t does not matter if there is correlation. Not all cases are the same.
If someone pushes you or stabs you those are both assaults.
You believe that racists are more likely to go for the stabbing kind... (I find it highly dubious claims as a robber is far more likely to be high on drugs. which tends to correlate far more with excessive violence.)
But you can easily find cases of both. You can find racist "pushed" assault, you can find racist "stabbed assault". you can find robber "pushed" assault, you can find robber "stabbed assault".
Even if a racist is more likely to go for a stabbing like you say, how does it relate to a case where they DIDN'T.
Correlation does matter. Because the alternative world where judges and juries have a fuller range of possible punishments for any random crime. And this leads to variance in justice for the same exact crime. Ideally, if 2 people do the exact same thing for the exact same reason, we should try to ensure they get as similar as possible outcomes from the justice system. That's why Max and Min sentences exist: because we
don't trust judge/jury discretion for everything, so we don't just hand out a blank check. This is a further restriction that lines up fairly well, and normalizes and standardizes punishment.
Basically, say in one system, there's 1-10 units of time (whatever time period you think is fair) for a beating, with no hate crime laws. The other system, there's 1-5 units, with a 5 unit penalty for hate crimes.
The punishments in the first system look like this:
| Lenient Judge | Harsh Judge |
| Hate Crime | 1 | 10 |
| Non Hate Crime | 1 | 10 |
And the second system:
| Lenient Judge | Harsh Judge |
| Hate Crime | 1 + 5 = 6 | 5 + 5 = 10 |
| Non Hate Crime | 1 | 5 |
Now if there's a heavy correlation between hate crimes and heavy beatings, the second maps more closely to what we'd hope to see if we replace Lenient and harsh Judge with light beating and heavy beating. So my argument is that hat crime laws standardize punishments.
Now am I in favor of it? Eh. It's not inherently wrong, so it's the last thing on my list of worries, if that.
I disagree.
1. I would be far more scared if I am assaulted for my wallet.
a. I would feel save in avoiding racial assaults by sticking to my own kind. but can't mitigate the wallet assault.
b. the racial assault is far less likely to be done by someone who is high on drugs.
2. I am far more afraid of the government misusing this tool than I am for someone actually attacking me for being born jewish.
Because there is actual proof that the government routinely misuses these laws.
1a) is avoiding the crime entirely. But we are talking about how one feels given the crime has already occured. Yes, I'm much more likely to be robbed than murdered. I'd also be much more afraid of a murder attempt than a robbery attempt. So that's not relevant here.
1b) The person isn't on drugs, but hates your kind (whatever that is) in particular. That's the issue. That's a dangerous thing. Just giving up the wallet can stop some druggies. But a racist won't care.
2)
If someone intentionally runs you over with a car because you wore a trump hat, then why should their penalty be reduced? just because it was based on your politics and not your skin color? You still got maliciously run over by someone, intentionally with premeditation.
Oh, I'd be down with political causes too here. It's the dehumanization and attack because of group status rather than for some normal cause. It's a fundamentally destructive motive. A robber can be sated with cash. But a racist/political crazy can only be satisfied with blood.
Someone who is beating you for being gay, a Trump supporter, Jewish, etc. is doing the action because they want you hurt, not for anything you did, but what you are. That's a pretty vile motive that puts harm done as the goal, not a side effect, and you *existing* is the cause. In contrast, someone robbing someone is an understandable but bad reason, but there's some real psycho stuff going on there. And the vile motive can and is punished in the American judicial system.
No. There is no good reason to use a correlation when the direct fact is not only accessible but also easier to pr4ove.
... That makes all of zero sense in context. What direct fact are you talking about here? And what does that have to do with variance in punishment for similar crimes, and similar punishment for different crimes?
Another angle is... this whole "hate crime laws" are pushed specifically by people who are trying to undermine the social fabric and create racial tensions where none existed before. specifically so they could exploit them.
And... I can think of maybe 2 cases of actual hate crime being tried as such. Almost every other public case I came across tried as a hate crime was the govt misapplying it.
I also saw many many cases of actual hate crimes getting reduced sentences because the govt refused to persecute them as such. (attacks on whites, attacks on conservatives, etc)
Oh, the government being corrupt sacks of shit is nothing new to me. But this would still be done anyway by pushing for harsher or lighter sentences arbitrarily. This, however, is controllable by the person who does the action.
