Richard Cohen: Hate-crime laws turn thoughts into crimes

[Ibleedburgundy]

Cohen has changed my mind on hate crimes legislation. He's right IMO. Piling on years to a sentence just because there was a racial aspect or sexual preference that the guilty party was angry about doesn't really make any damn sense, and it is perhaps against the principles of the first amendment. I think I've actually argued for hate crimes legislation on this very message board. I change my mind.

Last April, Christine Quinn, speaker of New York's City Council, honored members of the police department's Hate Crimes Task Force and jokingly said she looked forward to the day she could put them out of business. Since that day, the city seems to have gone on a hate-crime spree, culminating early this month with the torture of three men in the Bronx, purportedly for being gay. Too soon, you might say, to disband the Hate Crimes Task Force. You would be wrong.

Almost as bad as hate crimes themselves is the designation. It is a little piece of totalitarian nonsense, a way for prosecutors to punish miscreants for their thoughts or speech, both of which used to be protected by the Constitution (I am an originalist in this regard). It is not the criminal act alone that matters anymore but the belief that might have triggered the act. For this, you can get an extra five years or so in the clink.

.....

The torture of those three men in the Bronx is amply covered by a plethora of laws -- assault, kidnapping, etc. The victims were not more or less victimized by their assailants' hatred of gays. Their torture was not more painful because their torturers hated them. It was the torture itself that mattered. And if the alleged gang members accused of the crimes either were not somehow aware that there are laws forbidding torture or didn't care one way or another, why do we think an additional law regarding hate is going to deter them?

.......

The upshot combines Orwell with Kafka. What is the crime? Attempted murder? Or attempted murder on account of hate? Whom does the perpetrator hate, and how much does he hate him or her? On Long Island, some goons felt a solemn obligation to rid the area of Hispanics. Hate, pure and simple. But one of the perpetrators had black and Hispanic friends -- and a swastika tattooed on his leg. Was he racist or, as his father maintained, just a dumb kid? Did he really hate Hispanics or just Hispanic immigrants and, anyway, what did it matter? Their victim was dead -- the ultimate crime. Should his killers get life for his death -- and another five years for what they thought of him?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/18/AR2010101803595.html

More at the link.

[CNYSkinFan]

the difference in my opinion is that no one is being arrested for thinking something. An illegal act must be committed then the level of that act is determined. A "hate crime" is another level of that act.

We already do this with murder and attempted murder without the hate crime aspect. We have manslaughter, different degrees of murder based on levels of premditation. Unless the anit hate crime people are calling for all murders to be treated the same regardless of thought or intention then they are already picking and choosing which thoughts to punish more.

call me when someone proposes arresting people for hating another group but doing no harm to them....then I will be right there with you brother. Otherwise hate crime is another sespecially egregious level of crime that IMo deserves extra time, not just because of the offense but as a dterrent for future crimes. It also makes jury nullification based on prejudice almost impossible since the crime specifically calls for there to be punishment. Before these laws you could see defense lawyers argue that a man beat up and killed a homosexual man because he tried to kiss him or something stupid like that or take examples of white men accused of killing black men in the 40's in Alabama.

This is where some liberals catch themselves trying to be tolerant even of intolerance. Intention is a part of thought therefore we already prosecute based on thought.

[akhhorus]

The problem, imo, is one of definition. Some drunk at a bar who hits a latino with a beer bottle while muttering "Damn Mexican" probably isn't committing a "hate crime" and doesn't deserve the enhancement of charges. A couple guys driving around a major city vandalizing synagogues with swastikas clearly deserve more than a few hours community service for simple vandalism. There needs to be thresholds for what defines a "hate crime" or a crime motivated by racial/religious/etc hatred and the enhancement for the crimes has to be pegged to the crime that was committed. For example, the vandals should serve some time for that, but not 25 years. The drunk in the bar might deserve some jail time for assault instead of probation/PTI for muttering about mexicans. If someone murders someone or commits a major felony(like arson), and there's proof that it was motivated solely by the victim's race/religion/etc, they probably should do life(or the normal penalty+20 years).

[justinskins]

What Cohen ignores is that hate crimes are often targeted not merely at an individual person. They are intended to intimidate an entire community. That's why burning a cross on someone's lawn isn't a simple act of arson or vandalism. In the case of murder you can make the argument that the punishment already fits the crime. But in cases of assault or vandalism, it's too easy for an offender to get away with a slap on the wrist for a crime that affects an entire city.

[Ibleedburgundy]

What Cohen ignores is that hate crimes are often targeted not merely at an individual person. They are intended to intimidate an entire community. That's why burning a cross on someone's lawn isn't a simple act of arson or vandalism. In the case of murder you can make the argument that the punishment already fits the crime. But in cases of assault or vandalism, it's too easy for an offender to get away with a slap on the wrist for a crime that affects an entire city.

