NationStates Jolt Archive

In the wake of a racially-motivated murder in @@NAME@@'s countryside, public outcries are heard to classify all crimes perpetrated against minorities as Hate Crimes, with corresponding harsher penalties.

"If there's one thing we can't stand in @@NAME@@, it's hate," seethes @@RANDOMNAME@@, spokesperson for the National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Minorities. "This @@TYPE@@ should send a message to all those who hate. You will be punished more severely than if you picked a random victim."
[effect] minorities are regularly seen wearing jerseys with the name "He Hate Me" emblazoned on them
[stats] civil rights decrease, Law & Order spending increase

"But how are we supposed to know what's in the mind of the criminal when the act is committed?" rebuts @@RANDOMNAME@@, conservative radio talk-show host. "This is punishing a person for their thoughts, more than their actions. All crimes are hate crimes -- since when do you commit crimes against someone you like? Let's increase the penalties for all crimes, just to be sure."
[effect] the nation is well-known in the region for its tough penalties for all crimes
[stats] civil rights decrease, Law & Order spending increase, possible lead-in to prison overcrowding

Civil Libertarian @@RANDOMNAME@@ adds, "This legislation would place the value of a minority person as greater than that of any other citizen. It's bad to commit crimes against one group, but it's REALLY bad to commit crimes against another group? Hogwash! Let all people be considered equal, even as victims."
[effect] newspapers are prohibited from providing any identifying information regarding the victims of crimes
[stats] civil and political rights increase

"Hate Crimes should be confined to the definition of symbolic acts intended to intimidate," retorts law professor @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Take the destruction of a religious item on someone's lawn, for example. Though simply criminal mischief in itself, the intent to intimidate should be taken seriously. Whether or not the victim is a minority is inconsequential."
[effect] criminal acts must endure scrutiny before being considered Hate Crimes in the courts
[stats] civil rights increase

It's been awhile since I read through an issue and thought, "Wow, that doesn't need any help!"

Good job!

Aw, shucks :D . Coming from the Illustrious Tuesday Heights, well....

Two little things

1) Why does the first option decrease civil rights? It's not like people are getting charged for crimes they wouldn't be anyway. You might want to have it increase Law and Order funding instead? Just a thought.

2) "This @@TYPE@@" Could lead to things like "This Democratic States" and other equally bad things. Maybe something like "Our fair @@TYPE@@" or something where the subject could be plural or singular. Very nitpicky I know.

And one big thing. I don't really see the option I would pick which is something like.

"An attack on a person by a criminal who has provable feelings of hatred for a particular group of person should be considered a pre-meditated act of aggression no matter what the circumstances of the actual fight. I'm sick of racists getting drunk, nearly beating their targets to death and getting let off on misdemeanor battery charges. This doesn't change any laws, just requires us to enforce them where our officials have been rather lax about it."

effect - When fans of different baseball teams get in fights it is considered a hate crime
stats - compassion increases, crime decreases, law and order spending goes up

That whole thing is entirely a suggestion, but the point is that the government enforces existing laws that would make hate crimes a more severe offense instead of increasing the value of a certain person's life over another.

Thanks for the suggestions, Kylestania.

My point with the civil rights decrease for the first option is that an additional category of crime is created, thus reducing the "right" of the populace to Hate a minority group.

Very good suggestion about "our fair @@TYPE@@." Will definitely use this. I changed the name of my currency because I got tired of seeing double "ss" when it was mentioned in an issue.

I would have to disagree with your statements about Hate Crimes not valuing one citizen over another. In the case of Hate Crimes laws in the States, they have been interpreted to only protect minorities. A case in Illinois involved a cross burnt on the lawn of a white woman who was dating a black man. Judge ruled it couldn't be prosecuted as a hate crime because the victim was not a minority. Say what? Another case where a group of black men beat up some white guys in one of the Carolinas - again, not prosecuted as a Hate Crime because the victims were white, even though racial epithets were uttered by the attackers. You can probably see why I would pick the Law Professor option. I believe a Hate Crime statute should recognize victims regardless of minority status and should be based on the intent to intimidate a group. Burning a cross on someone's lawn would just be plain odd if it wasn't a symbolic act.

