Hate crime?

Race or socioeconomic status wouldn't have changed the verdict because the prosecutors didn't file hate crime charges.

Prosecutors have large powers into what they can charge the defendant. If the prosecutor was a former goth in his youth, then he could have a personal bias to see those suspects fry to the fullest.

If it was vice versa, the rich offenders would have the power and resources to cover it up or lower the penalties. Hate crime legislation was designed to balance that discrepency.

Then why not extend similar legislation against the rich classes? Probably because rich people have more to lose and are less inclined to perform similarly "racist and brutal" acts upon the poor.

In the 50s, if a mob of patriots beat the living snot out of a card carrying Commie, the law would probably look the other way.

Do you want that?

I assume that it was intended half for prevention. The other half is a down payment that the verdicts match the severity of the crime. There are still possibilities of racist juries, but HCL is a recognition of our not so distant past.

So...
Can you name any cases, in your opinion, where the penalty was perceived to be less because the victim was white among a group of minority perpetrators?

 

The only thing in the capital murder statute that relates to the victim is the fact that murdering a cop or a fireman is a capital offense and even there it has nothing to do with the relation of the perpetrator to the victim, merely with the classification of the victim.

Everything else in the capital murder section is in regards to circumstances in which the murder occurred (during another felony, for payment, while escaping prison, etc.)

 

I didn't ask if they did. What I'm asking is that there's a huge argument in the other thread about how it was a "hate crime."

This is a cop out answer. You half-answered half of my question.

This doesn't have anything to do with if you consider something a hate crime or if it should be considered any more heinous which was my original question. You're answering questions I didn't ask. I'm asking if in all of these scenarios the act is more heinous because of the relation of the victim to the perpetrator. That's it.

You got me there. I really wanted these types of crimes to happen.

To answer your question, no I don't want that. However, it also has nothing to do with the question since if there is no charge filed, the classification of it as a "hate crime" wouldn't matter as that affects sentencing and not whether a charge is filed.

I'm not arguing that people who beat up other people because they hate them shouldn't be charged. I'm arguing that sentencing them to longer terms BECAUSE they hate them is pointless and seems to endorse the notion that committing a crime against someone of your own race is less heinous than committing a crime against someone of another race (whom you hate).

Hate Crime Legislation figures into sentencing. Charging someone with a hate crime doesn't guarantee they'll be found guilty. It simply says that the jury CAN give them a larger sentence than they normally would.

I'm not sure what you're asking or why it has to do with what I've been talking about. I didn't say there are numerous examples of crimes that should have been hate crimes but weren't because the victim was white instead of a "minority."

I'm saying that it shouldn't matter the races of the victim and the perpetrator. You're arguing against a point that I'm not making. It's just as wrong for a sentence to be more lengthy due to a white person getting beaten up by a group of people that hate him/her because of hatred of white people.

 

If those poor people mutilated and murdered the rich guy in a message to all rich people, then rich people will definitely notice. They'd go nuts if it happened again and again. They would demand the government to respond because they'd be terrified that it'd happen to them next.

What I was saying is that the history behind hate crimes and its prosecution was slanted against the minority victim. The results in those verdicts were "less heinous" compared to similar crimes where race didn't matter because the people in power paid more attention upon the defendants' superficial aspects than the facts in the case.

Entering race as a qualifier for intent doesn't mean prosecution in all interracial conflicts are slanted against the white person.

I think our disagreement lies within this question: If a group of people beats up a person only because of his race, is it targeting the person or the race?

I think that it's less personally motivated and it's more of a message against the victim's race as a whole. If you hate another person, then you have several personal reasons for hating him for what he has done. A cut and dried race crime (lynching) carries it to a different level. There's no personal history. It's meant to intimidate the victim's community. The added punishment is there to spell out the difference.

Again, not all interracial incidents fit into the Hate Crime category. It's similar to a person blowing up a building. The bomber isn't automatically a terrorist.

 

They don't have to say anything, because it's already being partially prosecuted as a hate crime. And if somebody asked Al or Jesse about it, they probably would have something substantive and compassionate to say, rather than some non-committal bullsh*t about how "all crimes are hate crimes."

Do conservatives even know the fu*king difference between Sharpton (Tawana Brawley scandal) and Jackson (MLK aide, two-time hostage negotiator) or does their disdain for opinionated Black men just cloud their reasoning? I guess since King is around to call a Communist anymore...