He does kind of address that though. He was saying how a violent crime intimidates everyone, not just those associated with the victims. In that regard, I think he's right. If a guy gets killed in a park, I'm not going to feel safe just because I am white and he was latino.

[Ibleedburgundy]

the difference in my opinion is that no one is being arrested for thinking something. An illegal act must be committed then the level of that act is determined. A "hate crime" is another level of that act.

We already do this with murder and attempted murder without the hate crime aspect.

That's fine. So let the hate aspect go towards motive and classification. It definitely isn't going to hurt the prosecution. By why should it account for extra years above and beyond the limits of what the actual crime is worth?

[justinskins]

He does kind of address that though. He was saying how a violent crime intimidates everyone, not just those associated with the victims. In that regard, I think he's right. If a guy gets killed in a park, I'm not going to feel safe just because I am white and he was latino.

If the clan is going around beating up blacks in minority neighborhoods, would that really make a white feel that threatened? When the SA was beating up Jews in 1920s Germany, do you think all gentiles felt threatened? I'll admit that those are extreme cases, but they capture what I'm trying to get at: that violence directed toward a group will disproportionately cause fear in members of that group, with the goal of cowing them into submission.

[RedskinsDave]

Wow, IBB and I agree on something. My biggest issue with hate crimes is that they are almost never used against minorities. If a white guy gets jumped by a gang of any ethnic background and they spend the whole beating calling him cracker or whitey, chances are extremely slim they will be charged with a hate crime.

[CNYSkinFan]

That's fine. So let the hate aspect go towards motive and classification. It definitely isn't going to hurt the prosecution. By why should it account for extra years above and beyond the limits of what the actual crime is worth?
Because we already do that, it is an inherent part of our judicial system.

For example klets say someone uis driving wrecklessly and kills a woman crossing the street, he is going to be charged with manslaughter or murder 3, lets say another guy decides to run down his wife in a drunken rage because he found her cheating on him, murder 2. Now lets say a guy patietnly waits outside of his wife's work for her to cross her street to her car so he can run her down in cold blood in hopes of getting a life insurance check. Murder 1

In all three cases the death was caused by a vehicular accident, but in all three cases different crimes were commit6ted, so a hate crime would be the same scenario as 1 except instead of life insurance the guy was trying to kill a lesbian actively engaged in the movement towards marriage equality. that is more then just premditation because as justin pointed out it is intimidation of an entire community.

[CNYSkinFan]

The problem, imo, is one of definition. Some drunk at a bar who hits a latino with a beer bottle while muttering "Damn Mexican" probably isn't committing a "hate crime" and doesn't deserve the enhancement of charges. A couple guys driving around a major city vandalizing synagogues with swastikas clearly deserve more than a few hours community service for simple vandalism. There needs to be thresholds for what defines a "hate crime" or a crime motivated by racial/religious/etc hatred and the enhancement for the crimes has to be pegged to the crime that was committed. For example, the vandals should serve some time for that, but not 25 years. The drunk in the bar might deserve some jail time for assault instead of probation/PTI for muttering about mexicans. If someone murders someone or commits a major felony(like arson), and there's proof that it was motivated solely by the victim's race/religion/etc, they probably should do life(or the normal penalty+20 years).
Prosecutors overreach on everything. Often they go for murder 1 in an attempt to get a plea even though they believe it is manslaughter. Or they just want a murder 1 conviction on their record. It is up to the judge and juries to police them.

[justinskins]

Wow, IBB and I agree on something. My biggest issue with hate crimes is that they are almost never used against minorities. If a white guy gets jumped by a gang of any ethnic background and they spend the whole beating calling him cracker or whitey, chances are extremely slim they will be charged with a hate crime.

I don't know the actual statistics on how often this occurs and isn't prosecuted as a hate crime, but I agree with the principle behind this criticism. The door has to swing both ways.

[RedskinsDave]

Because we already do that, it is an inherent part of our judicial system.

For example klets say someone uis driving wrecklessly and kills a woman crossing the street, he is going to be charged with manslaughter or murder 3, lets say another guy decides to run down his wife in a drunken rage because he found her cheating on him, murder 2. Now lets say a guy patietnly waits outside of his wife's work for her to cross her street to her car so he can run her down in cold blood in hopes of getting a life insurance check. Murder 1

In all three cases the death was caused by a vehicular accident, but in all three cases different crimes were commit6ted, so a hate crime would be the same scenario as 1 except instead of life insurance the guy was trying to kill a lesbian actively engaged in the movement towards marriage equality. that is more then just premditation because as justin pointed out it is intimidation of an entire community.

You're talking about the intent versus an accident and that's already included in the laws. Hate crimes take the intent and then add on a penalty as if one intent is worse than another. If I purposely go out of my way to beat some guy up, it doesn't matter if my motivation is his skin color or the football team from Dallas he cheers for.

