder and killing in self-defense. All of those are differentiated by motive.

Yes we need the hate crime laws but we also need to look at each crime individually before assuming it is a hate crime. That's the core problem between regular criminal law and hate law - when does it become a "hate" crime?

Some guy pulls a knife on two females and demands their wallets. They two happen to be lesbians. They give them the money and he leaves.

Is this a hate crime or just plain theft?

Yes, it's important to have those kinds of laws but when enforcing them we need to apply them to situations that are truly "hate" crime situations and not just normal crime where the victim happens to fit into a group that is a popular target for hate crimes.

Yeah. Otherwise some dickhead like Isaiah Washington will cry "Waah! Hate crime!!!11" when mugged.

Well, if motive doesn't matter, let's stop differentiating from first and second degree murder. And between murder and manslaughter. And between murder and justifiable homicide. And between murder and killing in self-defense. All of those are differentiated by motive.

Sure, why not. Though self defense cannot be considered even remotely the same as actual murder. When a criminal decides to attack someone their own life is forfeit.

Why do two identical crimes deserved to be punished differently because of the race or sexual orientation or opinions of the victim or perpetrator?

Well, if motive doesn't matter, let's stop differentiating from first and second degree murder. And between murder and manslaughter. And between murder and justifiable homicide. And between murder and killing in self-defense. All of those are differentiated by motive.

But the differentiation between first degree, second degree, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, and self defense are not motivation.

The differentiation between them are combinations of intent and ability to consent to the crime. According to my stepfather, intent is the vast majority of criminal law.

The differentiation between first and second degree murder is whether or not the crime was pre meditated. If a crime is premeditated, then there is more likelihood of that person having been able to consent to performing the crime. There is a higher likelihood that the person intended to do what he did.

In manslaughter, however, the "murderer" didn't intend to kill anyone. He only intended, say, to kick his ass. The fact that the person died is entirely accidental. There was no consent or intent of that person to kill someone. However, he did intend to harm that person. However, it was in the heat of the moment.

Justifiable homicide, further, has nothing to do with motivation. It has everything to do with intent. A person who commits justifiable homicide isn't intending to commit a crime. The person is intending to stop a felony. The death is per accidens.

Same with self defense.

However, to your retort, I have another:

If you want to go into "motivation," then you should admit that some motivations should carry LESS of a penalty. Surely, a person who kills his wife because she committed adultery should be FAR less punished the person who kills his wife because she nagged too much?

Sure, why not. Though self defense cannot be considered even remotely the same as actual murder.

if motive doesn't matter and the outcome is the same, how not?

Yeah. Otherwise some dickhead like Isaiah Washington will cry "Waah! Hate crime!!!11" when mugged.

This is what makes "hate" crime laws a problem. It's not the crime itself but rather how the victim reacts. These laws are good in their intent but when applied may not be applied right.

I know some people think I was being stupid or naive with my post but, I do believe that there are cases where it looks like a hate crime but may not actually be a hate crime but rather just a crime that has nothing to do with the person's sexuality or race or religion.

This is proven through "intent". Of course, the prosecution can twist it to make it look like the intent was spawned from hate rather than something else.

A good example of this would be a South Park episode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartman%27s_Silly_Hate_Crime_2000) where Cartman is a dick towards Token (he threw a rock at Token after Token called him "fat") and gets charged with a hate crime, even though it was just Cartman being a dick and not a racist (which is he portrayed as in other episodes).

If you want to go into "motivation," then you should admit that some motivations should carry LESS of a penalty. Surely, a person who kills his wife because she committed adultery should be FAR less punished the person who kills his wife because she nagged too much?
Why should they be? Did adultery become a crime when I was asleep?

If you want to go into "motivation," then you should admit that some motivations should carry LESS of a penalty. Surely, a person who kills his wife because she committed adultery should be FAR less punished the person who kills his wife because she nagged too much?

Maybe not FAR less punished, but definitely lighter punishment, yeah. Judges should have wide discretion in determining sentencing.

has nothing to do with motivation. It has everything to do with intent.

even allowing for a distinction between motivation and intent, hate crimes clearly have different intent than the crimes they superficially resemble.

Why should they be? Did adultery become a crime when I was asleep?

And has homosexuality become meritorious while I slept?

If according to you the penalties of crimes cannot be decreased according to motivation, then why should they be increased according to motivation?

Surely, a person who kills his wife because she committed adultery should be FAR less punished the person who kills his wife because she nagged too much?

take your misogyny elsewhere

And has homosexuality become meritorious while I slept?
Christian moral gibbering is irrelevant.

If according to you the penalties of crimes cannot be decreased according to motivation, then why should they be increased according to motivation?
I think you missed the point.

even allowing for a distinction between motivation and intent, hate crimes clearly have different intent than the crimes they superficially resemble.

Criminal law punishes crimes ipso facto, does it not?

take your misogyny elsewhere

Ok, then reverse the roles, and lets call them gay. Surely, if a gay lover man kills his gay lover man because that gay lover man turned out to be bi and had sex with some woman that the gay lover man hated. Should he be punished less than a guy who kills someone because he merely didn't like his face?

take your misogyny elsewhere
I really don't see how it's misogyny. Most people that get married are pretty much agreeing not to have sex with anyone but each other. When that trust is breached, sometimes people do horrible things in the heat of the moment.

