Enough evidence to demonstrate that the intent was malicious and based off of the prejudices of the individual involved for the sake of those prejudices. Confessions are perfect, but demonstrating intent is hard.
What is the intent of the criminals actions at the time of his actions? Is the crime entirely based off of his intentions?
Say a Latino was robbing a Korean, and the Latino shot him as they were struggling over the gun. It's still a murder (though maybe not a pre-meditated one), but it's not clearly a hate crime. On the other hand, if the Latino is walking away with the stolen goods, turns around, shoots him in the head, and yells "fucking chink!" after killing him? That's a hate crime. It might not be a confession, but there's reasonable evidence to suggest that criminal has a "depravity of mind" that warrants additional punishment.
I can understand why people claim hate crimes shouldn't be separate crimes, or just reduced as aggravating factors, but I do think it speaks to the depravity of mind that a criminal has. When you are committing to a violent felony due to bigotry, rather than due to your normal criminal objectives (money, status, revenge, etc), then I think there should be additional punishments. We can't tolerate a criminal society, but we must be actively intolerant of a society where the criminals are rationalizing criminality based on arbitrary ideological zealotry.
My point is that you can't read mind, either this is a hate crime or hate crimes need to be removed entirely.
Hence your question is wrong, it should not be "was the Waukesha massacre a hate crime" but rather a statement about hate crimes being different from crime is stupid - this being an entirely different thing not specifically related to the Waukesha massacre as, if anything, would point to the need of hate crime as the dude was a monster.
I do agree that hate crime is stupid in general and it is mostly used by leftists for political gain. I have no problem with removing hate crime as a category.
I don't know if it should be removed as a category, but even if it was I'm not going to complain because it should still be counted as an aggravating factor.
However, I don't think we can just say "well we can't read minds", we can still read intent.
Then you did not understand my argument. Other then him out right saying he killed them because they were white there is no other proof that you can have in this case or most other cases. We know he hates white people and he mass murdered white people. What other proof can we reasonably have here to prove a hate crime?
Either the category itself is stupid or this is 100% a hate crime.
I think I didn't understand your argument, because you didn't understand mine.
I never said the category isn't stupid. I was actually asking if we knew something about his intent. I hadn't heard anything from the prosecution that could vouch that it was a hate crime, and despite all of his craziness he never started screaming about Yakub or Kyle Rittenhouse in the trial.
but I do think it speaks to the depravity of mind that a criminal has
Because as we know, normal criminals aren't depraved nor filled with all sorts of intolerable traits. Bigots are special level evil that rise about all others.
I sure do like the idea of somebody so cold and unfeeling that murder "just cuz" for things like money or power is somehow less abhorrent for society to allow than someone who is doing it for ideological reasons (i.e. believing that are improving things by doing so through an extremely warped lens).
If you want to make an argument that hate crime laws are a good thing, you'll need more than completely arbitrary "I think this one is worse because I said its more evilz!"
You don't seem to understand that depravity of mind is already something that is taken into account in sentencing.
And yes, I do think such actions are particularly abhorrent. If you have money and status, you know to protect your shit. You get security. You buy guns. You avoid showing it off, but you can invest in a defensive structure.
Someone who's attacking you based on totally ideological reasons means they can attack anyone who is their perceived enemy at any time, for any reason. It's not possible to mitigate that risk. Take Lee Rigby for example. He was running. That's it. He had no valuables. He was not a valuable target to anyone except for the Islamists that ran him over with a car, then chopped him to pieces with a clever, and decapitated him; showing his severed head to a crowd. It was not the attack of a crazy hobo with a stick who attacks people at random, it was a planned, dedicated attack based off of an ideological declaration of war.
Worse, submitting to the criminal might actually be more dangerous. Because of the ideological nature of the attack, they are not going to simply steal your shit. They are looking to maximize the damage done to you simply because they are hunting you specifically without having even done anything to warrant that level of aggression, or give you warning that such aggression is possible. Consider the white man who was tortured by four black attackers. The purpose was to torture. Most of the time you could feign compliance and then attempt to escape, even if they keep your belongings; but when you are the primary target already, there's no reason not to fight to the death from the very beginning of the attack. But there's no way you can know this if the rationale of the attack against you is purely within the brain of the attacker based on efforts to promote an ideology.
If you have money and status, you know to protect your shit. You get security. You buy guns. You avoid showing it off, but you can invest in a defensive structure.
This is just you projecting a preconceived notion you have to justify your belief. You are working backwards from the conclusion you want to make it sound better.
Take Lee Rigby for example.
Yeah and I've seen niggers who do that just for giggles. No need for ideology, they simply do it for thrills and the "status" of being seen as the most violent/crazy of the group.