[akhhorus]

Prosecutors overreach on everything. Often they go for murder 1 in an attempt to get a plea even though they believe it is manslaughter. Or they just want a murder 1 conviction on their record. It is up to the judge and juries to police them.

But a judge can throw out hate crime enhancement. I believe in most jurisdictions they have to apply to the judge for it pre-trial.


You're talking about the intent versus an accident and that's already included in the laws. Hate crimes take the intent and then add on a penalty as if one intent is worse than another. If I purposely go out of my way to beat some guy up, it doesn't matter if my motivation is his skin color or the football team from Dallas he cheers for.

I agree generally, but if someone is going around burning down black churches or the homes of gay couples, that clearly is much more than just arson. There has to be a different set of penalties for something like that.

[RedskinsDave]

I agree generally, but if someone is going around burning down black churches or the homes of gay couples, that clearly is much more than just arson. There has to be a different set of penalties for something like that.

But its not any different. Use the motivation when it comes to the sentence like judges and juries already do. Making it a whole other crime is wrong.

[CNYSkinFan]

You're talking about the intent versus an accident and that's already included in the laws. Hate crimes take the intent and then add on a penalty as if one intent is worse than another. If I purposely go out of my way to beat some guy up, it doesn't matter if my motivation is his skin color or the football team from Dallas he cheers for.
no the difference between murder 2 and murder 1 is differences in intent. In Murder 2 the intent to kill is still there but it is there in the heat of passion or some other instance, murder 1 is premeditation. again intent is in both so the difference between murder 1 and murder 2 is the thought behind the intent. This is just another extrapolation of that, adding a level beyond murder 1 for a hate crime killing.

[RedskinsDave]

no the difference between murder 2 and murder 1 is differences in intent. In Murder 2 the intent to kill is still there but it is there in the heat of passion or some other instance, murder 1 is premeditation. again intent is in both so the difference between murder 1 and murder 2 is the thought behind the intent. This is just another extrapolation of that, adding a level beyond murder 1 for a hate crime killing.

No, the difference is intent and premeditated intent.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I agree generally, but if someone is going around burning down black churches or the homes of gay couples, that clearly is much more than just arson. There has to be a different set of penalties for something like that.

How about: 2 counts of arson lol.

[CNYSkinFan]

No, the difference is intent and premeditated intent.
and premeditation goes to thought and what a defendant was thinking at the time of the murder. Chraging someone with a hate crime is no different, you are punishing them for their thoughts. Perhaps a lawyer can jump in here but I am pretty sure that you can get charged with premditated murder even if you only think of the plan within a matter of minutes and carry it out. Say like your accountant confronts you wiht the reality you have been stealing from your employer and you decide to push them out a window to avoid a jail term, I am pretty sure that can be charged as murder 1 since it is not a crime of passion. Say a husband comes home seeing his wife cheating on him and throws her out a window. The timing of the action and the action are about the same but the thought process behind it are different and that is why it murder 1 and murder 2.

[akhhorus]

But its not any different. Use the motivation when it comes to the sentence like judges and juries already do. Making it a whole other crime is wrong.

The history of the US and race speaks to needing greater penalties for crimes that are based on racial/religious hatred.

How about: 2 counts of arson lol.

Except that depending on the state, arson can carry a relatively small penalty especially if you have a clean record. If I tried to burn someone's home and caused less than 1000 bucks of damage, I can get a slap on the wrist in maryland. With a clean record, I could get probation and a fine. If I burned down your house in Texas, I could get as little as 2 years in jail. Thats not right.

[Ibleedburgundy]

and premeditation goes to thought and what a defendant was thinking at the time of the murder. Chraging someone with a hate crime is no different, you are punishing them for their thoughts.

Planning a crime is arguably an action, and not just a thought or opinion.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Except that depending on the state, arson can carry a relatively small penalty especially if you have a clean record. If I tried to burn someone's home and caused less than 1000 bucks of damage, I can get a slap on the wrist in maryland. With a clean record, I could get probation and a fine. If I burned down your house in Texas, I could get as little as 2 years in jail. Thats not right.

So then use the hate motive to argue the person shouldn't get the minimum. If arson penalties are too easy, maybe the penalties should be expanded, hate crime or no.

[akhhorus]

So then use the hate motive to argue the person shouldn't get the minimum. If arson penalties are too easy, maybe the penalties should be expanded, hate crime or no.

It shouldn't be up to the whims of a judge what someone gets as a sentence for something that clearly merits a higher punishment. Using the previous example I used, if you upped vandalism penalties up to a potentially serious jail sentence, then a judge(or jury) could penalize some dumb kid for tagging a wall, thats a greater abuse of the legal code than what "abuse" hate crime legislation could possibly be.

