....and more than *two times* that amount were committed against blacks, despite the fact that blacks represent roughly 18% of the population. Seems to me like it is *much* more likely for whites to get prosecuted for committing a hate crime than blacks. Thanks for the link, amigito, it proves my point perfectly.
.....waiting for your first relevant point. You are absolutely wrong. When a black man burns a cross anonymously, and the community assumes that white racists are to blame, the act has tremendous meaning. The intent of the black cross burner is no different than the intent of a Klansman who burns a cross. The victims feel no less terrorized in either case. The hate is no less real. If the criminal is never caught, then the black cross burner is no less despicable than a white cross burner. Of course, you want separate standards of justice for different races. Perhaps you should examine your biases. A black man burning a cross, and blaming it on whites to terrorize other blacks absolutely is "a criminal offense committed against a person....which is motivated..by the offender's bias against a race." Thanks for clearing up this situation for everyone.
....and more than *two times* that amount were committed against blacks, despite the fact that blacks represent roughly 18% of the population. Seems to me like it is *much* more likely for whites to get prosecuted for committing a hate crime than blacks. Or, perhaps, there are more hate crimes committed against blacks in our society. We can't tell from these numbers. Good attempt to misuse stats again, though, T_J.
The Denny assailants were prosecuted (though not under a hate crime law...neither were the cops), but inexplicably found not guilty. Was there even a hate crime law in 1992? I want to know another example of how the young beneficiaries of the civil rights movement are squandering and desecrating its legacy of equal respect and justice for all.
All that article (and subsequent posts here) proves to me is that nobody whines like a white man. First, the kids should be punished and kicked out of school. If somebody wants to prosecute them for vandalism, go ahead. That's the only crime they commited. If you want an "outrageous" example, go back to Tawana Brawley. That was terrible. This is much ado about barely anything. And it definitely isn't a hate crime. The fact that so many here are surprised that blacks haven't been prosecuted as much under hate crime laws just goes to show that those same people don't understand racism in America. What's really bizarre to me though is how these days whites seem more defensive on issues of race than blacks do. Like they are somehow being denied their fair and square chance to be victimized by racism. Why not just be happy you're still on the winning side of the equation and do your part to remain sensitive to existing cases of racism? Since Jorge (of course) feels compelled to bring up the old King/Denny thing: Reginald Denny was victimized by an angry mob, impassioned by a feeling that there was no justice. Rodney King was victimized by the people we entrust to maintain law and order and to protect and serve, and whose crimes against a black man gave that mob the idea that there was no justice. They were right on that, however reprehensible their response. The guys who beat Denny were wrong and they deserve to be in jail. But don't act like what they did is even with what the cops did. And please don't act like what these wrongheaded kids did is a hate crime. It shows that some people still don't understand racism or hate crimes at all and, worse, it dishonors the memories of actual victimes of same.
I don't exactly agree with the assertion, but I'll bite. How is this equal justice? If a white guy kills my wife it is murder. If the white guy kills a black woman down the street it may be classified as a hate crime with stiffer penalties. Both people are DEAD...their lives were no less important to their loved ones...yet one is treated more harshly under the law. Frankly...that pisses me off. People have mentioned degrees of murder and manslaughter. It is a different argument. Reading a person's thought for motive is VASTLY different from a state of mind reading intent to kill and premeditation. Somebody who beats a guy senseless but has no intent to kill will often be convicted of a lesser degree of murder. This is due to the fact that a premeditated killer is much more likely to kill again than is the guy who didn't intend to kill. In summation...looking for specific motive is much different than looking for general intent.
Damn you are really bad with interpreting statistics. This was almost as bad as the classic "in terms of absolute numbers, there are more poor white people than blacks". Keep it up man, it's kind of funny.
Somebody who beats a guy senseless but has no intent to kill will often be convicted of a lesser degree of murder. This is due to the fact that a premeditated killer is much more likely to kill again than is the guy who didn't intend to kill. I would say someone who kills someone because they are black is much more likely to kill another [black] person than someone who kills someone for a reason specific to the victim.
there's just no double standard in justice here. t##, quit inventing some outrageous extension to this that didn't happen. A similar white on black "hoax" would have equal punishment by campus rules and what these kids are facing. The only quote--double standard--unquote is merely regarding some outrage in attention this was given before it was discovered that it was a black-on-black hoax. The students are still facing maximum penalty, and the student president is calling for it. Everything else is like Batman Jones says, a bunch of white bystanders....BYSTANDERS...whining that the initial interpretation was a white racist uprising on campus demanding protection. Well, sorry, it was a hoax, and even still, the punishment will be the same. Trader_Jorge....don't be a whining BYSTANDER. Just call it a stupid hoax that requires expulsion.
Most acts of terror fall under totally different statutes. Why? Because blowing up public buildings or flying airplanes into buildings is vastly different and creates more of a public risk than does the killing of a single individual.
Ladies and gentlemen, the double standard at work above! Batman, it is unbelievable how wrong you are. In the King case, you have an incident where the cops attempted to subdue King with electronic shocks. King got up after both attempts at subduing him. He then charged a police officer. King was drunk at the time and suspected of being high on PCP. It was clear that additional effort was needed to subdue this crazed man. You are telling me that the police's attempts at controlling this drunkard are worse than an angry pack of wild idiots pulling an innocent truck driver out of his rig and beating him for no reason? Unbelievable. It's amazing how blacks get the benefit of the doubt in race-based cases.
A little problem with your relationship there; it actually could prove the reverse of what you're saying. You say it's much more likely for whites to be prosecuted for it, but for you to deduce that from this data, the number of whites charged would have to exceed 5x that of the blacks charged. Of course, you're missing a critical component of the equation, and that's how many whites and blacks committed crimes that could have been categorized as hate crimes. Total population is probably not a very good proxy. In summary: Many whites are charged, even thoguh people here claimed otherwise, but we cannot determine whether the propensity is higher for whites or blacks to be prosecuted under hate laws.
And it was also premeditated. That is why first degree (premeditated) murder has life imprisonment or death as the penalty. Why not just prosecute under that law?
You're actually getting around to why hate crimes are treated differently. Terrorism is destructive to a society beyond the act itself. So are hate crimes.
Additionally...Denny was targeted by the angry mob for beating ONLY because he was a white man. How much more of a hate crime could it be? If you believe in hate crime legislation (which I don't) it MUST cut both ways.
You know what else, you pretty much trashed your own argument here. One in every four of these black/white crimes was anti-white. That means that % wise relative to population, there are more anti-white crimes prosecuted than anti-black. Whooops, rookie.
And it was also premeditated. That is why first degree (premeditated) murder has life imprisonment or death as the penalty. Why not just prosecute under that law? This is why I'm against hate-crimes laws -- the penalties are already reasonable to me without hate-crimes statute, and it saves the effort of trying to prove "hate" which is a pain in the ass in many cases. I don't see any type of legal reason that they definitely shouldn't exist - we already have a "thought"-oriented focus in determining penalties. I just don't think they are necessary or would do anything to really solve anything. It's not going to make someone less likely to commit a crime if they could get 20 yrs instead of 15.
I usually like your posts very much...but to equate a hate crime (as reprehensible as ANY senseless murder may be) with broad acts of terrorism is just nuts.