Though any further debate belongs in another forum, its the basis of my writing for the issue. I honestly think your point of view would be covered by the first or even the second option (tougher enforcement of existing laws). I might just incorporate your idea into one of them, because I like your quote.

Okay, that's cool. But if you meant for that to be covered by the first option you might want to reword it a little. The way it reads now it sounds like the person only wants minorities to benefit from the decision.

And also, since this issue cocnerns implementing hate crime laws, not previously existing hate crime laws 'real life' doesn't enter into it that much. While you may be right in a practical sense in real life I was more thinking of the philosophical approach behind implementing these laws.

Basically the option I'm looking for would be one that would show that the state strongly dissaproves of hate crimes and will punish people who commit crimes motivated by ignorance as stringently as it does people who commit crimes motivated by wanting others personal property for example. Maybe something like 'If we were enforcing the laws we have the right way people wouldn't be commitng crimes for any reason!'

Or (and now I'm just rambling) maybe there should be an education option, something like 'The problem starts early we have to catch it early' and make tolerance a part of government education.

I see your point about civil rights decreasing with the first option, but maybe you should put a note in about it not being able to decrease civil rights below a certain level. I can see how restricting the right to hate would drop a high civil rights rating, but I think for a country that already has low civil rights depriving the right to hate isn't really a 'big deal' so to speak.

Sorry if this is bulky, I just figure the more feedback I give you the higher the chance that some of it will be useful :) Don't worry soon I'll be posting my own ideas and you can be just as long winded about them if you wish!

Ok, taking your suggestions to heart, here's a new draft:

In the wake of a racially-motivated murder in @@NAME@@'s countryside, public outcries are heard to classify crimes perpetrated against minorities as Hate Crimes, with corresponding harsher penalties.

"If there's one thing we can't stand in @@NAME@@, it's hatred of minorities," seethes @@RANDOMNAME@@, spokesperson for the National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Minorities. "Our fair @@TYPE@@ should send a message to all those who hate. All crimes with minority victims should be considered Hate Crimes."
[effect] minorities are regularly seen wearing jerseys with the name "He Hate Me" emblazoned on them
[stats] civil rights decrease, crime rate increase, Law & Order spending increase

“Hate is learned at home,” adds National Interdisciplinary Coalition for Education representative @@RANDOMNAME@@, “and we should plant the Seeds of Tolerance in young minds so that they may grow to respect everyone. Let us start a program in every school that teaches we are all the same.”
[effect] Minority Studies is a mandatory subject in all schools
[stats] education funding increase, public apathy decrease, rebellious youth/crime rate decrease

" All crimes are Hate Crimes -- since when do you commit crimes against someone you like?” complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, radio talk-show host. "I'm tired of bigots getting drunk, nearly beating their victims to death and getting off with misdemeanor battery charges. Let’s not change any laws, just enforce them where our officials have been rather lax about it. Let's increase the penalties for all crimes."
[effect] the nation is well-known in the region for its tough penalties for parking tickets
[stats] civil rights decrease, Law & Order spending increase, public apathy increase, possible lead-in to prison overcrowding

Civil Libertarian @@RANDOMNAME@@ rebuts, "This legislation would place the value of a minority person as greater than that of any other citizen. It's bad to commit crimes against one group, but it's REALLY bad to commit crimes against another group? Hogwash! Let all people be considered equal, even as victims."
[effect] newspapers are prohibited from providing any identifying information regarding the victims of crimes
[stats] civil and political rights increase

"Hate Crimes should be confined to the definition of symbolic acts intended to intimidate," retorts law professor @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Take the destruction of a religious item on someone's lawn, for example. Though simply criminal mischief in itself, the intent to intimidate should be taken seriously. Whether or not the victim is a minority is inconsequential."
[effect] criminal acts must endure scrutiny before being considered Hate Crimes in the courts
[stats] civil rights increase

Mods, please make this an issue!

Mods, please make this an issue!

I agree, this is one of the better new ones seen in a while. A looong while. Good work, Maubachia! :)

bump :p

I don't follow why civil rights increase after the third and fourth options. It would seem to me that civil rights would be a wash from the third option: victims right to privacy increases; newspapers rights to free speech decrease; the criminal's defense rights decrease. The fourth option restricts the free speech of the haters; I don't see anyone whose civil rights increase.

