Hate-crime legislation

[quade 4]

Quote

I'll bet some people hate the shit out of white folks, and I'll also bet there are occasional documented crimes commited based on that. If I was right, what should we do?

Any person that decides to harrass, threaten, beat or kill another based on religion, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation would be held accountable to the same standard.

Do you have something -specific- in mind?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Also, law enforcement has tended to look the other way if a white man beat a black man to death, or if a gay man was attacked. They probably deserved it so why prosecute?

When was the last time a white man was beaten, tied to a fence and left to die just because he was white? The guys who did this to Matthew Shepard said Matthew looked at one of them and were surprised when the judge and jury didn't accept it as a reasonable defense. When was the last time a white man was tied to the bumper of a truck and dragged to dismemberment because he was white? James Byrd Jr. was no saint but he didn't deserve to die like that. One of the murders involved didn't think what they were doing was right but was afraid of what would happen to him if he didn't follow along. People presume there is equality in the good ol' U S of A. There isn't. Society believes it's OK to victimize certain groups of people. That's why we need hate crimes legislation.

What you offer fails utterly to rationalize the "need" for hate-crime legislation. You simply don't make any substantive case for it.

ANY murder must be prosecuted (given that there is evidence to support a prosecution). If the police fail to arrest a suspect simply because the victim is in a "protected" class, those police should be in trouble with the law -- and CAN be, even without hate-crime legislation.

If a police force is so ethically bankrupt that it would neglect to charge someone just because the victim was gay -- so they won't uphold the law against MURDERING a human being -- what makes you think they'd even bother to apply the "hate-crime" law??

Likewise, if a person is willing to murder a gay/black/whatever person ("protected class"), is the hate-crime law supposed to dissuade him from that willingness? "Uh-oh, better not murder that guy after all, or they'll get us for being mean to a gay guy!" We're talking about people who already are capable of cold-blooded murder. That's like thinking someone who breaks in and slashes a woman's throat as she sleeps is going to be worried about the B&E charge!

There is nothing about a hate crime law that provides for getting the bad guys any better than the laws that already govern harming others. Period. All they do is outlaw feeling a certain way.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

I'll bet some people hate the shit out of white folks, and I'll also bet there are occasional documented crimes commited based on that. If I was right, what should we do?

Any person that decides to harrass, threaten, beat or kill another based on religion, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation would be held accountable to the same standard.

Do you have something -specific- in mind?

What's wrong with simply prosecuting someone for harrassing, threatening, beating or killing a victim? Who gives a shit why they did it? The crime is the crime. What if a person is a total homophobe but never acts out against gays? No crime. So if a person kills a gay victim, but not because he was gay? Crime. And if a person kills a gay victim because he was gay. Crime. So tell me why the "because he was gay" part is necessary in order to put the killer away for murder?

The answer is, it's not.
All you're saying -- and this cannot be denied -- is that you consider the crime somehow "worse" because of what the killer thought about the lifestyle of the victim. That is tantamount to criminalizing certain thoughts.

-
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Society believes it's OK to victimize certain groups of people.

This is such a huge load of crap it's pathetic.

On what evidence do you make the statement that society (i.e. as a whole, in general, for the most part, etc.) believes it's "OK" to victimize anyone? What meeting did I miss, where society decided to pin down the named groups it would consider subhuman? 'Cause no one told me which groups I supposedly consider it okay to victimize.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[quade 4]

Quote

All you're saying -- and this cannot be denied -- is that you consider the crime somehow "worse" because of what the killer thought about the lifestyle of the victim. That is tantamount to criminalizing certain thoughts.

You say I can not deny it and yet, I do, because simply murdering the person is not the only element to the crime.

A hate crime isn't about victimizing an individual -- it's about victimizing an entire class of people. It's about a group of people trying to make the systematic victimization of that class of people the "normal" state of affairs.

I have already posted links to show some horrific examples of hate crimes. If a person can look at those and still chooses to ignore the difference between a lynching and a murder, then perhaps the best term I can apply to that person is ignorant.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I'll bet some people hate the shit out of white folks, and I'll also bet there are occasional documented crimes commited based on that. If I was right, what should we do?

Take a look at the FBI stats. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecrime2002.pdf

Hate crimes against whites make up about 20% of the identified offenses. Feel free to keep assuming that it's just a law to punish whitey.

[storm1977 0]

We don't need more Laws We just need to enforce the one we already have.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[Casurf1978 0]

So youre telling me that if I get in a brawl with lets say a black person its simple assualt, me sitting with a bud and saying "I really wanna go out and pick up the nearest black person and beat the crap out of them" and then going out and doing it are the same. To me the latter is far more severe. Any reason as to why they should be viewed as the same crime?

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Quote

The why add the extra layer?

Just to make you ask questions

Ok, thanks for helping me make sense of it all . . .