[RedskinsDave]

The history of the US and race speaks to needing greater penalties for crimes that are based on racial/religious hatred.

To a liberal maybe. We're either equals or we're not.

Except that depending on the state, arson can carry a relatively small penalty especially if you have a clean record. If I tried to burn someone's home and caused less than 1000 bucks of damage, I can get a slap on the wrist in maryland. With a clean record, I could get probation and a fine. If I burned down your house in Texas, I could get as little as 2 years in jail. Thats not right.

So if someone burns down my house, they won't get as big a punishment as if they burned down a black guy's house. That's fair.

It shouldn't be up to the whims of a judge what someone gets as a sentence for something that clearly merits a higher punishment. Using the previous example I used, if you upped vandalism penalties up to a potentially serious jail sentence, then a judge(or jury) could penalize some dumb kid for tagging a wall, thats a greater abuse of the legal code than what "abuse" hate crime legislation could possibly be.

Instead it should be up to an DA or magistrate to decide whether its a hate crime or not. There's not a difference.

[CNYSkinFan]

Planning a crime is arguably an action, and not just a thought or opinion.
even if the plan is only in your head? Lets look at the accepted definition of the word


1. The act of speculating, arranging, or plotting in advance.
2. Law The contemplation of a crime well enough in advance to show deliberate intent to commit the crime; forethought.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/premeditation

contemplation is simile for thought, also forethought is in there. We already have legal precedent to charge with a higher crime based on thoughts. I don't see the difference. Is it more reprehensible or damaging to society for premditation or hatered of a particular group so much that crime can happen for only that reason? I would say that the need to protect society on this one trumps the qualms of a few who are uneasy with something we already do in other cases.

[CNYSkinFan]

To a liberal maybe. We're either equals or we're not.



So if someone burns down my house, they won't get as big a punishment as if they burned down a black guy's house. That's fair.



Instead it should be up to an DA or magistrate to decide whether its a hate crime or not. There's not a difference.
Dave not every crime against a minority is a hate crime. If an arsonist happened to burn a black mans house down randomly he would not be charged with a hate crime. If he specifically chose to burn down a black mans home because he is black and the arsonist is sending a message to the black community it rises to a level beyond just a deranged man doing random crap

[RedskinsDave]

and premeditation goes to thought and what a defendant was thinking at the time of the murder. Chraging someone with a hate crime is no different, you are punishing them for their thoughts. Perhaps a lawyer can jump in here but I am pretty sure that you can get charged with premditated murder even if you only think of the plan within a matter of minutes and carry it out. Say like your accountant confronts you wiht the reality you have been stealing from your employer and you decide to push them out a window to avoid a jail term, I am pretty sure that can be charged as murder 1 since it is not a crime of passion. Say a husband comes home seeing his wife cheating on him and throws her out a window. The timing of the action and the action are about the same but the thought process behind it are different and that is why it murder 1 and murder 2.

The intent determines whether it is murder or manslaughter. The premeditation determines whether it is murder 1 or 2. If we are arguing and I pick up a hammer to throw it at you and it kills you, the DA would have to prove I intended to kill you versus injure you. They have to prove that my act had a reasonably expectation to kill you so your window example would almost always be able to carry a murder 1 charge.

Regardless, the crime is what it is and why I wanted to hurt or kill you doesn't change that. What I wanted to do TO you does.

[RedskinsDave]

Dave not every crime against a minority is a hate crime. If an arsonist happened to burn a black mans house down randomly he would not be charged with a hate crime. If he specifically chose to burn down a black mans home because he is black and the arsonist is sending a message to the black community it rises to a level beyond just a deranged man doing random crap

Yes but the point is my house can be burned down for any number of reasons and the arsonist will face one charge. That's not true if I was gay or black or anything else. How is that fair?

Hate crimes are a liberal idea that one crime is worse than the other. They aren't.

[Keino]

To a liberal maybe. We're either equals or we're not.



So if someone burns down my house, they won't get as big a punishment as if they burned down a black guy's house. That's fair.



Instead it should be up to an DA or magistrate to decide whether its a hate crime or not. There's not a difference.

It's not a liberal or conservative issue. Historical context matters and the fact that the concept of hate crimes were created has everything to do with the abuses of the majority over minorities that extended beyond the crime itself. That you can't see this or are choosing to ignore this says alot.

The same thing is currently happening relative to gay citizens.

Your second non-point has been adequately disposed of, so I will move on to the third point.

The clear difference is that the DA would then have to prove it to be a "hate crime" which is quiet different from a judge, after guilt or innocence has been determined, whimsically applying a standard that wasn't adjudicated.

[akhhorus]

To a liberal maybe. We're either equals or we're not.

