27 8

Should a fake hate crime be prosecuted to the same degree as a real one?

This question is in light of the most recent racial hoax. Please see the list of hate hoaxed compiled by Andy Ngo on this page:

Naomimi 7 Feb 21

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


In my book it is worst than a hate crime in relation to its fabrication. The aim is to engender dissent in society, which is a lot more grave than just attacking an individual with a one liner. The punishment should be tenfold the one given for such offenses. Having been a prosecutor this would be my argument to the court.

Thank you. This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say so you saved me some typing haha


Yes. Creating a hoax like this undermines the credibility of people who are real victims. Same with filing a false rape case.



Yes, giving false testimony to the authorities is plain wrong.



Of course because he was going in with the intention of sending someone else to jail for the same crime. Faking it should definitely be just as risky as the real action.


I am usually against mandatory minimum sentences, but for a hate crime hoax I believe it would be beneficial to discourage such stupidity. A thing like the Smollet situation could potentially cause further escalation. Mandatory 18 months would have folks think twice.

I agree with the sentiment but I also feel that mandatory sentencing is immoral.

@James What is immoral about mandatory jail sentences for someone who breaks the law?


From a current legal perspective (disclaimer: not a lawyer), it can't be. Faking a crime report is a less serious offense in the eyes of the law than a hate crime. I've personally never agreed with the concept of augmenting crimes into 'hate' crimes', for many reasons. First, it interjects motivation/ personal leanings into the equation. While not totally unprecedented, this is a slippery slope. Second, it has the (now realized) potential of being wielded disproportionately/ exclusively on behalf of special, officially-oppressed victims. Furthermore, it is an unnecessary designation. Assault, lynching, etc. were already crimes, and punishments for these allowed for extenuating circumstances (i.e., AGGRAVATED assault). The only new avenues for prosecution adding the 'hate' badge might give, are for things that ought not be crimes in the first place, such as 'hate speech'. Lastly, it is inane. An assault or murder, by definition, involves an element of hate, even if it isn't hate based on protected-class status.

Filing a false police report is a crime and it is not just faking a crime, the intent was to cause racial tension by claiming his attackers were white Trump supporters claiming this is MAGA territory. Of course the idiot should be charged and sentenced. I do not understand how you think he did not commit any crime?


Yes, all fake accusations deserve the same time as a conviction for the crime in question.

So a fake accusation of a triple homicide should be given the same time as a triple homicide?

@SonOfPetersson can't think of any reason why not. If they make the claim knowing they are making it up and take law enforcement away from actual crimes then they deserve life in prison. Deliberately making up something for attention at a level like that shows they aren't right in the head and more than likely are a danger for society if u ask me.

@george Why not give them the death penalty?

@SonOfPetersson if would be based on what the penalty is from the state they made the claim in, if it's death so be it, if it's life without parole then so be that. If someone is stupid enough to make up a triple homicide then we don't need them as part of the gene pool anyway.

@george So should a false rape accuser be punished with rape? I think that's how they do it in the Bible, I need to check.

@SonOfPetersson where did I say eye for an eye? I said the state should give the same punishment they give for the crime that was falsely accused.

@BigStew it makes sense to me because accusations ruin people's lives and people will forever associate them as a rapist even if it is proven to be false because most false accusations are never addressed to the public as a whole because of this weird idea that the false accuser has "suffered enough" already. As if they were a victim at all in a false accusation. If someone is so vindictive they will make up a lie about it they deserve the same punishment the crime carries. False accusations are supposedly very rare so it wouldn't really effect many, right?

@BigStew tags me in a 2nd response but blocked before I can read it. Don't see why someone engages a conversation if they can't handle a difference of opinion. Run along and create your echo chamber my good man.

@george What if a child fakes a kidnapping? Should they be kidnapped? Why would you do that to a poor, misguided child???

@SonOfPetersson a child faking a kidnapping is not an adult intentionally accusing another person of a crime. It's not even related. Juveniles already have seperate laws to deal with that kind of thing out of the public eye. I'll wait for your next

Edit: what state has a criminal punishment that requires a kidnapping anyway?