. . =(_8^(1)

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

When was the last time a white man was tied to the bumper of a truck and dragged to dismemberment because he was white?

Patricia Stansfield was white and dragged to death in the same manner.

During the LA riots, there was news camera video of a black man hitting a white man with a concrete block. He was dragged from his truck at a stoplight because he was white.

Just because there is no conviction or no media attention, does not mean that it doesn't happen.

[Keith 0]

The two situations are very different. In one instance a man, unprovoked, was brutally murdered just because he was black. The other is an instance of a people retaliating for centuries of wrongs committed against their people, and exacerbated by a black man being brutally beaten on camera by white cops. If you recall, the LA riots were started because four white cops beat Rodney King after a routine traffic stop. When the cops were acquitted of any wrong doing, the riots ensued. Very different situations.

edited to add: Patricia Stansfield wasn't dragged to death because she was white, she was dragged to death during a car jacking.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[Trent 0]

So if I were to kill another white guy (like myself) because I hated him, would it be a hate crime? Or is it just applicable if I hate a large group of people like him?

Like someone mentioned before, very presumptuous of prosecutors to think that they can read into peoples' minds.

What if a skinhead killed a black guy because they got into a car accident and it got heated? Is that still a hate crime, or does hate really have anything to do with the whole thing?

Oh, hello again!

[skydyvr 0]

And according to that same report, 67% of race based hate crime are against blacks, who make up 12% of the population.

I don't quite think hate crime laws are out there just to punish whitey, but those numbers do say something about how the law is applied.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Keith 0]

Quote

Like someone mentioned before, very presumptuous of prosecutors to think that they can read into peoples' minds.

HELLO! It's their job. Motive is a key issue in determining guilt.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

And according to that same report, 67% of race based hate crime are against blacks, who make up 12% of the population.

I don't quite think hate crime laws are out there just to punish whitey, but those numbers do say something about how the law is applied.

Ummm, that kind of makes sense, doesn't it? You're comparing the percentage of crimes to the percentage of potential victims. Shouldn't it be compared against the potential pool of people that would commit the crime? There should be an inverse relationship between those numbers. Nice try though.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Any person that decides to harrass, threaten, beat or kill another based on religion, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation would be held accountable to the same standard.

Do you have something -specific- in mind?

I just don't believe we need an extra set of laws defined by motive. Perhaps a guy who murders based on race or whatever does deserve a harsher sentence, but the leeway to provide that sentence could easily be incorporated into sentencing guidlines.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Trent 0]

So based on the situations I listed before, what was their motive? To me, the only motive that should make a difference is premeditation. If a guy planned on killing someone of a race he hated, there you go, Murder 1. If someone killed someone of another race in a fight at a bar, manslaughter... whether or not he liked the particular race.

Prosecutors can show reasonable evidence that a murder was premeditated. Unless the guy was a blatant racist or said something to the like before or during the murder, and there were witnesses... how can you really say that someone murdered someone because of their race. It could have been as simple as wrong place, wrong time.

This stuff kinda reminds me of the old sodomy laws here in Texas. Yep, it was illegal to bugger or to have oral sex. A lot of people were against the law because it was "against homosexuality". But in practice, the law was almost never applied, and when it was, it was just something to throw on top of a rape or sexual assault case. To me, this looks like another law to throw on top of people that did something bad. I just don't think it's necessary.

Oh, hello again!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I just don't believe we need an extra set of laws defined by motive. Perhaps a guy who murders based on race or whatever does deserve a harsher sentence, but the leeway to provide that sentence could easily be incorporated into sentencing guidlines.

Murder is charged and tried according to state laws. Hate crime legislation is federal law. That's why to implement it nationwide it has to be a separate set of charges. The feds can't mandate state sentencing guidelines.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

The other is an instance of a people retaliating for centuries of wrongs committed against their people, and exacerbated by a black man being brutally beaten on camera by white cops.

So, you're saying that a group of black people selected a white person based solely on his race, right? He had done nothing wrong to them, and beat him almost to death because they were mad at other white people. Isn't that what you just said?

Can I, as a white person, now pick out an innocent black person solely based on their race because I saw that on tv. Or would that be a hate crime?

That case was the clearest definition of a racially-defined hate crime that I know of.

Quote

If you recall, the LA riots were started because four white cops beat Rodney King after a routine traffic stop. When the cops were acquitted of any wrong doing, the riots ensued. Very different situations.

White cops beat a black man because of his race.
Black people beat a white man because of his race.
Different how?

Riots also ensued after the Bulls won the championship.

looting

Quote

"Looting is not just lawlessness," says Michael J. Rosenfeld, a sociology professor at Stanford University who, in the course of earning a doctorate at the University of Chicago, studied incidences of looting in the wake of celebrations after the Chicago Bulls won the 1992 NBA championship.

