I tend to agree - I don't see a need for it and I think it is a bit of a pain to prove. Plus, I think sentencing guidelines suck in general. That said, I just don't think it's discriminatory or unfair.
I agree with what Major said about the motive being taken into consideration into other crimes as well. Plus there is the fact that whites will receive lighter sentences than blacks on the whole for the exact same crime. That is the issues that hasn't been addressed. To feel it isn't fair because whites might serve more time for a hate crime, while ignoring the fact that blacks get more time sentenced to them for the exact same crime as whites is not being addressed, is precisely why interest groups that bring media attention, and take up the causes of minorities is necessary. In this very thread there are folks who belong to a race that will comprise most of the juries, judges, attornies, and already get lighter sentences for doing the same crime, complaining about the fact that being motivated by hate and prejudice might increase the sentence of that race. I think there are bigger fish to fry before that issue is debated.
That article doesn't change the facts. It also isn't a comparison of treatment of a white suspect vs. a black suspect. There was the case a few years ago when two high schools either going to the state championship in football, or deep in the playoffs, had students who turned out to be inelligible. The Houston press gave the identity of the black one, but did not do the same for the white student.
How is it arson though? You aren't burning their property. Using your logic, a cross burning is actually more related to putting a flaming bag of dog sh*t on somebody's porch. So in that regards, are these the same crime?
Why do people act like motive isn't even part of our justice system now. You guys are aware there are different degrees of murder, right?
It is arson because there is a significant chance that the cross could fall down and the fire could spread to other parts of the property. I believe that Scalia suggested that cross burning could be prosecuted under anti-arson statutes when he was part of a majority striking down a law against cross burning, and he knows a lot more about the law than I do. Of course there are. One would suspect that killing someone based on their race would be first degree murder, it certainly would involve malice, and I am pretty sure it would be considered pre-meditated. The fact that the killing was motivated by racism could certainly be used to prove the case for first degree murder, but there really doesn't need to be a seperate catagory made. All of the other categories are meant to reflect mitigating circumstances, like the killer was overcome with emotion (crime of passion) or the killing was an accident (involuntary manslaughter), there is no need for a new category that is WORSE than first-degree murder.
yeah i am sooooo mad. all i was originally talking about was how black hate crimes against whitey not being in the media since they aren't controversial for the most part. i guess since you said oj the last one i really remember is the reginald denny (sp?). anyhow, its not like i am doing scientific analysis here. i am only speaking anecdotally from what i perceive. and i am only speaking on things from the top of my head i'm not going in depth into every single report from the media. but what i am thinking of is how the media loves to try to spin stories for more controversy. for example, like any black church burning into some sort possible hate crime even if it is only arson since it draws more attention. anyhow...i really don't have time for this since the market is about to open.
i have no clue wtf that means. i guess i am a closet racist b**** who hates everyone and is only comfortable around whitey.
now that's funny esp considering That if Blacks and whites dothe EXACT same crime black people CONSISTANTLY get more time hell . .. The White person may only get probation . . . . . Rocket River oops. . . sorry . . i forgot to put the obligatory . . . OJ CHANGED EVERYTHING
thanks but i really don't care to because any statement i put out here will be misconstrued as me being a racist unless i write freaking 10 page paper backing up everyone of my points. further i would have to qualify everything i say with "i have not just been isolated around white people my whole life...". sorry its just one of those things that you can't easily explain online since people will automatically reserve judgement when you say certain things and don't present them perfectly.
Your failure to articulate yourself is your problem, not everyone elses. The bigger problem is that you have gigantic fundamental problems with your logic on this issue. You're constantly whining about slights to white people on extraneous issues while not addressing the bigger picture. In this thread you lament the fact that black activists are more visible than white activists though 94 of 100 US Senators are white and every President in US history has been white. Why do white people need activists when they have a stranglehold on power? You're just being whiny and ignorant. Just like the initial comment to start this thread... if the races were reversed. Whatever.
did you know that Martin Luther King was a socialist? That's borderline communist? I had no idea, am I the only one who takes great offense that we celebrate for a communist? Why don't we all praise Castro as well? - Oli Bobba
