What you're missing is that a hate crime is considered an attack on a whole class rather than an individual. So even while the specific attack was on an individual it is seen as an attack on the group since the sole point of the attack was to strike at that group. Think about it this way. Why are there differences between manslaughter, murder 1, 2, and 3? They all result in the killing of a person but the motivation and viciousness of how that killing was carried out factor in the severity of crime. So while the beating of somebody solely on the basis that they are a member of a specific group increases the severity of the crime because the motivation is a factor in weighing the severity. I agree though that hate crimes are very muddy.
So I guess all carjacking victims have nobody to blame but themselves. If only they didn't buy a car then nobody could take it from them...
I'm not a legal scholar so I may be wrong but I think the difference between manslaugher and murder (1, 2, or 3) deals more with intent as opposed to strict motivation. I agree that someone who intended to kill someone or harm someone should be dealt with more severely than someone who didn't intend to. I simply don't think the motivation should matter.
Intent and motive both go to state of mind regarding deliberateness and are factors in the severity of a crime. For instance if I get drunk and I get in a fight and in the ensuing brawl I accidently hit someone else so hard they die then that's manslaughter since I had no motive to kill that person. If I plan ahead of time though and kill someone cause they slept with my wife that is murder since there was a motive. Both intent and motive are factors. In the case of a hate crime their is both intent and motive since the intent is to harm and the motive is to deliberately harm a member of a specific class.
Still going with the blame angle eh? The only way your strawman analogy would apply is if some extreme group were targeting certain cars, such as wacko environmental groups torching Hummers. It's not raw luck that immigrants, tourists, or minorities get lynched. If you don't think a bunch of hooligans driving around and specificically looking for persons who are different isn't a worse crime than say a mugging or gang on gang violence, then we'll have to leave it as a difference of opinion. I'd like to hear your views on Terrorism as well. That'd be rich.
My problem is you saying that one type of attack is worse than another simply because of the motivation behind the attack. The intent is there so that's not the difference between the two types. The only difference is the motivation. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about whether or not certain victims are entitled to more because of the motivations of their attackers.
Fair enough. How do you reduce the motivation for these kinds of attacks? With money motivated crimes, neighborhood conditions can improve. Police can target factors related to that crime wave. With rapes, people seem to support stricter penalties and quicker response. Racial criminals belong to all classes. I don't know how these crimes can't be reduced, but I can't shrug it off and accept that these things just happen (I'm not implying that you are). P.S. I don't believe the victims should get more compensation. Similar to what Sishir wrote, the penalty comes from the message of fear these lynchers are trying to send out.
Can a ring be considered a weapon, like say brass knuckles? That would bump it up to Aggravated Assault and make it a felony.
Hey now - the comment I made was primarily a jest. But yeah, I think that there is some merit to the implication that a race-based crime is worse.
There isn't a history of lower class people beating up (or worse) upper class people like there is a history of racially motivated violence. Because of the history we have as a society, racially motivated crimes deserve to be treated as worse than crimes unmotivated by such hatred.
I'm agreeing with those that say a racially based crime should be treated much more seriously than others. It's not just an attack on the individual...but an attack to inflict fear in an entire group of people (terrorism?). And given history in the South...this is especially important. I think the judge did this. Three to six years for beating someone up. I'm not sure there's any jail time without the racial aspect. What should the sentence have been?
group of white kid attacks a black kid, they get 3-6 years, group of black kid attacks an asian kid, they get NOTHING. where my school was located, Bronx Science, everyone that lives in NYC probably knows that the surronding area is a dump, high crime rate and lots of drugs. we have this other high school right next to ours, Clinton, and we have mugging and assaults occur to our students multiple times weekly, i have witnessed it twice, been a victim of it once. I remeber this tall gothic white kid, he looks kind of werid but nobody really bothered him, he was walking to the 4 train station, about 4-6 black kids beat the crap out of him for no friggin reason at all, he was on the ground afterwards. The same group walked up the block to where the BX10 bus station was located, and mugged an asian kid, my 2 friends and I were at another bus station, and if the bus didnt come just than, we would have been history. Also, we had a kid who got his face slashed over a North Face jacket, and the attackers barely got anything, but they ruined this kids life by scarring his face. The police do not take any actions, you know what they tell us? its our fault for not being more careful, what a bunch of ass****s, no wonder so many kids in my school carried knives
I think this example though is one where socialogical results that people want to gain out of hate crime law run into problems with the law. While you might be right there hasn't been a history of the poor lynching the rich, outside of the French Revolution, under equal protection though hate crime laws should extend to all classes. SO if a group of poor teens decided to beat up a rich teen for no other reason than he is rich that to me should be a hate crime. Same if blacks were to beat up a white or homosexuals were to beat up a straight guy. Understandably the goals of the law is to address historical redress and provide traditionally underprivelaged groups but at the same time equal protection is also the law and if hate crimes don't provide equally then they are inherently they are in conflict with the 14th Ammendment.
Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Brightside I got beat up and mugged by a black kid, but then I shot him in the back as he ran away. Cohen, dude, sarcasm meter....turn it back on
The problem though is by your own response shows that this is already a high crime area and that the crimes committed aren't racially motivated. So yes the Asian and white kids in Bronx Science are being mugged and beaten but so are the black and hispanic kids living in the area. These aren't hate crimes but are regular crimes that happen in any high crime area. Also like it or not but yes you should be careful and and responsible for your self-defense. NYC is huge and the police can't be everywhere. Its sad but true but muggings and beatings are very common in NYC and there's no way the police can respond to every single mugging. If you're worried about protecting yourself take a reputable self-defense course (by that I mean something besides the "just get a gun" or "just kick someone in the crotch" course but something that teaches awareness, avoidance and psychology) study a martial art, I recomend Hapkido, Akijitsu and Wing Chun as some very good ones for self-defense and best of all work out and stay in shape. Track and cross country are two of the best things you can do for self-defense.
I'll have to disagree with you Sishir. yes it's true everyone else is getting mugged, but the asians and whites are first on the list of victims, because well they're not black or hispanic. Almost all of these types of muggings start with "hey you chink" or some other racial slur. Asians in particular in NYC has had a long history of being victims of crimes which the police tend to ignore or not prioritize because we won't go protest at a store simply because a salesman followed us around while we were in there. Again it isn't as simple. The kids are going to Bronx Science, because it is one of the top 3 public high schools in the city. They need to go there to increase their prospects for college. I know you may not mean it, but it almost sounds as if you are tellin gthem they should know what they're getting into. That same argument can also be used against blacks in the 60's who bused to white shcools and wound up getting beat up or worse.
You can't legislate thoughts, only actions and intentions. They obviously intended to beat up the victim, this was no accident, and they ended up giving him a beating, to which they plead guilty. That should be the extent of the considerations for their sentencing, not the race of the victim, their race, or why they chose to make an unprovoked attck on this person.