 

halfbreed,
everybody IS different. The goal shouldn't be to IGNORE the differences between groups of people. The goal should be to celebrate those differences.

I'm only pointing this out because you've said more than once now "all it does is further the belief that everybody is different." We ARE all different ...and proud of it. You need to adjust your thought of what you beleive "racial tolerance" is. Racial tolerance isn't everybody running around ignoring that we all look different.

Once you understand that point, perhaps that will help you understand the other point of view in this argument.

 

The whole hate crime definition is absurd. So if these girls would have been black instead of white - this would be a lesser crime???

In any case, this is a difficult case, how can you know who did what damage...and those who might have actually been trying to help.

If these girls hadn't been stuck up and just laughed off the taunts, they probably would have avoided the trouble.

 

Yes. Slavery and subsequent race riots that caused MILLIONS of $$$s to our communities would be tangible evidence that killin for racial reasons versus killing somebody for fun has a more detrimental effect on EVERYBODY.

So yes, hate crimes are more costly to society as a whole than 'standard' crimes.

If your friend robs a bank and drive the getaway car, you are JUST as guilty.

Are you blaming the victim?

 

Even if I accept your position that the crime is "against the race" it still doesn't justify an automatic harsher sentence. It's just as wrong as giving a lesser sentence in the instances you discussed. How is it OK to justify different sentences in this case if it wasn't OK to do it before?

This whole "against the race" thing just doesn't make sense. I know what you're trying to say but how is anyone harmed by this except the victim and those close to him? The Spring case didn't cause me to fear for my life or cause me any harm due to it being perpetrated against a kid who was half-Mexican.

Oh, I get it. Because I don't agree with you I must not understand because your point of view is OBVIOUSLY right, correct?

I understand completely what you're saying. I agree that we should celebrate our differences but we shouldn't let that cause us to think of each other as different. It's pretty sad that some people look at someone and see a "black man" or a "white man" or a "hispanic man." I think the goal should be to see a person when you look at someone else. We can celebrate each other's cultures but that doesn't mean defining ourselves as all different. We're people. Celebrating differences, in my opinion means celebrating cultures and not the different colors of our skin. If that's how you see things, I feel bad for you.

However, none of what you said has anything to do with hate crime legislation. If I understand you correctly, in order to be racially tolerant, I have to admit that everyone should see everyone else as different and that people who commit crimes out of hatred should be punished more because for some reason that's worse than just committing a crime.

I have yet to see someone try to explain how a crime committed out of "hatred" is more heinous than a crime committed "without hatred."

Jesse Jackson has done good things. Nobody is saying he hasn't. Sadly you can't get it out of your head that you think all conservatives are racist. It's pointless to debate with someone who's unwilling to change their opinion.

 

Rodney King wasn't a hate crime....

But ya know what's ironic....no one calls 9/11 a hate crime...

I don't agree that racial motivations make a crime worse. The law is suppose to be objective. Judges and Juries should be weighing guilt, not trying to play psychiatrists.

A crime is a crime is a crime. Whether you hate a person or not doesn't matter. Actually, I think it's easier to understand killing someone out of hate then just killing someone because you don't care about life. At least the first is rational, where the second is soiciopathic.

Too much focus on hate....and you can't really measure hate. Nor a mob mentality.

In any case, i'm against uping penalties based on where race was an issue. i don't think it harmonizing people together.

If you want to end hate - then figure out the source of the hatred and anger. But laws that consider "hate" are blurry at best, and dangerous at worst.

 

I haven't read the thread, and this is a stupid contribution, but, there are only 22 bones that make up the entire skull, so how could you break one dozen on one side?

 

How does one laugh off being pelted by solid objects?


The article says they were simply trying to walk away initially, then were pelted with solid objects "thrown hard enough to hurt", and that's when one of the girls got 'stuck up' turned around and told them to "stop", turned away again and attempted to leave for the second time.. before a yank of hair "back" towards the mob in relation to their getaway cause the beat down to ensue.

 

We already have different degrees in sentencing depending on the suspect's intent. Intent carries powerful meaning.

I've mentioned the terrorism example before. Why is the government justified in hunting terrorists with broader powers against our civil liberties when kraven murderers already exist?

Furthermore, is it okay to justify different sentences for a suspect just from his affiliation to a terrorist group?

