Texas has hate crime statutes on the books, but recent events show that it’s time for the legislature to update the code to face modern hate crimes. Merriam-Webster defines hate crime as:
any of various crimes (such as assault or defacement of property) when motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group (such as one based on color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation).
The legislature follows that definition with the pertinent statues stating:
(a) If an affirmative finding under Article 42.014, Code of Criminal Procedure , is made in the trial of an offense other than a first degree felony or a Class A misdemeanor, the punishment for the offense is increased to the punishment prescribed for the next highest category of offense. If the offense is a Class A misdemeanor, the minimum term of confinement for the offense is increased to 180 days. This section does not apply to the trial of an offense of injury to a disabled individual under § 22.04 , if the affirmative finding in the case under Article 42.014, Code of Criminal Procedure , shows that the defendant intentionally selected the victim because the victim was disabled.
Code of Criminal Procedure 42.014:
Art. 42.014. FINDING THAT OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED BECAUSE OF BIAS OR PREJUDICE. (a) In the trial of an offense under Title 5, Penal Code, or Section 28.02, 28.03, or 28.08, Penal Code, the judge shall make an affirmative finding of fact and enter the affirmative finding in the judgment of the case if at the guilt or innocence phase of the trial, the judge or the jury, whichever is the trier of fact, determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected the person against whom the offense was committed, or intentionally selected the person’s property that was damaged or affected as a result of the offense, because of the defendant’s bias or prejudice against a group identified by race, color, disability, religion, national origin or ancestry, age, gender, or sexual preference or by status as a peace officer or judge.
The definition and code sections are good to cover traditional hate crime grounds. However, subsequent to Trump’s election a new category of hate crimes has emerged. Now, we have crime where the sole basis of the criminal act is to target Trump supporters. Although the current Empire case seems to be heading in that direction, we don’t even have to go that far to see the need for the updated definition.
Remember the teenager in San Antonio who had his MAGA hat ripped off his head? The action appeared to be motivated solely because of the MAGA hat, and an indictment followed. However, the state legal architecture does not allow for a hate crime enhancement because the statute only allows for the enhancement in the cases of, “race, color, disability, religion, national origin or ancestry, age, gender, or sexual preference or by status as a peace officer or judge.”
Society has devolved to where support for the President is sufficient to be a crime victim. The criminal behavior is in line with the spirit of hate crime definition – it’s motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group, specifically political ideology. This type of criminal behavior is a direct threat to the democratic process. The legislature needs to address this threat head on and add “or political ideology, or support for a politician or political candidate,” to the last sentence of 42.014(a) to update the code to meet the new category of hate crimes occurring in the state.
I guess maybe I’m out of step with everybody on this subject, but I don’t get it. What is the purpose of calling something a “hate crime”? If I stop you on the street and beat the crap out of you so I can take your money, is the injury less because of my motive, compared to beating the crap out of you because you’re a man, or white, or a conservative, etc.
Do we really think that killing someone because of their race is worse than killing them because they cut you off in traffic?
Please, enlighten me.
Fat, you are right in that the underlying criminal act is no more or less harmful with or without an enhancement. The enhancements are designed as deterrents.
Think of it this way. Some states have gang affiliation enhancements. The enhancement doesn’t mean the underlying assault/robbery/murder is any different. The goal with the enhancement is to prevent gang affiliation.
The same reasoning holds with adding an enhancement for politically motivated crimes. The underlying MAGA hat incident would not be any different. However, the cumulative impact of assaults against MAGA displays has a chilling effect on political participation. The enhancement is designed to combat that chilli effect, which is a worthy goal.
Chilling. Autocorrect fail.
AKA: Some animals are more equal than others. Hate crime laws are the embodiment of unequal treatment under the law.
Yes, I do believe it’s worse to kill someone because of his/her race than if they cut me off in traffic.
The fact that someone would kill another person because of race bothers me a lot. It reminds me of people like Hitler.
It bothers me that someone would kill someone – period. If someone kills my friend because he’s gay, or they kill him because he’s got a full wallet, he’s still dead and I’m still out a friend.
If we want a deterrent, then we need to make the punishment severe and immediate. I dislike the idea of punishing someone for how they think
I think the enhanced punishment for a hate crime should be expanded to include crimes against spouses, family members or girl/boy friends. I am tired of seeing jilted lovers taking their disappointment out on the innocents in senseless, violent ways. MHJ
I get your point. However, in seriousness, we should eliminate the hate crime statute. A crime isn’t worse because of the motive in a situation like this.
I believe punishment should be based on what you do, rather than what you think.
What if what you do has multiple aspects of harm? The assault harms the individual, and the motive harms society. Shouldn’t punishment lie for both aspects?
Saying something offensive can reasonably be seen as “harming society”.
Are you for prosecuting everyone who makes an offensive statement?
Prosecute illegal acts, we don’t need thought police.
“The motive harms society”. Really? How does a “motive” harm society? Shouldn’t we punish people for what they do? Are you such a good mind reader that you can determine – beyond a reasonable doubt – what someone is thinking?
That’s why there’s a trier of fact.
First, that’s complete and utter BS. I don’t care what the Legislature, or the legal professional say, you cannot establish as “fact” what you believe to be the thoughts and intentions of a person at a particular point in time. All you can do is establish what you believe that a person might have been thinking.
Second, The whole idea of a “hate” crime (gosh doesn’t that sound Oreweelian?) is that it depends on the status of the victim. If a white man kills a black man, it might be a hate crime. If a black man kills a white man it will never be so charged. And so on and so on.
If we lived in a time and place where all crimes were prosecuted and adjudicated fairly and correctly, then it’s possible that I might be willing to consider adding “hate crimes” to the list. (Why not just call them “Thought Crimes? We can tell people that they are double plus ungood!) Until then, how about we focus on just dealing with crimes that have physical evidence and leave the metaphysics to the priests and pastors.
By the way, I note that you managed to completely skip the explanation of how thoughts can harm society. Hmmmmmm . . . . .
Well, never mind. In the meantime how about a good ‘ol discussion about speech? If mere thoughts and motives can be prosecuted, then how much more dangerous could it be to actually speak such concepts aloud? Are there things that we say that you might want to prosecute someone for.
Anyone remember when it was the Democrats that wanted to expand hate crimes to their favored classes of people and the GOP congress stopped it because it was immoral thought crimes? How about we stop adopting Democrat philosophy when it suits us?
“Rep. Tom Price, who heads the GOP conservative caucus, also complained last week that the expansion of hate crimes legislation amounted to “thought crimes,” and he labeled the bill’s passage – tied to a defense bill – an “absolute disgrace.”
But contacted about his position on hate crimes legislation overall, Price took a different position than Boehner. According to Price communications director Brendan Buck, the congressman opposes all hate crimes protections, including existing ones.
“We believe all hate crimes legislation is unconstitutional and places one class of people above others,” said Buck.”
https://www.google.com/search?q=republican+thought+crime+hate+crimes&ei=mUtsXLCgIIeGtQXE9KewBw&start=20&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwjw0L2kt8jgAhUHQ60KHUT6CXY4ChDy0wMIcQ&biw=1280&bih=596
Absolutely spot on.