*rubs my temples* I don't even know where to begin with this. This isn't part of your neverending partisan war that doesn't really exist. The Constitution says we're equals, but even after the Constitution was amended to give everyone equal rights, even the federal and state government wouldn't recognize people as equals, so your premise is pretty damn flawed on the basics. Remember the Dredd Scott decision? Yes, it in an ideal society, we're all equals and the Law says that everyone has equal rights. In the real world, people still can be bigots to the point where they feel justified to commit violence on groups they fear/hate. And people have a right to expect that if someone is trying to harm/intimidate them for the sole reason of what they are that the State will punish them appropriately.

So if someone burns down my house, they won't get as big a punishment as if they burned down a black guy's house. That's fair.

If the person who burned down yours or the black guy's house because you're Catholic or that the other guy was black. Thats a hate crime. If they burned down both houses without knowing who was inside or without any overt proof that they did it for the reason that you're Catholic or the other guy was black, thats arson.

Instead it should be up to an DA or magistrate to decide whether its a hate crime or not. There's not a difference.

Well, no. The DA can press the charges(depending on the jurisdiction), but the judge/jury usually has the option to decide whether the hate crime enhancement was proven.

[Ibleedburgundy]

even if the plan is only in your head? Lets look at the accepted definition of the word



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/premeditation

contemplation is simile for thought, also forethought is in there. We already have legal precedent to charge with a higher crime based on thoughts. I don't see the difference. Is it more reprehensible or damaging to society for premditation or hatered of a particular group so much that crime can happen for only that reason? I would say that the need to protect society on this one trumps the qualms of a few who are uneasy with something we already do in other cases.

There is a crystal clear distinction between punishing a pea brain for thinking random idiotic racist thoughts and punishing someone for thinking to themselves "OK everyday this person leaves work at 5:00 pm. On Tuesdays there is no security guard at the gate. I'm going to put on my ski mask and my black gloves to cover my finger prints, wait outside their office on Tuesday, October 26th, and then committ my crime, and escape in my green volkswagon while listening to Debbie Gibson's second album."

Again, that would be planning - an action - even if it does only occur in the mind. Your argument goes towards reprehensible racist thoughts. One is premeditation, the other is not. In terms of the law and philosophically, I think that's as good a place to draw the line as any.

[Keino]

Yes but the point is my house can be burned down for any number of reasons and the arsonist will face one charge. That's not true if I was gay or black or anything else. How is that fair?

That's not necessarily true. If the theoretical black arsonist was say someone known to espouse anti-white views and advocated violent action against whites, then that person would be subject to a Hate crime charge. And as I said above, the state still has to prove that aspect of its case.

Hate crimes are a liberal idea that one crime is worse than the other. They aren't.


The Law disagrees with you, otherwise there wouldn't be degrees of murder and degrees of manslaughter or degrees of theft etc etc etc. It is saying yes, some crimes are worse than others. Hate crimes rise to a level of repugnance that exceeds the underlying crime due to the effect on the targeted community.

Just ask the black grocer in the 1940s who was tired of seeing he and others like him paying different (and higher) prices than their white counter-parts only to have their grocery store destroyed by the Klan and himself lynched. No other black owned groceries popped up after that. Extreme and old example, but it demonstrates how a hate crime has a more far reaching effect than the underlying crime.

[RedskinsDave]

*rubs my temples* I don't even know where to begin with this. This isn't part of your neverending partisan war that doesn't really exist. The Constitution says we're equals, but even after the Constitution was amended to give everyone equal rights, even the federal and state government wouldn't recognize people as equals, so your premise is pretty damn flawed on the basics. Remember the Dredd Scott decision? Yes, it in an ideal society, we're all equals and the Law says that everyone has equal rights. In the real world, people still can be bigots to the point where they feel justified to commit violence on groups they fear/hate. And people have a right to expect that if someone is trying to harm/intimidate them for the sole reason of what they are that the State will punish them appropriately.

*rubs temples* aka *I am so much more enlightened than you*

Yes, people are free to be bigots just as they're free to do anything else. If they commit a crime in the name of that bigotry, feel free to prosecute them for it. If they're just douche bags, that's life. There are plenty in every color and creed.


If the person who burned down yours or the black guy's house because you're Catholic or that the other guy was black. Thats a hate crime. If they burned down both houses without knowing who was inside or without any overt proof that they did it for the reason that you're Catholic or the other guy was black, thats arson.

That's horse crap and you know it. Under no circumstance would any crime committed against me be treated as hate crime. Commit a crime against me and you won't be looking at extra time because of any way I was born. I guess that's my parent's fault though, not the criminal.

Well, no. The DA can press the charges(depending on the jurisdiction), but the judge/jury usually has the option to decide whether the hate crime enhancement was proven.

I don't think that's how it works and if it is left up to a jury to add in other crimes, that's a serious flaw in the system. He burned a house down AND he's a jerk?! Here's more time!!