But wait, you said status seekers were less depraved and less intolerable. But these guys do the same level of crime completely at random. They'll do it to any group, without care, so you can't even be safe by being "one of them."
At a certain level of violence, the levels of evil aren't worth categorizing as worse than the other because its already over the line. The guy who beats gays to death out of bigotry shouldn't receive more or less than the guy who still beat a guy to death but did it out of jealousy.
This is just you projecting a preconceived notion you have to justify your belief. You are working backwards from the conclusion you want to make it sound better.
No, most people who are wealthy learn that people want their shit and protect it.
No need for ideology, they simply do it for thrills and the "status" of being seen as the most violent/crazy of the group. But wait, you said status seekers were less depraved and less intolerable.
I never said that they were universally less depraved or less intolerable. There's going to be an element of individual context at play.
At a certain level of violence, the levels of evil aren't worth categorizing as worse than the other because its already over the line.
I do think it speaks to the depravity of mind that a criminal has. When you are committing to a violent felony due to bigotry, rather than due to your normal criminal objectives (money, status, revenge, etc), then I think there should be additional punishments. We can't tolerate a criminal society, but we must be actively intolerant of a society where the criminals are rationalizing criminality based on arbitrary ideological zealotry.
Strongly disagree with everything here, on every level. Wouldn't even know where to start. (Ok I do agree with "We can't tolerate a criminal society".)
tl;dr you're allowed to be a hateful bigot, ideological zealotry is subjective and may sometimes be a good thing, the prosecuting government will be able to define "zealotry" as needed to prosecute dissidents, it will have a chilling effect on non-criminals who might share the ideology (codifying the natural but harmful instincts of the mob reacting to violence or a moral panic)
I see the argument, and I'm not even agreeing to the existence of hate crimes generally, but I think we're stumbling between two simultaneous effects:
Chilling Effect v. Disincentivzation of Rationalization
Obviously we don't want a chilling effect that will instantiate viewpoint discrimination to the general public. By my argument is that we also don't want to tolerate the mentality that violence is acceptable against the public because of those viewpoints.
Now, when it comes to incitement, you do want to chill incitement because someone should be afraid of ordering others to kill people.
At the same time, a chilling effect is supposed to be about making innocent people self-censor. Whereas using intent as an aggravating factor only occurs after a crime has been committed. We do consider intent into crime because we do want to chill criminal rationalization. I see it in the same way we'd want to stop an honor killing, and frankly, I think honor killing justifications should be considered an aggravating factor because of exactly the same post-hoc rationaliztion
I think there's a line we're crossing between:
He deserves to die
I killed him because he deserves to die
and once we cross that line, we have to actually strike that rationalization down because it's actually being used as a threat against the general public.
Enough evidence to demonstrate that the intent was malicious and based off of the prejudices of the individual involved for the sake of those prejudices. Confessions are perfect, but demonstrating intent is hard.
What is the intent of the criminals actions at the time of his actions? Is the crime entirely based off of his intentions?
Say a Latino was robbing a Korean, and the Latino shot him as they were struggling over the gun. It's still a murder (though maybe not a pre-meditated one), but it's not clearly a hate crime. On the other hand, if the Latino is walking away with the stolen goods, turns around, shoots him in the head, and yells "fucking chink!" after killing him? That's a hate crime. It might not be a confession, but there's reasonable evidence to suggest that criminal has a "depravity of mind" that warrants additional punishment.
I can understand why people claim hate crimes shouldn't be separate crimes, or just reduced as aggravating factors, but I do think it speaks to the depravity of mind that a criminal has. When you are committing to a violent felony due to bigotry, rather than due to your normal criminal objectives (money, status, revenge, etc), then I think there should be additional punishments. We can't tolerate a criminal society, but we must be actively intolerant of a society where the criminals are rationalizing criminality based on arbitrary ideological zealotry.
My point is that you can't read mind, either this is a hate crime or hate crimes need to be removed entirely.
Hence your question is wrong, it should not be "was the Waukesha massacre a hate crime" but rather a statement about hate crimes being different from crime is stupid - this being an entirely different thing not specifically related to the Waukesha massacre as, if anything, would point to the need of hate crime as the dude was a monster.
I do agree that hate crime is stupid in general and it is mostly used by leftists for political gain. I have no problem with removing hate crime as a category.
I don't know if it should be removed as a category, but even if it was I'm not going to complain because it should still be counted as an aggravating factor.
However, I don't think we can just say "well we can't read minds", we can still read intent.
Then you did not understand my argument. Other then him out right saying he killed them because they were white there is no other proof that you can have in this case or most other cases. We know he hates white people and he mass murdered white people. What other proof can we reasonably have here to prove a hate crime?