You might argue that freedom from crime is a civil right, but if that were so then things like GPS in all vehicles should also be a wash: privacy decreases, but fewer people speed with 100% enforcement.

I don't see the change in political rights at all.

I would agree that ignoring the effects, the fourth option is the one with which I would most agree personally. Not entirely comfortable with the legal ramifications though. What happens if a striking union yells "Scabs" at those crossing the picket line. Is that a hate crime under that definition.

Have you formally submitted this issue? Or are you still trying to get feedback?

For those who don't know, there is an actual issue submission form that countries with at least 500 million in population can access (those of us with smaller countries have to wait until we are bigger or get a bigger country to sponsor the issue). It also takes a while for the issue to be processed. More about this is in the pinned threads for the curious.

It all looks pretty good. Don't worry about the stats, I'll sort that out. What players see is very different from the inner workings, so it all gets shifted about a lot.

There is, however, two comments I'd like to add:

1. Drop the fifth option. It's unnecessary.

2. Your issue needs an 'against' option. So far, you've only got options which are 'for' in different guises.

I appreciate the feedback. Helps me see how others would interpret the options.

Option Four is the AGAINST Option. Think I should make this more clear. The distinction between Four and Five is that #4 rejects all Hate Crimes, while #5 recognizes Hate Crimes, but not only against minorities. My reasoning behind this option is spelled out in my earlier post. The political rights increase in #4 is that all people are then treated equally under the law. And no one's "right" to hate is infringed upon. It's kind of a muddy area, I admit, so I don't mind clarifying my opinion.

My problem with Hate Crimes, as they are enforced in RL, is that they create Protected Classes, against whom crimes are MORE wrong. This is not equal protection under the law. It's okay for minorities to beat me up and call me a racial slur, because I'm a white male. Should I return the favor, I'm guilty of a Hate Crime. It's either a Hate Crime both ways, or not a Hate Crime, both ways. If All Men Are Created Equal, you've got to be consistent.

"If there's one thing we can't stand in @@NAME@@, it's hatred of minorities
*snip*
crime rate increase

I must wonder, why does picking this option INCREASE crime?

I must wonder, why does picking this option INCREASE crime?First, I wouldn't expect it to decrease rates of existing crimes (feel free to disagree). Second, it adds new classes of crimes. Since the previous rates of those crimes were 0 (as they weren't measured as crimes previously). One would also hope that it would have the effect of decreasing the number of incidents. However, the remainining incidents would all be new crimes, thus increasing the crime rate.

At least that's how I see it. Of course, sirocco might set things differently.

I think you're being a bit inconsistent....in option five you give an increase for civil rights, when all you are doing is denying the right to hate, which was your justification for lowering civil rights in option three. Either limiting the right to hate decreases civil rights or it doesn't.

Since we are assuming that there are no hate crime laws on the books before this issue, choosing to keep things that way (issue 4) should not increase anything. You should not let your personal bias against hate crime legislature make what you would pick in real life the 'best' option.

I assume the mods will mess with the effects though, so I would say go ahead and submit this and see what happens.

Bias!? Moi?

Though I'd readily admit that, I feel that true Equal Protection is available under options Four or Five, whether it is no protection, or protection for all. Would you consider Equal Protection Under the Law to be a civil or political right, or both? Therein lies the question.

I'm going to edit a bit and resubmit here, hopefully in the next day or two.

In the wake of a racially-motivated murder in @@NAME@@'s countryside, public outcries are heard to classify crimes perpetrated against minorities as Hate Crimes, with corresponding harsher penalties.