@SonOfPetersson and u have already tried to put words in my mouth with the eye for an eye thing and partially attack my character with the "why would I do that to a child" so can u at least stick to just the discussion on your next one? If u got to go over the top with the things like that there really is no reason to try to discuss it. Lets at least make it an honest and insult free talk like adults should do, please.

@george I'm not trying to be rude, it's just difficult when you've deflected all of my questions. Of course there isn't a state that requires kidnappings, but one, it was a thought experiment (you know? Like Sam Harris?) and two, although I wouldn't personally vote for it, if a state decided that they wanted to codify that into law they should have that right. Who are we to tell them they can't? STATES RIGHTS!

@SonOfPetersson I haven't deflected anything. It's as simple as whatever the punishment is from the state for the accused crime should be the same for a false accuser. Nothing u have asked has even taken my stance in to consideration. U are leaving out my stance and making up a stance for me like eye for an eye and kidnapping of which neither is a sentence for any crime in any state of the USA.
It's not a thought experiment to me if u are changing what my position is. U can ask about any crime and see if I agree with the false accuser being sentenced to what said crime carries as a sentence and that is a thought experiment from what I understand. I agree with u in every question u have asked because no I don't think that is what people should get, that isn't the sentence for the crime they accused.

@george That sonofpetersson guy is the online persona known as Creationist Cat, you could look him up online. Creating an account on here was a little experiment of his, and some of his buddies are also on here. Just thought I'd give you a heads up on that.

@SpikeTalon it's just another person to me. Having a persona don't change anything.

@george I came across tweets of his downing this site, which is why I brought it up. I agree though, he's just another person.

@SpikeTalon anyone who acts like a Christian cat fighting for Jesus is mentally questionable if u ask me anyway. Got the delusional mythology mixed with the symbol of the loneliness, a cat.

If intent has been established. Otherwise it turns the judiciary into a wepon. Seems pretty hateful to me. Lawfare at its finest.


They should get the same sentence that their fake persecuter would’ve received.


Yes!!!!!!! Hate crimes are heinous but hate crimes typically hurt one person or group. Fake hate crimes hurt the accused, people or groups affiliated with the accused, our society, and real victims of hate crime. i feel a faked rape is a slap in the face to everyone who was really raped. also the faker should have to back any money and also have to volunteer to help real victims!


“Fake” Hate Crimes I believe should be MORE “Prosecutable” than “Real” “Hate Crimes”.
#1. “Hate Crime” is a fabricated crime of nebulous definition. How does the Court PROVE the Latent Intent of the Transgressor? It’s essentially a “Crime” that can be thrown into ANY case no matter how tenuous to make the case that much tougher. It is yet another, fairly recent, form of “crime” that the Accused is required to Disprove (Guilty until Proven Innocent) where the definition of the “crime” can instantly be expanded at the Will of the Prosecution.
#2. “Fake” Hate Crime actually IS readily Prosecutable in that, Intent is easy to Prove AND the Accused has Self Admitted to agreeing that a certain action Qualifies as Hate Crime and is seeking to profit by Their Understanding of It.

My thought is that ANYONE Convicted of Perpetrating a “Fake” Hate Crime should receive (at minimum) 50% of the Sentence that the Actual “Hate Crime” would receive.
However, since “Hate Crime” is a made up “Crime” it might be hard to come up with a Real Sentence so perhaps one is required to be made.


They should spend just as much time in prison as they expected the accused to be there, plus they should pay all expenses from lawyers and court costs.


He should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible for the crime of filing a false police report and any other crimes associated with that. I also think there is a federal crime for mailing fake threat. The term "Hate Crime" and it's little brother "Hate Speech" is just bullshit used by the left to make a person's opinion somehow a crime. You should be able to think whatever you want. If you attack someone it's a crime, doesn't matter what caused you to do it.


It fits the definition of terrorism. Using violence to attain ones political goals. False or fake version being a false flag level of terrorism.


First of all, there's no such thing as a "hate crime", as motive is entirely subjective and only accurately determined by the perpetrator. This has been universally accepted in law until only recently, when special classes of victims were created for bullshit political reasons. False reporting, or crimes staged by the victim in order to gain attention are serious violations which divert already stretched law enforcement assets from the pursuit and apprehension of actual criminals. The potential harm to the community is inestimable in cases like this especially in a crime-ridden city like Chicago. Yes, the punishment should be equal to the punishment given for commission of a similar actual crime.