[justinskins]

Just ask the black grocer in the 1940s who was tired of seeing he and others like him paying different (and higher) prices than their white counter-parts only to have their grocery store destroyed by the Klan and himself lynched. No other black owned groceries popped up after that. Extreme and old example, but it demonstrates how a hate crime has a more far reaching effect than the underlying crime.

Don't worry, there are no more white racists. Anyone who says they still exist is the real racist. That's because the problem today is minorities controlling the government and oppressing white people.

/sarcasm

[RedskinsDave]

That's not necessarily true. If the theoretical black arsonist was say someone known to espouse anti-white views and advocated violent action against whites, then that person would be subject to a Hate crime charge. And as I said above, the state still has to prove that aspect of its case.

Theoritically true. Practically, ain't gonna happen.


The Law disagrees with you, otherwise there wouldn't be degrees of murder and degrees of manslaughter or degrees of theft etc etc etc. It is saying yes, some crimes are worse than others. Hate crimes rise to a level of repugnance that exceeds the underlying crime due to the effect on the targeted community.

Just ask the black grocer in the 1940s who was tired of seeing he and others like him paying different (and higher) prices than their white counter-parts only to have their grocery store destroyed by the Klan and himself lynched. No other black owned groceries popped up after that. Extreme and old example, but it demonstrates how a hate crime has a more far reaching effect than the underlying crime.

It's not the 1940's. Hate crimes are not the same as different types of murder charges. They are special sentences and crimes given because we have decided that bigots deserve more time.

If someone kills a pregnant mother, it is far worse than if someone kills a drug dealer. Let's make different crimes for those. Maybe we should just call them "crimes we don't like more than others" laws and add sentences on when we feel like it.

[justinskins]

If someone kills a pregnant mother, it is far worse than if someone kills a drug dealer. Let's make different crimes for those. Maybe we should just call them "crimes we don't like more than others" laws and add sentences on when we feel like it.

Injuring a pregnant woman is a crime in most places, including North Carolina (where I live). So yes, you would get more years in the circumstances you mentioned.

[RedskinsDave]

Injuring a pregnant woman is a crime in most places, including North Carolina (where I live). So yes, you would get more years in the circumstances you mentioned.

Not everywhere and thanks for ignoring the spirit of the post. I should have written "kill a mother of four versus a drug dealer" so it would make you happy.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Hate crimes rise to a level of repugnance that exceeds the underlying crime due to the effect on the targeted community.

Just ask the black grocer in the 1940s who was tired of seeing he and others like him paying different (and higher) prices than their white counter-parts only to have their grocery store destroyed by the Klan and himself lynched. No other black owned groceries popped up after that. Extreme and old example, but it demonstrates how a hate crime has a more far reaching effect than the underlying crime.

That is an awful story. If a person was convicted of that crime in Virginia in 2010, there is a good chance they would get the death penalty. Hate crime legislation couldn't make that punishment any worse, it wouldn't bring back the victim, and studies have shown it wouldn't deter the next racist imbecile to come along (assuming hate crime legislation isn't any more effective as a deterrant than death penalties, and so applicable to this case since it would likely be a death penalty case). Nor would the hate crime aspect alone make the community of scared people any less scared considering the guy would be at least put away for life regardless.

We also have laws against threats and intimidation that ought to serve to protect a fearful community. The real culprit in your story was some areas in the South didn't apply their justice properly back then.

[akhhorus]

*rubs temples* aka *I am so much more enlightened than you*

I must have missed when I said or implied anything close to that.

Yes, people are free to be bigots just as they're free to do anything else. If they commit a crime in the name of that bigotry, feel free to prosecute them for it. If they're just douche bags, that's life. There are plenty in every color and creed.


There's a massive difference between just being some racist railing against an ethnic group and committing actions meant to inflame/intimidate/oppress that same ethnic group. By your logic, you are saying that if I burned a cross in a black family's yard to get them to leave their home so I could kick the husband a few times while shouting the n-word at him, I can't be charged with any crime except simple assault. And I could keep on doing it every day without fear of serving much(if any) prison time as long as I never escalated the crime past just kicking them. At some point, I would have to be thrown in jail for a long time. And in your ideal system, I could burn crosses in front of the home of every black family in Maryland, and I couldn't be convicted of any crime(if I didn't do it on their property, but thats vandalism at most). There's no equitable system in this country where thats not a crime. And thats not a liberal/conservative issue no matter how much you want to make everything I say into something partisan.

That's horse crap and you know it. Under no circumstance would any crime committed against me be treated as hate crime. Commit a crime against me and you won't be looking at extra time because of any way I was born. I guess that's my parent's fault though, not the criminal.

If you caught someone trying to burn your car after they wrote "Go to hell Popelover" there's not a district in this country that wouldn't charge them with a hate crime.