"If there's one thing we can't stand in @@NAME@@, it's hatred of minorities," seethes @@RANDOMNAME@@, spokesperson for the National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Minorities. "Our fair @@TYPE@@ should send a message to all those who hate. All crimes with minority victims should be considered Hate Crimes."
[effect] minorities are regularly seen wearing jerseys with the name "He Hate Me" emblazoned on them
[stats] civil rights decrease, crime rate increase, Law & Order spending increase

“Hate is learned at home,” adds National Interdisciplinary Coalition for Education representative @@RANDOMNAME@@, “and we should plant the Seeds of Tolerance in young minds so that they may grow to respect everyone. Let us start a program in every school that teaches we are all the same.”
[effect] Minority Studies is a mandatory subject in all schools
[stats] education funding increase, public apathy decrease, rebellious youth/crime rate decrease

“All crimes are Hate Crimes -- since when do you commit crimes against someone you like?” complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, radio talk-show host. "I'm tired of bigots getting drunk, nearly beating their victims to death and getting off with misdemeanor battery charges. Let’s not change any laws; just enforce them where our officials have been rather lax about it. Let's increase the penalties for all crimes."
[effect] the nation is well-known in the region for its tough penalties for parking tickets
[stats] civil rights decrease, Law & Order spending increase, public apathy increase, possible lead-in to prison overcrowding

Civil Libertarian @@RANDOMNAME@@ rebuts, "This legislation would place the value of a minority person as greater than that of any other citizen. It's bad to commit crimes against one group, but it's REALLY bad to commit crimes against another group? @@ANIMAL@@-feathers! We should reject all Hate Crimes legislation and let all people be considered equal, even as victims."
[effect] crimes against minorities are largely unreported
[stats] civil and political rights increase, crime rate increase

"Hate Crimes should be confined to the definition of acts intended to intimidate any group, with the use or threat of physical harm," retorts law professor @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Take the destruction of a religious item on someone's lawn, for example. Though simply criminal mischief in itself, the intent to intimidate should be taken seriously. Whether or not the victim is a minority is inconsequential."
[effect] criminal acts must endure scrutiny before being considered Hate Crimes in the courts
[stats] civil and political rights increase

I love the bit about parking tickets. :D

“Hate is learned at home,” adds National Interdisciplinary Coalition for Education representative @@RANDOMNAME@@, “and we should plant the Seeds of Tolerance in young minds so that they may grow to respect everyone. Let us start a program in every school that teaches we are all the same.”
[effect] Minority Studies is a mandatory subject in all schools
[stats] education funding increase, public apathy decrease, rebellious youth/crime rate decrease

This option seems a little one-sided. Mostly positive effects and nothing really negative. Personally I agree with it (it's what I'd choose), but something tells me that all decisions should have some good and some bad consequences. Dunno... maybe decrease civil rights a tad? It seems nonsense, but you have to make up for the crime rate somehow...

Concerning the last option: Same there. In that case I'd just make whatever passes for "bureaucracy" bigger, since court decisions take longer. Public sector increases or something.

1) Why does the first option decrease civil rights? It's not like people are getting charged for crimes they wouldn't be anyway
Yes, they are being charged for crimes they wouldn't be anyway: thoughtcrimes.

Take this case:

Joe likes white people just fine, but kills one for looking at him funny.
Harry kills a white guy while screaming "die honkey!"

Both exercised their right to their own opinion, and both committed murder.

Murder is already a crime. Is Harry's victim more dead? No. Under hate crimes legislation, though, Harry would be punished for his opinion of white people - or maybe Joe would, if the prosecutor didn't get laid last night, because "hate" is way too fuzzy a concept to even allow into the courtroom.

It's illegal to harm others. It's legal (and in a free society MUST be legal) to think whatever you like of others, no matter how unfair it is (and though I'm a straight white male professional, I think golf IS a lame-ass game)

...doesn't change any laws, just requires us to enforce them where our officials have been rather lax about it."
Exactly! A cross burning, for example - trespassing, menacing, and possibly arson and other charges could be brought. No need for a thoughtcrime, too.

I see your point about option two. A slight civil rights decrease would be appropriate for this option, I think, as Minority Studies is forced on everyone.

The Thought-Crimes angle, a la 1984 (Orwell is awesome!), is one I might include in the Civil Libertarian's comments.

Whoops! - Maubachia, signed in as San Mabus...

A crime is a crime. It dosen't matter if the person hates you are not he still commited a crime and if proven guilty should be punished to the full extent of the law. Why is it any different if the reason for the crime was hate instead of having fun or needing money?


Mr Oni