From what I understand, hate crime laws exist so federal law/agencies can trump good ol boy local law enforcement. It's an added protection, that's it.
Guess I haven't paid enough attention.....so, my fault, I need to learn the difference between sarcasm and baiting--you think he was serious?
My understanding is that Hate Crime legislation is just like every other program that wants to promote equality by making laws that apply differently to different people. I guess that whole equal protection idea is nothing more than a relic.
That's what I once thought too. But then it was explained to me that they exist for protection against racist local law enforcement and I got it.
The point is too see people flip out over something posted so outrageous it couldn't be true. Its not like I put Cohen in a well or something. That would be warrants for being pissed, I must agree.
You obviously forgot to read the first part of that post or any other posts where I explain why this was considered a hate crime while kids being mugged in NYC might not be.
But this is where it gets into the grey area of what constitutes a hate crime. If the intent is to mug for monetary gain but the attacker uses a racial slur like "Give me your money Chink!" does it become a hate crime? As I explained hate crimes are meant to protect the victimization based purely on membership of a class but it can get muddied and I DO think that is a problem with equal protection. But again the question has to be is the sole, or even primary reason for muggings because of racism? The very fact that many black and hispanic kids who live in the neighborhood speaks against that as being a motivating reason. As for Bronx Science I know a little bit about it since I had some good friends who went to your rival Stuyvesant and I myself was bussed into a poor predominately black neighborhood to attend a magnet school growing up. That said though, I'm not telling you to learn self-defense to be patronizing but because you have to look at the reality of NYC and the reality is that there remotely enough cops to respond or provide security to every crime or crime victim. If you're going to be spending a fair amount of your time in a dangerous area you should be prepared. Even if you aren't everyone should learn practical self-defense focussed on threat awareness, avoidance and psychology for their own benefit.
I somewhat agree with SM on this. I understand hate crimes were meant to provide for equitable enforcement but under equal protection they have to be applied equitably. You can't just say that historically this area one group hasn't gotten equal justice so we need hate crime laws so that attacks based on membership of that group is a more serious offense but then say that attacks on any other group aren't.
I guess the federal hate crime law is being used to make sure the local law is being enforced. It's to protect equality on a local level since the local level can be coprrupted easier. The local redneck cops and the like can't sweep it under the rug etc.
But what Meowgi (and others) are pointing out is that the hate crime legislation was created in part to give another avenue for justice that could bypass local law enforcement, officials that might be racist themselves and might otherwise cover the crime up.
Which is funny because they are about 50 years too late. its a situation that we will hopefully never see again a local jury aquitting someone who is obviously guilty of a violent crime because of prejudice against the victim.
I suppose that kind of depends on where you are from. I hear that there is still PLENTY of racism and that it even extends into law enforcement in some places.
I've never understood why murder, assault, battery, etc. weren't federal crimes anyway. can anyone explain this?
criminal law has traditionally been left to the states. has to do with allocation of resources. we don't have a federal police force. harris county has sheriffs. the city has a police department. it's just how resources have been traditionally allocated.
I can appreciate its use in this regard, but I do still find it problematic. (1) It is a usurpation of local power by the federal government. Maybe being a Southerner, I get my back up about that stuff too easily, but there is an issue of balance of power here that it upset by the federal government trying to do the State's job. (2) I don't see how a hate crime law can be equitably enforced. Racist violence by rednecks on blacks, it'll punish. But, if a racist retributive attack by blacks on a white victim would be less likely to incur the wrath of the hate crime law. There was a house invasion in Chicago I read about years ago by 2 black teenagers and one of them kept telling the people there that it was payback for enslaving his forefathers (the other one kept telling him to cut it out, which was funny). The crime was racially motivated, but not prosecuted as such.
The federal hate crime legislation passed in the late sixties is pretty restrictive in how it can be applied. Almost every state has passed legislation that enhances and expands hate crime protection. I think it still seems somewhat foolish to say that this is a violation of state rights. I suppose it also was a violation of states rights to pass the civil rights act of 1964 or the voting rights act because after all the states could handle all of that. If your argument were to fly, then the federal government would have virtually no power to regulate anything. This isn't some wacky unfunded mandate that is being thrown on the state, rather it simply is creating a minimal standard around hate crimes that most states have already enhanced. As for the question of whether the law is unfairly used and violates the "equal protection" guarantees of the constitution, I believe that your answer isn't particularly responsive. First, realize that it is EXTREMELY hard to prosecute someone on hate crimes grounds. The ability to prove intent to attack someone based on race, religion, etc.. is never easy and rarely ever proven. The Federal legislation makes it almost impossible to prosecute anyone because it only applies if the crime occured under six specific circumstances. The question of whether it applies equally is a non-issue because in the eyes of the law it can be applied to anyone. However, your one anecdotal example probably didn't fit under the specific circumstances required under federal or state law. Hell there are barely any examples of any successful hate crimes prosecutions overall regardless of who was targeted. Remember racism still exists and is something that many still deal with. Many times there are racially motivated crimes that were ignored because of responses like "oh i got beat when i was that age." That doesn't change the facts. Racially motivated violence typically goes ignored and is allowed to fester because we in essence justify it by pretending that we've experienced something remotely similar when in fact racism is a unique thing that none of us probably have experienced as members of a priveleged middle and upper class world that is hidden from the realities of a world that still in many ways is racist. In order to combat racism, we still need to acknowledge its existance and stop pretending that colorblindness is the solution to all of our problems because unfortunately colorblindness is part of the problem rather than the solution.