I'm reminded of that woman who ran over her husband when she caught him with his mistress a few years back. I'm fairly certain she got a very reduced sentence.

Criminal law punishes crimes ipso facto, does it not?

I think you are trying to dodge the issue by using latin phrases.

Surely, a person who kills his wife because she committed adultery should be FAR less punished the person who kills his wife because she nagged too much?

No. It's still her body.

Adultery is something you can divorce for.

Ok, then reverse the roles, and lets call them gay. Surely, if a gay lover man kills his gay lover man because that gay lover man turned out to be bi and had sex with some woman that the gay lover man hated. Should he be punished less than a guy who kills someone because he merely didn't like his face?
Well it would be a crime of passion, so yeah, it probably would be. Intent is relevant in distinguishing one crime from another.

I think you are trying to dodge the issue by using latin phrases.

By the act itself. Criminal law punishes by the act itself, or "secundum factum ipsum" (according to act itself)."

The judge must ask three questions:

What happened?
Did the person intend to do it, and to what degree?
Was he able to fully consent to it, and to what degree?

That's it.

Well it would be a crime of passion, so yeah, it probably would be. Intent is relevant in distinguishing one crime from another.

Except, it's only a crime of passion if the gay lover man walks in on them having sex. If he knows they are having sex, and plots to kill his gay lover man, then it's still first degree. If he knows they are having sex, and he confronts his gay lover, they have a fight, and he kills him in the heat of the moment...that's still manslaughter.

Except, it's only a crime of passion if the gay lover man walks in on them having sex. If he knows they are having sex, and plots to kill his gay lover man, then it's still first degree. If he knows they are having sex, and he confronts his gay lover, they have a fight, and he kills him in the heat of the moment...that's still manslaughter.
Differentiating after the fact wins you no points.

I would like to argue the point of what exactly a hate crime is. From my understanding and from dictionary.com; a hate crime is "a crime, usually violent, motivated by prejudice or intolerance toward a member of a gender, racial, religious, or social group." Now if someone is sleeping with my wife and I catch him, wouldn't you say I hate this person. So if I were to assault him I would be committing a hate crime because he is a male sleeping with my wife. So I am committing a crime based on his gender and my intolerance for him sleeping with my wife. So I know this example will be picked apart so I ask you to look for your own. I know there are better examples. But I do not like laws that require me to think a certain way or feel a certain way about a person. Granted I dont think you should be able to go out and assault someone for being gay or asian or white. But I don't see how that would be different from assaulting someone for revenge or greed or money. An assault is an assault. It should be judged on the degree of injury and violence used, not the race or gender of the person assaulted. I hate lazy people, so if I get into a fight with a lazy person is that a hate crime. No. I got in a fight with the lazy person because he threw trash in my park (or whatever scenario you want). A crime is a crime. Most of them are motivated by hate or anger. So don't put special circumstances based upon race, creed, gender. The punishment should be based on the nature of the injury (ie death of victim, income loss of victime, emotional suffering of victim). Let me know what yall think of my arguement. It is just for debate. Not a personal attack on anyone so don't respond with "you fucking stupid" or some other dumb statement. Lets have a discussion.

Differentiating after the fact wins you no points.

The point I am making is that motivation is utterly irrelevent. Even in the case of "crime of passion," the motivation is utterly irrelevent. Crime of passion merely denotes that the person performed an action without full consent of the will. It's basically the same as "temporary insanity."

I really don't see how it's misogyny. Most people that get married are pretty much agreeing not to have sex with anyone but each other. When that trust is breached, sometimes people do horrible things in the heat of the moment.

I'm reminded of that woman who ran over her husband when she caught him with his mistress a few years back. I'm fairly certain she got a very reduced sentence.

No one who paid any attention to the thread would have seen it as misogyny, but in the whine-bitch-moan "lifestyle" of certain posters, something to whine, bitch, or cry about has to be extracted from as many posts as possible, regardless of what the poster is actually taking about.

Hence, an example showing that intent/motivation/state of mind is taken into account in other parts of criminal prosecution and punishment is dishonestly (and it was dishonest - no reasonable / intelligent person would have apprehended it to be a statement of misogyny, it is lying to pretend it is) posited to be an objectionable misogynist assertion, so that a poster can whine, bitch or cry and assume an imaginary moral high ground, as well as graffiti the thread and direct it away from a worthwhile course of discussion.

The point I am making is that motivation is utterly irrelevent.
Ok fine, let's disregard motivation. The problem is intent. For a hate crime, the intent is to not only cause the result, but also a fear of the result in like persons.

If he knows they are having sex, and he confronts his gay lover, they have a fight, and he kills him in the heat of the moment...that's still manslaughter.
But it isn't Murder.

PS. Nice try, Gens Romae puppet... I mean Sacred Property, but you missed the important words of "intolerance" and "prejudice." Unless of course you are arguing that finding some one else sleeping with your wife makes you intolerant of or prejudiced against all men.

No one who paid any attention to the thread would have seen it as misogyny, but in the whine-bitch-moan "lifestyle" of certain posters, something to whine, bitch, or cry about has to be extracted from as many posts as possible, regardless of what the poster is actually taking about.

Hence, an example showing that intent/motivation/state of mind is taken into account in other parts of criminal prosecution and punishment is dishonestly (and it was dishonest - no reasonable / intelligent person would have apprehended it to be a statement of misogyny, it is lying to pretend it is) posited to be an objectionable misogynist assertion, so that a poster can whine, bitch or cry and assume an imaginary moral high ground, as well as graffiti the thread and direct it away from a worthwhile course of discussion.