Taken by itself, it could be seen as a freak incident by many. While you hold your own opinion on the matter, I've read different accounts of Mexicans considering this a hate crime.

So wrt the particulars of the Spring incident, consider if there were two or more subsequent incidents involving hispanic teens being brutally attacked (not neccessarily sexually assualted) while at parties. Wouldn't more Mexicans become fearful for their children?

It goes back to the pattern of history involving minorities being attacked with a severity for not for they've done, but for who they are.

Subsequent attacks would give the message that hispanic teens aren't welcome at white parties.

 

Straw man.

We ARE all different. We are all human and should treat each other as such but we are ALL VERY DIFFERENT.

That's an over simplified way to thinking about things. It is human nature to notice differences and no matter how hard we try, humanity will never 'get over it.'

So a healthier approach should be to acnkowledge and seek to understand each other. So basically, as long as you respect that 'black man' or 'hispanic man' just the same as anybody else, what's the problem? We are all different and that is what makes life special. We all have something else to bring to the table.

See, you want to sterize everybody. That is a losing battle, my friend.

I feel bad for you because your idealistic approach to race relations will only end when humantiy itself ends. I take a realistic approach.

Who we are defines us. Period. I'm proud of who I am and I'm proud of my background. I'm PROUD that my background is differant that yours. That's what makes the world go around.

Now, being proud of my differences doesn't mean that I treat other people differently. Just the contrary. Because I recognize and appreciate what makes us all different, I have a higher level of respect for other people's differences. But that is just me. We are all different.

I'm simply pointing out what I feel is an underlying issue of yours in this greater topic of race relations. I'm not really directly addressing hate crimes.

So directly speaking, INTENT is a VERY important part in determing sentencing. Manslaughter is murder without intent. 1st Degree is premeditated. It is silly for you to argue that the intent of a hate crime is not relevant because there are hundreds of years of precedence against you on that. Are you smarter than the justices on the Supreme Court? I'm not.

Because INTENT speaks to how dangerous a person is to society as a whole. If you don't take INTENT into account, then more dangerous people get out of jail early OR less dangerous people go to jail longer. That is why INTENT is an important factor.

And we know for a fact that hate crimes are bigger than the act itself. After the hate crime is over, there are additional impacts on society such as backlash in the community and subsequent violence that may occur. It isn't a simple matter of one guy getting murdered. Hate crimes have a much broader impact on society and leave lasting scars on entire communities.

How's that for an explaination?

 

Just as an aside, Judges and Juries FIRST determine guilt or innocence. Only AFTER has that been determined do we hold a seperate finding to identify sentencing. Just so we are clear.

But did I say EVERY riot was a result of hate crimes?

I said hate crimes have resulted in riots. The ramifications of a hate crime go BEYOND the crime itself. Hate crimes impact entire communities ...not just the victim. And for that reason, hate crimes should be treated differently.

Wrong. The constitution itself identifies certain crimes, like treason, as more important. Are you arguing against the constitution?


In any case, i'm against uping penalties based on where race was an issue. i don't think it harmonizing people together.

 

i'm not arguing that, i'm saying treason is treason, whether you did it to feed your family or for power.

If you kill someone for money, is that better then killing them for hate? Is that more morally justifiable?????

I find that strange.

 

killing in self-defense is not murder.

nor is euthanasia.

i'm saying the difference between killing someone out of hate is no different then for revenge, or money, or other reasons outside of self-defense/act of compassion.

All of those things are crimes, and to say murder is less bad if it's done for gaining money or just for fun then it is because the person is of a different race is ludicrious

 

Treason is a fancy term for corporiate espionage but against the government. But the punishment for treason is 1000x higher than corporate espionage. There is a LONG LONG LONG precident of punishing citizens differently based on intent and importance. Why are you only objecting to it with regards to Hate Crimes. Why? I don't hear you saying manslaughter should be abolished and those folks should be convicted the same as serial murders. You are only attacking Hate Crimes. Ask yourself why.

Yes, killing somebody as a hate crime is worse than killing for money. If you kill somebody for money, the impact of the crime only affects the victim. If you kill somebody over a hate crime, it impacts entire communities.

Hate Crimes are virtually matters of national security because any one event can destabalize an entire community or even the country. Killing somebody for money won't even make the front page on the Chronicle.

 

Before they were pelted. They failed to diffuse the situation in the beginning.