I don't think that's how it works and if it is left up to a jury to add in other crimes, that's a serious flaw in the system. He burned a house down AND he's a jerk?! Here's more time!!

That system might be flawed, but it at least deals with a more real world than your "we shouldn't prosecute any hate crimes because minorities couldn't be convicted if they did the same thing" system(even though some latin gang members have been convicted of a hate crime against a black woman).

[akhhorus]

If someone kills a pregnant mother, it is far worse than if someone kills a drug dealer. Let's make different crimes for those. Maybe we should just call them "crimes we don't like more than others" laws and add sentences on when we feel like it.

Welcome to 2010: most states have different murder charges for situations that go beyond simple murder. Killing of a witness, spree killing, multiple murders at the same incident, torture, in furtherance of a gang action and many other.

[justinskins]

Not everywhere and thanks for ignoring the spirit of the post. I should have written "kill a mother of four versus a drug dealer" so it would make you happy.

You seemed to indicate in your post that a law increasing penalties when the victim of a crime is pregnant would represent a capricious act on the part of the state, one that in effect discriminates among its citizens. In fact, such laws exist. Do you oppose them?

The fact is that the law does not judge actions alone. It has always been concerned with what is in the mind of the person committing the crime. There are very few crimes in which a person is strictly liable for his/her actions.

One point of law is to try to push society in the direction we would like it to go. I would like to live in a society in which a white person could walk through a minority neighborhood in the late evening without being fearful. I would also like to live in a society in which a minority could walk through a white neighborhood without worrying about getting hassled by the police. Or a society in which a gay person could live in a small town in middle America without worrying about getting his head stomped in by bigots. Hate crime legislation is an attempt to move in that direction by showing that society will not tolerate violence based on bigotry. It does not violate the first amendment, because people are free to be bigots as long as they do not act on their beliefs.

A recent story that shows how alive old prejudices are: During Katrina, there was a white neighborhood in New Orleans that was on high ground. A lot of refugees passed through it during the flooding. A gang of local residents decided they didn't like some of the people passing through, armed themselves, and began to intimidate blacks seeking respite from the rising waters. As a result, several black men were shot (not sure if any of them died). In my opinion, what they did was worse than a handful of attempted murders. They were trying to tell any other blacks coming by that they should drown instead of trying to go through their neighborhood.

[RedskinsDave]

I must have missed when I said or implied anything close to that.

Rubs temples, face palm pic, they're all the same.

There's a massive difference between just being some racist railing against an ethnic group and committing actions meant to inflame/intimidate/oppress that same ethnic group. By your logic, you are saying that if I burned a cross in a black family's yard to get them to leave their home so I could kick the husband a few times while shouting the n-word at him, I can't be charged with any crime except simple assault. And I could keep on doing it every day without fear of serving much(if any) prison time as long as I never escalated the crime past just kicking them. At some point, I would have to be thrown in jail for a long time. And in your ideal system, I could burn crosses in front of the home of every black family in Maryland, and I couldn't be convicted of any crime(if I didn't do it on their property, but thats vandalism at most). There's no equitable system in this country where thats not a crime. And thats not a liberal/conservative issue no matter how much you want to make everything I say into something partisan.

Trespassing, intimidation and felony assault would all fit in your example, not to mention arson in most places. It's very liberal to think a bigoted crime is any worse than another.

If you caught someone trying to burn your car after they wrote "Go to hell Popelover" there's not a district in this country that wouldn't charge them with a hate crime.

Oh bull.

That system might be flawed, but it at least deals with a more real world than your "we shouldn't prosecute any hate crimes because minorities couldn't be convicted if they did the same thing" system(even though some latin gang members have been convicted of a hate crime against a black woman).

No one said minorities wouldn't be convicted but they would face the exact same sentence. In your gang member example, the victim was still a minority.

[RedskinsDave]

You seemed to indicate in your post that a law increasing penalties when the victim of a crime is pregnant would represent a capricious act on the part of the state, one that in effect discriminates among its citizens. In fact, such laws exist. Do you oppose them?

That is different and I should have used an example that wouldn't have led you astray. No, there should be no additional charge if a woman is pregnant unless its a state where abortions are illegal. Otherwise, it is incredibly hypocritical of the state.

The fact is that the law does not judge actions alone. It has always been concerned with what is in the mind of the person committing the crime. There are very few crimes in which a person is strictly liable for his/her actions.

One point of law is to try to push society in the direction we would like it to go. I would like to live in a society in which a white person could walk through a minority neighborhood in the late evening without being fearful. I would also like to live in a society in which a minority could walk through a white neighborhood without worrying about getting hassled by the police. Or a society in which a gay person could live in a small town in middle America without worrying about getting his head stomped in by bigots. Hate crime legislation is an attempt to move in that direction by showing that society will not tolerate violence based on bigotry. It does not violate the first amendment, because people are free to be bigots as long as they do not act on their beliefs.