Yeah. Don't know how many threads I don't even bother posting in after I see that they've just become a bunch of semantic bullshit.

Originally Posted by Gens Romae
If you want to go into "motivation," then you should admit that some motivations should carry LESS of a penalty. Surely, a person who kills his wife because she committed adultery should be FAR less punished the person who kills his wife because she nagged too much?Maybe not FAR less punished, but definitely lighter punishment, yeah. Judges should have wide discretion in determining sentencing.

This is a false comparison, by both of you.

Neither the woman who nags nor the woman who commits adultery has committed an offense worthy of death. The man who kills her for either deserves maximum punishment because he killed someone just because she did something he didn't like.

To make the comparison valid: The man who kills his wife for cheating on him versus the man who kills his wife to stop her from smothering their baby to death. The first is murder because "she did something I did not like" is not accepted as a justification. The second is justifiable homicide because it is in defense of another's life.

The why of a crime matters because it does. There are lots of reasons why it matters, for lots of different kinds of crime. Motivation matters in determining the severity of the crime and even whether a crime actually occurred. And if we are to live in a just society in which punishment and crime are seen to be even with each other, then determining the severity of a crime is vital to determining the severity of the punishment.

We have to keep in mind that this part of criminal justice doesn't really have all that much to do with the specific crimes themselves. They are more about the kind of society we are trying to build for us all to share, and the degree to which it is determined that the crime damages the desired social structure, to that degree the severity of the crime is increased. That seems to be the reasoning, at any rate. I am not 100% certain hate crime laws are the way to go, or that there is not a good argument against using the criminal justice system for social engineering. But I have a hard time arguing against it in the face of such wide-spread, violent bigotry which tries to justify itself by declaring, "but he was just a fag!"

Ok fine, let's disregard motivation. The problem is intent. For a hate crime, the intent is to not only cause the result, but also a fear of the result in like persons.

That's not a hate crime. That's terrorism.


PS. Nice try, Gens Romae puppet... I mean Sacred Property,

Who?

but you missed the important words of "intolerance" and "prejudice." Unless of course you are arguing that finding some one else sleeping with your wife makes you intolerant of or prejudiced against all men.

Neither intolerance nor prejudice are punishable offenses, man.

That's not a hate crime. That's terrorism.

Not everything is terrorism.

Neither the woman who nags nor the woman who commits adultery has committed an offense worthy of death.
Duh?

This is a false comparison, by both of you.

Neither the woman who nags nor the woman who commits adultery has committed an offense worthy of death. The man who kills her for either deserves maximum punishment because he killed someone just because she did something he didn't like.

To make the comparison valid: The man who kills his wife for cheating on him versus the man who kills his wife to stop her from smothering their baby to death. The first is murder because "she did something I did not like" is not accepted as a justification. The second is justifiable homicide because it is in defense of another's life.

You are missing the point. I am not talking about things being either within the realm of crime or non crime. I am not saying it shouldn't be a crime for an adulteress to be killed. I am talking about things being within the realm soley of that of being a crime.

Hate crime legislation basically takes that which already is a crime, and increases the penalty based on motivation.

The point I am making is that, if a crime can be increased by motivation, then shouldn't it also be reduced by other motivations? For example, as I pointed out earlier, for vengeance of some grave non crime personal offense.

How do hate crimes actually stem the flow of these crimes? I mean, it's still a crime to assault someone, yet these people still do it..

Hate crime legislation basically takes that which already is a crime, and increases the penalty based on motivation.
And intent.
As much as I hate to cite some one like Rehnquist, he makes a point
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States#Hate_crime_laws_debate

The point I am making is that, if a crime can be increased by motivation, then shouldn't it also be reduced by other motivations? Not morally defined ones.

Duh?
May I take it that "Duh?" means that you acknowledge and agree that the original comparison example I was talking about was invalid in the context of this thread? And thus -- if you need to have all the dots connected -- there would be no justification for giving a man a lesser sentence for killing his wife because she cheated on him, as opposed to if he killed her because she nagged. Neither of those is an excuse for killing someone.

Whereas, if he killed her to prevent her committing another grievous crime (killing their baby) then he should not be punished to the same extent as if he had killed her because she made him angry. Get it?

For further instance, in the case of the woman who got a reduced sentence -- possibly for having acted under emotional distress -- for running over her husband because he cheated on her, I think that was wrongly decided. She should not have gotten lesser punishment for that. I would not consider that just.

I'm no statistician, but doesn't 662 seem a bit small to be a nationally representative sample size?

Nope its a bit more then they needed actually

May I take it that "Duh?" means that you acknowledge and agree that the original comparison example I was talking about was invalid in the context of this thread? And thus -- if you need to have all the dots connected -- there would be no justification for giving a man a lesser sentence for killing his wife because she cheated on him, as opposed to if he killed her because she nagged. Neither of those is an excuse for killing someone.

Whereas, if he killed her to prevent her committing another grievous crime (killing their baby) then he should not be punished to the same extent as if he had killed her because she made him angry. Get it?

For further instance, in the case of the woman who got a reduced sentence -- possibly for having acted under emotional distress -- for running over her husband because he cheated on her, I think that was wrongly decided. She should not have gotten lesser punishment for that. I would not consider that just.
Meh. It's all about motive for me.