[Keith 0]

Quote

White cops beat a black man because of his race.
Black people beat a white man because of his race.
Different how?

One crime was based on hate, the other on revenge.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

All you're saying -- and this cannot be denied -- is that you consider the crime somehow "worse" because of what the killer thought about the lifestyle of the victim. That is tantamount to criminalizing certain thoughts.

You say I can not deny it and yet, I do, because simply murdering the person is not the only element to the crime.

A hate crime isn't about victimizing an individual -- it's about victimizing an entire class of people. It's about a group of people trying to make the systematic victimization of that class of people the "normal" state of affairs.

I have already posted links to show some horrific examples of hate crimes. If a person can look at those and still chooses to ignore the difference between a lynching and a murder, then perhaps the best term I can apply to that person is ignorant.

I didn't look at the links to your horrific examples. I don't see how what you said amounts to the denial I asserted you cannot make: you still are saying that the hate crime is worse than just a plain old murder because of what the thinking behind it was. i.e. Thoughtcrime

What would be wrong with coming up with a "really heinous murder" charge, that would be used when a murder got, well, really heinous? Like dragging to death, or leaving someone tied to a fence, etc. If murder is illegal, that's all that should be prosecuted about a so-called "hate crime," because we are not supposed to criminalize thought and opinion.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

So youre telling me that if I get in a brawl with lets say a black person its simple assualt, me sitting with a bud and saying "I really wanna go out and pick up the nearest black person and beat the crap out of them" and then going out and doing it are the same. To me the latter is far more severe. Any reason as to why they should be viewed as the same crime?

Yes. In the end, the guy is no more or less beaten up when the reason for the beating is one or the other.

Some people will go out and beat, stomp, maybe kill other people and their motivation is simply to take their money. Should that be penalized less than when the motivation is to hurt someone for being black or gay (or straight or white)? Such people are just as dangerous, the more so because they are a threat to people of ALL colors -- I doubt most robbers care one way or another if they're preying on any given race. So that's a BIGGER threat to society, because the targeted victim group is ALL of society instead of at least being limited to a certain group. Yet no one is suggesting enhanced penalties or charges for these criminals. Strange.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

The two situations are very different. In one instance a man, unprovoked, was brutally murdered just because he was black. The other is an instance of a people retaliating for centuries of wrongs committed against their people, and exacerbated by a black man being brutally beaten on camera by white cops. If you recall, the LA riots were started because four white cops beat Rodney King after a routine traffic stop. When the cops were acquitted of any wrong doing, the riots ensued. Very different situations.

edited to add: Patricia Stansfield wasn't dragged to death because she was white, she was dragged to death during a car jacking.

I certainly am not surprised to see you appear to defend the L.A. rioters, because they were "retaliating for centuries of wrongs committed against their people, and exacerbated by a black man being brutally beaten on camera by white cops."

I guess that makes it alright.
You're such a sensitive guy when it comes to the plight of gays and blacks, but when whites are victimized, it's okay as long as the perpetrators are those oppressed blacks. (Never mind that not a one of them was alive during slavery.)

Oh, never mind also that the beating of Rodney King, as shown on t.v ad nauseum was an edited clip that neglected to show that he CHARGED the police in the (unseen) beginning of the video, or that he was high on drugs and acting irrationally. (It's pretty irrational to charge and try to fight a bunch of cops, too.)

So we gradually come to know, more clearly, where you stand. If your people were "oppressed," that vindicates you if you decide to hurt innocent white people who had not one fucking thing to do with your oppression, and whose ancestors did not even own slaves.

Keep it up, Keith.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

White cops beat a black man because of his race.
Black people beat a white man because of his race.
Different how?

One crime was based on hate, the other on revenge.

So if I'm mugged by a guy who is 6'9" tall, and he gets acquitted, and I go out to another town and find a different guy who is 6'9" tall and beat the shit out of him, that's "revenge"?

How the hell is it "revenge" to select a person who is NOT the one who wronged you and beat that person nearly to death?

Your answers continue to be bullshit.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

White cops beat a black man because of his race.
Black people beat a white man because of his race.
Different how?

One crime was based on hate, the other on revenge.

That is exactly what I am saying. Non-specific hate (for the reason of revenge) against a group is the definition of a hate-crime.

1. None of the black people had ever met the white truck driver.
2. He was pulled from his truck and they attempted to murder him solely on the basis of his race.

The "reason" does not matter. Their total selection criteria was race. The definition of a hate-crime, do you disagree?

Of course, the Koreans store owners were "keeping the brothers down" too, I suppose.

My family was from Oregon (a state not involved in slavery issues) and never slave owners. Yet as a white person in the South in 1969, I was attacked for my race by black people during the integration race riots because I was white.

I do not believe that those black people represent all other black people. It would be wrong for me to vent my anger against a random black person today based solely on his race. That is a hate crime.