Yes. But I no longer have confidence in our government to bring any true justice.


I believe a crime is a crime and a false crime is a false crime. I am not a fan of a seperate category for hate. I believe that the judge and/or jury should assess punishment within the guidelines provided by the law. Factors such as hate, passion, etc. should be used by the sentencing authority to determine the degree of punishment

I agree. "Hate" crime should not be a category. What should be tried / prosecuted is the crime, not the motive. For instance, if someone is murdered, then the murderer should be tried for murder, not what was in his heart / mind at the time of the deed, whether it was hate, greed, apathy...


Yes, because staging a hate crime is a hate crime in itself. Plus it indicts an innocent person or group.


There should be no special category of hate crimes. In reference to Smollett, he'll easily win a jury trial. There's already a well-orchestrated PR campaign to rehabilitate him. I haven't seen any polling but my instinct is that opinions will be sharply divided along racial and political lines. Now that he's elevated his brand he'll be much more marketable than beforehand. I can see him staring in a Spike Lee film. It will be a blockbuster.

Smollett will not win in a trial. Hands down 100%.

I also agree that there should be no special "hate crime" category. I have said this since I first head of the "hate crime" distinction.

@desertpatriot I think you're ignoring the fact that his trial will be in Chicago and the jury will certainly be predominantly black. He will also be well represented and the prosecutor will be less skilled. The verdict will be tribal. They won't lay a glove on him or one that fits anyways. After that he'll be vindicated and the entire incident will be perceived as a frame up. He'll be a hero.


If your referring to that actor who pulled the hate crime stunt, then yes. His crime does disservice to the victims of true crime and distracts law enforcement. The act of claiming victimhood has become a badge of honor in the current environment and will attract those who will try and take advantage. I don't generally like to make a example out of someone but if the message is not sent that this is a crime that seeks to destoy another's life and will be taken very seriously I'm afraid that this will continue.


Yes, at the very least you should be made to compensate whichever depts wasted their time investigating your nothing burger, instead of investigating real crimes.


Can only punish by the law., so cool all your jets with the Biblical as that will only open a can of worms no one will want to eat. As for False Statement , a class A misdemeanor there’s also Falsely Reporting an Incident, which doesn’t need a written statement, and that is a class A misdemeanor also, but if it concerns serious injury or death, or causes a large-scale response it’s a class D felony, and if it causes serious injury or death it’s a class C felony. At worst the bail money goes for hookers and hot tubs.



most governments have enacted laws that prohibit filing a false report to police.


I think it should be given it's own category based upon what a reasonable person would derive as the intent behind it. For example, in the subject case, the intent appears to have to do with inciting violence and hatred in addition to enhancing his personal fame. Perhaps he should be charged with Sedition.

I do not agree with your assessment of Smolletts perceived intentions. IMHO, he was obviously trying to incite hatred of the "MAGA" community by planning this fake crime upon himself. And yes, it was obviously to further his career by endearing himself to the looney left.

Not sure how we disagree..? I think you more or less restated the same thing I said. I just left out who he was trying to incite hatred against. Maybe I am being a knucklehead and missing something (very possible)?

As for Sedition and why I think this qualifies, here is a definition according to Wikipedia:

"Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interest of sedition.

Typically, sedition is considered a subversive act, and the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another..."

By this definition, Obama and Holder's "Fast and Furious" operation would also qualify. IMO.


In the case of a so called "hate crime", I think those should be eliminated as actual crimes. Everyone should have a right to hate everyone else for any arbitrary reason. That said, faking a crime of any form where there is someone placed in the position of a victim of these false reports, it should absolutely carry a penalty. That penalty should be up to and including whatever punishment would have been metered out if the crime had actually taken place. In situations where there's no specific victim of a false accusation, some penalty in the mid-range of possible results should be considered.

Not to bring in a non-topical item, but I feel this should also be the case in false rape allegations as well. Though, those cases should probably carry a harsher penalty as the accused is likely to suffer simply because of the announcement that a case is being investigated. Just imagine college students being accused of sexual misconduct. They're often ostracized and even expelled from school based on nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim.

Hopefully, we'll return to the practice of "innocent until proven guilty", but I fear that may be a long way off.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:20366
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.