And intent.
As much as I hate to cite some one like Rehnquist, he makes a point
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States#Hate_crime_laws_debate

His quote has nothing to do with intent, man.

Not morally defined ones.

I didn't say anything about moral definitions. Whether or not you accept that adultery is moral or immoral, you can't deny that most people take grave personal offense when it is commited.

The only thing that can be reasonably implied by this is that they make easier targets.

I was put in the hospital for over a month after I got stabbed by four guys down town (3 years ago last month)

I took all four of them to the hospital with me even though I was unarmed and they stabbed me without warning

pfft easy target my ass


Either way your definition of "reasonable" is fucked up.

His quote has nothing to do with intent, man.

But it has to do with the topic at hand.


I didn't say anything about moral definitions. Whether or not you accept that adultery is moral or immoral, you can't deny that most people take grave personal offense when it is commited.
How is that relevant to hate crimes? Did some one take "grave personal offense" to some one being another race or gender?

This is what makes "hate" crime laws a problem. It's not the crime itself but rather how the victim reacts. These laws are good in their intent but when applied may not be applied right.

It's a tricky problem. Not something I'd trust the American legal system with.

snip

You have completely missed the point. Reread my posts. Read especially the posts I wrote before you chimed in. Then, when realization dawns upon you like a lightswitch, strike yourself in the forehead.

You have completely missed the point. Reread my posts. Read especially the posts I wrote before you chimed in. Then, when realization dawns upon you like a lightswitch, strike yourself in the forehead.
So you concede your tirade about adultery is irrelevant to a hate crime legislation discussion?

You are missing the point. I am not talking about things being either within the realm of crime or non crime. I am not saying it shouldn't be a crime for an adulteress to be killed. I am talking about things being within the realm soley of that of being a crime.
I'm sorry, but the only sentence that makes sense in this paragraph is the one in which you assure us that you do not think it should be a crime to kill an adulteress. Are you sure that's what you mean? And what does the rest mean? Please rephrase.

Hate crime legislation basically takes that which already is a crime, and increases the penalty based on motivation.
Yes, and I said that in my post. And everyone else has been saying that as well. I think we all get that. I also questioned whether it is the right course to take even as I laid out what I think are the reasons behind taking it. I also mentioned why, although I don't 100% support hate crime law, I might be willing to tolerate it in the face of social injustices I see around me.

The point I am making is that, if a crime can be increased by motivation, then shouldn't it also be reduced by other motivations?
For example, as I pointed out earlier, for vengeance of some grave non crime personal offense.
It already is. Acceptable motivations that reduce the severity of a crime include such things as:

1) Protecting oneself or another. Even if the threat is not real, if the person honestly and sincerely perceives a threat, then the motivation justification applies. "I thought he was reaching for a gun" is an acceptable motivation to shoot first, if other evidence tends to support that statement and make it seem reasonable. Similarly, "I thought he was going to kill me" has been accepted as a justifying motive even for burning a man to death -- referencing a case many years ago that gave the world "battered wife syndrome." This can be applied to reduce the severity of crimes against property as well -- "I broke in and stole the food because I was starving" erases a crime of burglary or looting. Hence, in the midst of the Katrina disaster, breaking into stores to get food and water was officially designated as not a crime under circumstances because life is valued more highly than property.

2) Lack of malicious intent. Manslaughter is a less severe crime than murder because the death was either a total accident or it was an unintended outcome of another action. In either case, the death of the victim was not the desired end, but the fact that the deliberate acts that caused it were either reckless or themselves criminal makes the killing manslaughter, rather than an accident for which there is no criminal charge at all. But manslaughter sentences are typically far less severe than murder sentences because deliberately choosing to kill a person is seen to damage society far more than accidentally killing a person.

3) Insanity/extreme distress. Some people find this one controversial, but the reasoning behind it is that a person who is mentally ill or who has suffered such extreme stress/trauma that it has actually deranged their thinking, if only temporarily, does not have the capacity to make logical decisions or to understand the impact of their actions on the real world, and this presumably reduces the intent factor of their crimes, which accordingly reduces the severity of their punishment. This one might conceivably apply to your personal revenge scenario. For instance, a woman who murders the man who raped her might receive a lesser sentence than a woman who murders an unfaithful boyfriend.

BUT that is a much harder case to make because there is nothing necessary about revenge. Nobody ever died from not taking revenge against their enemies. Just like nobody ever died from leaving people they don't like alone. So to argue that "he/she really upset me and that's why I killed him/her" one would have to demonstrate pretty forcefully that the extent of upset was such that one had no ability to control their own actions or understand the consequences of them.

Such arguments have been made in courts, and sometimes they work and sometimes they don't, depending on lots of different factors. I personally do not accept such arguments. Hard-hearted as it might seem, I personally think the woman who murders her rapist after the fact, should do the same time as any other self-interested murderer. The fact is, if he wasn't raping her at the time that she killed him (which would be self-defense), then she killed him because she wanted to. For instance, I might be the kind of person who would seek out and revenge-murder a man who raped me, but I would then plead guilty to my crime. Having got what I wanted, I would pay the price for it.

Meh. It's all about motive for me.
Moderation in all things (except tequila ;)). It's only partly about motive for me.

UT! I'm running late for a dinner date. I'll catch up with this thread later. Interested to see where it goes.