Either the category itself is stupid or this is 100% a hate crime.
I think I didn't understand your argument, because you didn't understand mine.
I never said the category isn't stupid. I was actually asking if we knew something about his intent. I hadn't heard anything from the prosecution that could vouch that it was a hate crime, and despite all of his craziness he never started screaming about Yakub or Kyle Rittenhouse in the trial.
Because as we know, normal criminals aren't depraved nor filled with all sorts of intolerable traits. Bigots are special level evil that rise about all others.
I sure do like the idea of somebody so cold and unfeeling that murder "just cuz" for things like money or power is somehow less abhorrent for society to allow than someone who is doing it for ideological reasons (i.e. believing that are improving things by doing so through an extremely warped lens).
If you want to make an argument that hate crime laws are a good thing, you'll need more than completely arbitrary "I think this one is worse because I said its more evilz!"
You don't seem to understand that depravity of mind is already something that is taken into account in sentencing.
And yes, I do think such actions are particularly abhorrent. If you have money and status, you know to protect your shit. You get security. You buy guns. You avoid showing it off, but you can invest in a defensive structure.
Someone who's attacking you based on totally ideological reasons means they can attack anyone who is their perceived enemy at any time, for any reason. It's not possible to mitigate that risk. Take Lee Rigby for example. He was running. That's it. He had no valuables. He was not a valuable target to anyone except for the Islamists that ran him over with a car, then chopped him to pieces with a clever, and decapitated him; showing his severed head to a crowd. It was not the attack of a crazy hobo with a stick who attacks people at random, it was a planned, dedicated attack based off of an ideological declaration of war.
Worse, submitting to the criminal might actually be more dangerous. Because of the ideological nature of the attack, they are not going to simply steal your shit. They are looking to maximize the damage done to you simply because they are hunting you specifically without having even done anything to warrant that level of aggression, or give you warning that such aggression is possible. Consider the white man who was tortured by four black attackers. The purpose was to torture. Most of the time you could feign compliance and then attempt to escape, even if they keep your belongings; but when you are the primary target already, there's no reason not to fight to the death from the very beginning of the attack. But there's no way you can know this if the rationale of the attack against you is purely within the brain of the attacker based on efforts to promote an ideology.
This is just you projecting a preconceived notion you have to justify your belief. You are working backwards from the conclusion you want to make it sound better.
Yeah and I've seen niggers who do that just for giggles. No need for ideology, they simply do it for thrills and the "status" of being seen as the most violent/crazy of the group.
But wait, you said status seekers were less depraved and less intolerable. But these guys do the same level of crime completely at random. They'll do it to any group, without care, so you can't even be safe by being "one of them."
At a certain level of violence, the levels of evil aren't worth categorizing as worse than the other because its already over the line. The guy who beats gays to death out of bigotry shouldn't receive more or less than the guy who still beat a guy to death but did it out of jealousy.
No, most people who are wealthy learn that people want their shit and protect it.
I never said that they were universally less depraved or less intolerable. There's going to be an element of individual context at play.
I agree with you on this.
Strongly disagree with everything here, on every level. Wouldn't even know where to start. (Ok I do agree with "We can't tolerate a criminal society".)
Let's try this: why should we not try to disincentivize a criminal's rationalization via ideological zealotry with additional sanctions?
I like this guy's answer.
https://KotakuInAction2.win/p/16ZEDzrXLJ/x/c/4TnQaxJLfxR
tl;dr you're allowed to be a hateful bigot, ideological zealotry is subjective and may sometimes be a good thing, the prosecuting government will be able to define "zealotry" as needed to prosecute dissidents, it will have a chilling effect on non-criminals who might share the ideology (codifying the natural but harmful instincts of the mob reacting to violence or a moral panic)
I see the argument, and I'm not even agreeing to the existence of hate crimes generally, but I think we're stumbling between two simultaneous effects:
Chilling Effect v. Disincentivzation of Rationalization
Obviously we don't want a chilling effect that will instantiate viewpoint discrimination to the general public. By my argument is that we also don't want to tolerate the mentality that violence is acceptable against the public because of those viewpoints.
Now, when it comes to incitement, you do want to chill incitement because someone should be afraid of ordering others to kill people.
At the same time, a chilling effect is supposed to be about making innocent people self-censor. Whereas using intent as an aggravating factor only occurs after a crime has been committed. We do consider intent into crime because we do want to chill criminal rationalization. I see it in the same way we'd want to stop an honor killing, and frankly, I think honor killing justifications should be considered an aggravating factor because of exactly the same post-hoc rationaliztion
I think there's a line we're crossing between:
and once we cross that line, we have to actually strike that rationalization down because it's actually being used as a threat against the general public.