For the record, I wasn't talking about the difference between crime and non crime in the same act. Y'all are completely missing the point.

UT! I'm running late for a dinner date. I'll catch up with this thread later. Interested to see where it goes.

Ill watch for a reply :)

I think you should look up the word "reasonably".

Yup, all this showed is that homosexuals were victims at a higher rate than other groups examined.

The criminals may well not know they are attacking gays, the data only shows that gays are attacked more.

There is no statistical way to determine the motives of all the assailants and no reasonable way to, unless there was just one assailant and he confessed to doing it because they were gay and not because they were easy marks for assault and robbery.

Statistics are alarming but they are not everything.

I think a major problem with the survey is the fact that the victims themselves report whether they have been a victim of a "hate crime". I think the legal definition of a hate crime is one that is done in such a manner as to evidence an intent on behalf of the perpetrator to scare a particular community (be it gay, minority, etc). I didn't see the questions and how they were asked, but it seems to me from the article that the survey was written in such a way as to determine how many people FEEL they were the victim of a hate crime. And a survey based on people's feeling isn't a very good thing to base legislation on. I'm afraid this survey will be misused.

If two guys get in an argument at the bar and one says "you f*g" before he hits the other one, it is NOT a hate crime. A true hate crime is sorta like terrorism, but on a smaller scale. For example, a group of morons decide to find the first homosexual they can and beat him up, then spraypainting "f*g" next to him as he lays there.

I will admit that the results of the survey are disturbing. But to me, it is disturbing b/c it shows that there are some ignorant people out there that treat others poorly based on something that really should be of no consequence. I don't mind legislation against burning crosses in the neighbor's yard, spraypainting mean things on a business owned by homosexuals, etc. But I do mind hate crimes legislation b/c of the chance that it would get applied in a manner that is whimsical or based on the political leanings of a rogue prosecutor. And I don't give a rat's behind if somebody killed my friend b/c he had Nike shoes or b/c he was gay, they should be punished equally. Hate crime laws that aren't written strongly in order to avoid uneven application or abuse of prosecutorial discretion are a step in the direction of the state trying to criminalize a person's thoughts. It is not a crime to be a bigot, it is a crime to hurt somebody.

I was put in the hospital for over a month after I got stabbed by four guys down town (3 years ago last month)

I took all four of them to the hospital with me even though I was unarmed and they stabbed me without warning

pfft easy target my ass


Either way your definition of "reasonable" is fucked up.

Are you implying that they knew you were gay?

If you in any way allowed them to be aware that you were gay while they were targeting gays, then YES, you made an easy target. As simple as being Black in the South, White in the city or rich in a poor neighborhood will also get you targeted.

Whatever they did to you had far more to do with how they behave than how you behave, however I find it unusual that you were unaware that male homosexuality is a highly contested and volatile political issue to many people and that like you they act on their beliefs. I find it hard to believe that you didn't know people were targeted for everything from the beliefs, finances and skin color.

The guys targeting you are far more upset at some stereotype than any individual they accost. You live in a culture that paints most male homosexuals as being feminine in nature, harmless by design or simply a comic element on sitcoms and were surprised somehow by your being selected.

P.S. I liked the way you tried to make that seem like I believed gays were easy to attack as opposed to what I wrote which was that they are easy targets according to the stats.

First and foremost, I'd like to point out that it is nearly impossible to know exactly who is and is not a homosexual without being explicably told so. Granted, we can give educated guesses. But you can't definitively know unless the homosexual tells you so.It wouldn't matter, as far as a hate crime goes, whether or not the victim is homosexual or whether the victim is perceived as being homosexual by the attacker and that perception is why the attack happened.

It's already a crime to physically hurt and threaten other people. These things don't need to be called hate crimes in order to be dealt with.Clearly they do, if people are being physically hurt and threatened at disproportionate rates to the general population.

I would like to argue the point of what exactly a hate crime is. From my understanding and from dictionary.com; a hate crime is "a crime, usually violent, motivated by prejudice or intolerance toward a member of a gender, racial, religious, or social group." Now if someone is sleeping with my wife and I catch him, wouldn't you say I hate this person. So if I were to assault him I would be committing a hate crime because he is a male sleeping with my wife. No, you'd be committing a crime because he slept with your wife.
Where is the group of people you hate and wish to harm? People who have slept with your wife?

That's not a hate crime. That's terrorism.There is a distinction between hate crimes and terrorism, but hate crimes contain elements of terrorism.

Are you implying that they knew you were gay?

If you in any way allowed them to be aware that you were gay while they were targeting gays, then YES, you made an easy target. As simple as being Black in the South, White in the city or rich in a poor neighborhood will also get you targeted.

Whatever they did to you had far more to do with how they behave than how you behave, however I find it unusual that you were unaware that male homosexuality is a highly contested and volatile political issue to many people and that like you they act on their beliefs. I find it hard to believe that you didn't know people were targeted for everything from the beliefs, finances and skin color.

The guys targeting you are far more upset at some stereotype than any individual they accost. You live in a culture that paints most male homosexuals as being feminine in nature, harmless by design or simply a comic element on sitcoms and were surprised somehow by your being selected.

P.S. I liked the way you tried to make that seem like I believed gays were easy to attack as opposed to what I wrote which was that they are easy targets according to the stats.
Yo like that? well thats how I took it ... sorry if your post was ambiguous but...

As far as it goes yeah they must have saw me and my boyfriend earlier as far as steriotypes go I hardly fit it I am a 6'4" 250 pound farm boy who dresses like that

Either way you hardly expect to get attacked in the middle of small town minnesota. You may find it "hard to believe" that I would not think of that but nothing like that ever frigging happens around here

This is not like I was in chicago and should have known better. I grew up in a town of less then 1000 people

I oppose hate crime laws. People who commit the same crime should receive the same punishment, regardless of motive. Example: If a guy shoots and kills someone because of his skin color, how is that any worse than if he shot and killed someone for a reason unrelated to skin color? It doesn't matter why he committed the crime, he should be punished the same regardless.

I oppose hate crime laws. People who commit the same crime should receive the same punishment, regardless of motive. Example: If a guy shoots and kills someone because of his skin color, how is that any worse than if he shot and killed someone for a reason unrelated to skin color? It doesn't matter why he committed the crime, he should be punished the same regardless.

Motive has always been a massive part of our legal system

You think someone who accidentally shoots someone should be locked away the same as someone who stabs their victim 43 times in the body and face before cutting the tung out and eating it?

Which one poses more of a continual threat to society? I mean they both killed a person but the motivation behind it are completely different and can most deffinatly affect recommittal therefore their danger to society

You think someone who accidentally shoots someone should be locked away the same as someone who stabs their victim 43 times in the body and face before cutting the tung out and eating it?

Method =/= motive

Which one poses more of a continual threat to society? I mean they both killed a person but the motivation behind it are completely different and can most deffinatly affect recommittal therefore their danger to society

They both pose a threat to society and should both be equally punished.

Method =/= motive



They both pose a threat to society and should both be equally punished.

Which is a massive flaw in our current system the focus should not be on punishment alone but on rehabilitation

The ultimate goal should be the saftey of society and removing it fairly. Yes they broke societies laws and they have proved that they can not saftly co-exist but we should be making sure when they get out that they are safe

Motive lets us know why they did what they did, and can give us a clue as to how much of a threat they really are

That is why it is taken into consideration even now, I would hate to live in a place devoid of that

It's a tricky problem. Not something I'd trust the American legal system with.

Of course, I'd rather not trust the American legal system at all, even with something like whether stop signs should be octagonal or hexagonal.

We'd end up with signs that have 6.5 sides... and then it'd fluctuate to odd fractal-esque values... :mad:

Which is a massive flaw in our current system the focus should not be on punishment alone but on rehabilitation

If rehabilitation is possible, yes.

The ultimate goal should be the saftey of society and removing it fairly.

Agreed.

Yes they broke societies laws and they have proved that they can not saftly co-exist but we should be making sure when they get out that they are safe

Agreed.

Motive lets us know why they did what they did, and can give us a clue as to how much of a threat they really are That is why it is taken into consideration even now, I would hate to live in a place devoid of that

You do make a good point.

any planned crime against someone is because of something about that person. maybe its something they did 10 years back, their sexual orientation, their race, or just the way the sun glared on their face the other day.

a murder is a murder. an assault is an assault. doesn't matter who you do it to or why. the most important thing to look at is if it was planned or if it was just a momentarily lapse of judgment.

My problem with hate crimes is that they punish the motivation, not the crime committed. If one guy kills another guy it's a crime but if one guy kills another guy who was a different race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. from him it becomes a hate crime. When you punish the motivation you are punishing thought. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and have the right to express them in any way so long as it does not hurt someone else, no matter how stupid and racist they may be, that's constitutional law.

Shouldn't the act be enough reason to punish someone?

My problem with hate crimes is that they punish the motivation, not the crime committed. If one guy kills another guy it's a crime but if one guy kills another guy who was a different race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. from him it becomes a hate crime. When you punish the motivation you are punishing thought. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and have the right to express them in any way so long as it does not hurt someone else, no matter how stupid and racist they may be, that's constitutional law.

No, it does not. Have you even bothered to read the thread? It's only a hate crime if the hatred was why they committed the crime.

My problem with hate crimes is that they punish the motivation, not the crime committed. If one guy kills another guy it's a crime but if one guy kills another guy who was a different race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. from him it becomes a hate crime. When you punish the motivation you are punishing thought. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and have the right to express them in any way so long as it does not hurt someone else, no matter how stupid and racist they may be, that's constitutional law.

Shouldn't the act be enough reason to punish someone?
No it shoudent, thats why motive is already a consideration in sentencing in virtually every country I have ever heard of

Here is just part of the reason why

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12843217&postcount=77

In the end motivation lets us know about the person, this lets us know how likly they are to do it again. The justice system is here to protect us and it does that by evaluating the threats to society and removing and or re-habilitating thoes that are a threat to society

I am not saying codifying hate crimes is good or bad but the consideration of motives in sentencing is so crucial to the justice systems roal that they all do it and with good reason

I really don't see how it's misogyny.

i don't really see how it could be read as anything else.

My problem with hate crimes is that they punish the motivation, not the crime committed.

the motivation makes it a different crime

And intent.
As much as I hate to cite some one like Rehnquist, he makes a point
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States#Hate_crime_laws_debate

Thank you for that TPH, I think that's just about the first reasonable justification for hate crime legislation I've seen.

Of course, I'd rather not trust the American legal system at all, even with something like whether stop signs should be octagonal or hexagonal.

Especially since they'll charge me with rape if I stick it consensually. :mad:

http://www.physorg.com/news102591950.html



Four out of ten homosexual men and one out of eight homosexual women and bisexual people are the target of hate crimes in the United States...I had no idea it was this bad. It's really quite sickening and it disgusts me how people can hate so easily. For a while I was on the fence on the hate crimes law stuff, because while I dislike crimes based in hate I'm not sure they should be treated as something harsher than a normal crime.

But now, I see quite differently...the severity is so shocking and disgraceful...I'm sure there are plenty out there who would say this makes them proud to be an American...and right now, I am ashamed of my country.

What you don't have hate crimes legislation?

http://www.physorg.com/news102591950.html

Four out of ten homosexual men and one out of eight homosexual women and bisexual people are the target of hate crimes in the United States...I had no idea it was this bad. It's really quite sickening and it disgusts me how people can hate so easily. For a while I was on the fence on the hate crimes law stuff, because while I dislike crimes based in hate I'm not sure they should be treated as something harsher than a normal crime.

But now, I see quite differently...the severity is so shocking and disgraceful...I'm sure there are plenty out there who would say this makes them proud to be an American...and right now, I am ashamed of my country.


http://www.pinkpistols.org/images/splash3.jpg

http://www.physorg.com/news102591950.html

Four out of ten homosexual men and one out of eight homosexual women and bisexual people are the target of hate crimes in the United States...I had no idea it was this bad. It's really quite sickening and it disgusts me how people can hate so easily. For a while I was on the fence on the hate crimes law stuff, because while I dislike crimes based in hate I'm not sure they should be treated as something harsher than a normal crime.

But now, I see quite differently...the severity is so shocking and disgraceful...I'm sure there are plenty out there who would say this makes them proud to be an American...and right now, I am ashamed of my country.


http://www.pinkpistols.org/images/splash3.jpg

So if these homosexuals are being targeted, then they are probably active homosexuals, and having gay sex, and letting everyone know it, which is outright abhorrent in my eyes.

And your disgusting intolerance is abhorrent in my eyes.


However, I disagree with hate legislation in general. Hate legislation generally speaking only increases the penalties of already existent crimes. Why should someone who kills a gay recieve a stiffer punishment than someone who kills a straight?

They won't get it because they were gay. They'll get it because the person hates gays and killed a gay person for that reason.


That's reverse discrimination.

No, that's protection.

Especially since they'll charge me with rape if I stick it consensually. :mad:

Depending on the variety of sex, you could be both a victim and a perpetrator in the same act! :headbang:

Good, they asked for it with all those LOOK WE'RE GAY!!!!! parades

Good, they asked for it with all those LOOK WE'RE GAY!!!!! parades

If you were beaten up by somebody disgusted at your bigotry, would it be reasonable for us to say "Good, you asked for it with all those LOOK I'M A HOMOPHOBE!!!!! posts"?

Alternatively, do the Christians in Iraq deserve to be blown up for visiting churches and refusing to act like Muslims?

If you were beaten up by somebody disgusted at your bigotry, would it be reasonable for us to say "Good, you asked for it with all those LOOK I'M A HOMOPHOBE!!!!! posts"?

Alternatively, do the Christians in Iraq deserve to be blown up for visiting churches and refusing to act like Muslims?

I think (or at least, hope) Sel Appa was being sarcastic.

I think (or at least, hope) Sel Appa was being sarcastic.

Oops, my bad. In my defense, with Gens Romae in the thread it's hard to recognise sarcasm. :D My apologies to Sel Appa.

Some guy pulls a knife on two females and demands their wallets. They two happen to be lesbians. They give them the money and he leaves.

Is this a hate crime or just plain theft?

Depends. Did he shout, "Alright dykes, turn over the wallets!"

Then is might be a hate crime. Of course this is the point you are making, it needs to be determined on a case by case basis. I 100% agree.

Of course this is the point you are making, it needs to be determined on a case by case basis. I 100% agree.
Yes. It does. As does every crime because if we just use a single solution for every crime. Not all crimes are equal. Even if the base damage is the same, the cause or motive would likely be different.

In an earlier example, I used a South Park episode to show how just because people of different races get into that the "crime" in question may not necessarily be a hate crime. After all, Token called Cartman "fat" and Cartman didn't like the insult and threw a rock at Token. It was motivated by the insult and not Token's skin colour but it is shown that because Token IS black, that the crime was assumed to be a "hate" crime even though the motive was not based on race.

Depending on the variety of sex, you could be both a victim and a perpetrator in the same act! :headbang:

But, I'll never stick it. No girl's crazy enough to do it with me. I think some seventh graders actually did stick it once, but they weren't turned in to the police. Or their parents.

Yes. It does. As does every crime because if we just use a single solution for every crime. Not all crimes are equal. Even if the base damage is the same, the cause or motive would likely be different.

In an earlier example, I used a South Park episode to show how just because people of different races get into that the "crime" in question may not necessarily be a hate crime. After all, Token called Cartman "fat" and Cartman didn't like the insult and threw a rock at Token. It was motivated by the insult and not Token's skin colour but it is shown that because Token IS black, that the crime was assumed to be a "hate" crime even though the motive was not based on race.
That will happen when the statutes are applied stupidly. If some moron with a law degree thinks that "hate crime" depends solely on the race (or whatever) of the victim and perpetrator, then any white on black crime or straight on gay crime, etc, will automatically have a hate crime charge included in the indictment. Especially if said moron is looking for headlines and conviction points.

So, just as we should apply hate crime standards case by case, so we must judge misuses of hate crime laws case by case as well. I suggest that it is far more likely that hate crime laws are misused not because they are bad laws but because the given prosecutor in a given case is an idiot.

Again, I am not convinced that hate crime laws are the best way to accomplish this kind of social engineering of discouraging physical expression of bigotry through the strong disincentive of extra criminal punishment, but it's the system society is trying out at the moment. And I frankly believe we do still need some kind of disincentive for people who think that attacking certain people isn't or shouldn't be a crime. Because if they think it is/should be ok to attack a black/gay/Jew/etc, because they are somehow less than people, then laws against attacking people are less likely to deter them.

Gens Romae wrote:

So if these homosexuals are being targeted, then they are probably active homosexuals, and having gay sex, and letting everyone know it, which is outright abhorrent in my eyes.

Oh yes, if only gay people would just stay in the closet and hide who they are, then they wouldn't get murdered.

And if that guy in Jasper, Texas hadn't been black, maybe he wouldn't have gotten dragged behind a truck and decapitated.

And if those six million Jews hadn't been Jewish, well then, the Nazis wouldn't have had to put them in concentration camps.

:upyours:

I oppose hate crime laws. People who commit the same crime should receive the same punishment, regardless of motive. Example: If a guy shoots and kills someone because of his skin color, how is that any worse than if he shot and killed someone for a reason unrelated to skin color? It doesn't matter why he committed the crime, he should be punished the same regardless.

any planned crime against someone is because of something about that person. maybe its something they did 10 years back, their sexual orientation, their race, or just the way the sun glared on their face the other day.

a murder is a murder. an assault is an assault. doesn't matter who you do it to or why. the most important thing to look at is if it was planned or if it was just a momentarily lapse of judgment.How about terrorism? Do you believe that terrorism should be treated the same way as similar crimes that aren't terrorism?

My problem with hate crimes is that they punish the motivation, not the crime committed. If one guy kills another guy it's a crime but if one guy kills another guy who was a different race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. from him it becomes a hate crime. When you punish the motivation you are punishing thought. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and have the right to express them in any way so long as it does not hurt someone else, no matter how stupid and racist they may be, that's constitutional law.

Shouldn't the act be enough reason to punish someone?Er...we're talking about the expression of an opinion in such a way that it does hurt someone else.

Oh yes, if only gay people would just stay in the closet and hide who they are, then they wouldn't get murdered.

And if that guy in Jasper, Texas hadn't been black, maybe he wouldn't have gotten dragged behind a truck and decapitated.

And if those six million Jews hadn't been Jewish, well then, the Nazis wouldn't have had to put them in concentration camps.

:upyours:

I don't like n00b smilies but...you win the thread!

http://www.pinkpistols.org/images/splash3.jpg
While true, that is hardly the best way to handle the situation...all it would do is increase fear and violence over all. (Not that I am against owning firearms, mind...it's just that solving a situation with firearms first is a bad idea.)

No, we should focus on eliminating the causes of crime in the first place, especially hate crime. A large deal of hate stems from poor education, especially from religious indoctrination--ANY religion--and parental involvement. Eliminate those causes, and you eliminate hate crimes and the necessity for hate crimes laws. Until that happens, the laws are needed.

If memory serves, the minimum number of randomly selected people for a population as lars as the USA is something like 1200 to 1500. Even still this ca only be expected to give n acuracy reading within 4% or 5%. I disagree with the earlier posts that 662 can ever be a reliable indicator regardless of how they are selected. However, we always defined accurate representation of the population as one that is indicative within a real 4% or 5% range.

Incidentally I am pretty sure that the 1200 or so number is an accurate pool from a population as small as 100,000 but that very few more or needed to be representative as we get into much larger numbers such as the tens of millions. Our professor explained this to me by saying that it is similar to the generally accepted statistical reality (I was pretty baffled through most of my statistics class because so many things seemed counterintuitived) that contrary to the dictates of common sense, buying 100 lottery tickets with different numbers is not the same as increasing your likelihood of winning by a hundred times. It actually only increases your chances quite negligibly.

I do not think that we should have a hate crime law. I think that criminal laws work fine enough without them. Instead, I think that judges need greater flexibility in determining sentences and it should be alright for a judge to use the motivation for the crime as a very important factor both for coming up with a more or less serious sentence.

I think that a judge should be able to assign a harsher sentence if the crime was a hate crime. However, I think that hate crimes have more of a hot blooded explanation than the snipers who randomly killed people. I would rather see people killing someone over a bad reason rather than no reason at all.

Incidentally I am pretty sure that the 1200 or so number is an accurate pool from a population as small as 100,000 but that very few more or needed to be representative as we get into much larger numbers such as the tens of millions. Our professor explained this to me by saying that it is similar to the generally accepted statistical reality (I was pretty baffled through most of my statistics class because so many things seemed counterintuitived) that contrary to the dictates of common sense, buying 100 lottery tickets with different numbers is not the same as increasing your likelihood of winning by a hundred times. It actually only increases your chances quite negligibly.
Yeah it's not so much that you have 100 times the chance to win, it's that you have the same chance to win 100 times. I think. I don't know; this kind of stuff is what got me a C in Discrete Structures.