A recent story that shows how alive old prejudices are: During Katrina, there was a white neighborhood in New Orleans that was on high ground. A lot of refugees passed through it during the flooding. A gang of local residents decided they didn't like some of the people passing through, armed themselves, and began to intimidate blacks seeking respite from the rising waters. As a result, several black men were shot (not sure if any of them died). In my opinion, what they did was worse than a handful of attempted murders. They were trying to tell any other blacks coming by that they should drown instead of trying to go through their neighborhood.

Convicting people of special crimes won't do anything to make the hate go away. Treating certain victims better than others probably does the opposite.

[akhhorus]

Rubs temples, face palm pic, they're all the same.


Believe whatever you want to. If I ever want to condescend, especially to one of your posts, I would be far more sarcastic with it than the Picard face palm picture(which isn't condescending at all).

Trespassing, intimidation and felony assault would all fit in your example, not to mention arson in most places.

1. Felony assault requires major bodily harm in maryland, so thats out.
2. trespassing is a very minor crime in most states. Maryland has it at most a 500 dollar fine and at most 90 days in jail.
3. I don't think "intimidation" unless its of a witness is a crime in most states unless you threaten violence.
4. Arson charges wouldn't fit(at least in maryland) since it requires burning someone else's property.

It's very liberal to think a bigoted crime is any worse than another.

No, the reason that any conservative oppose hate crimes is the very narrow laws on hate crimes against Gays, and thats only because it scares the church goers into donating/voting(because they've convinced themselves that these laws will keep them for ripping homosexuality from the pulpit, which is patently stupid to think). And nothing is done to reverse those laws.

And there's absolutely nothing in any conservative/republican doctrine that bigoted crimes are the same(or don't deserve extra punishment) as regular crimes without the racial/religious component. So, wrong.

Oh bull.

Again: believe whatever you want to. The hate crimes laws don't exclude charges for discrimination against whites or catholics. The FBI even tracks hate crimes against Catholics: Link (http://www.ncregister.com/blog/hate_crimes_against_catholics_increase/). Which means they're(or the local law enforcement) investigating these incidents. So, you're wrong.

No one said minorities wouldn't be convicted but they would face the exact same sentence. In your gang member example, the victim was still a minority.

It doesn't matter. If you want to claim/think that minorities can't be charged for hate crimes against whites, then its impossible for them to be charges with any hate crimes. If they can be charged for a hate crime against a black person, an asian, a martian or a one legged multi-racial mormon, they can be charged with a hate crime against a white person.

[justinskins]

That is different and I should have used an example that wouldn't have led you astray. No, there should be no additional charge if a woman is pregnant unless its a state where abortions are illegal. Otherwise, it is incredibly hypocritical of the state.

Not true. It's actually perfectly consistent with a pro-choice position. The argument for legal abortions is that women should have control of their own reproductive rights. When someone else makes that choice for them, it should be a crime.

[Keino]

Not true. It's actually perfectly consistent with a pro-choice position. The argument for legal abortions is that women should have control of their own reproductive rights. When someone else makes that choice for them, it should be a crime.

I can see the point though of the state charging a murderer of a pregnant woman with a double-murder as being hypocritical when that same state would allow the woman to terminate her pregnancy at the same stage.

IBB - In the story I told (which was true by the way) nobody was convicted of a crime. Like I said, it was an extreme and old example (and truthfully, I am pretty sure it happened closer to 1900 than 1940, going off of memory) but illustrated how a hate crime can have a more far reaching effect than the underlying crime itself.

Dave - The one thing I would like you to reconcile in your current position is the fact that blacks and browns are much more likely to receive harsher sentences/jail time than their white counterparts for the same crime. If you are going to bitch about subjective inequities, I'd like to you acknowledge that one at least.

[justinskins]

I can see the point though of the state charging a murderer of a pregnant woman with a double-murder as being hypocritical when that same state would allow the woman to terminate her pregnancy at the same stage.
I would agree with that. That's why I don't believe in fetal murder statutes. Fetuses aren't people. But there's nothing hypocritical about protecting the woman.

[RedskinsDave]

Believe whatever you want to. If I ever want to condescend, especially to one of your posts, I would be far more sarcastic with it than the Picard face palm picture(which isn't condescending at all).

Yeah, you might pretend there's no such thing as a liberal.

1. Felony assault requires major bodily harm in maryland, so thats out.
2. trespassing is a very minor crime in most states. Maryland has it at most a 500 dollar fine and at most 90 days in jail.
3. I don't think "intimidation" unless its of a witness is a crime in most states unless you threaten violence.
4. Arson charges wouldn't fit(at least in maryland) since it requires burning someone else's property.

There are plenty of crimes that can be used there. I only cited a few and they are legit. I guarantee you a person can't just burn something in the middle of the street. There are public safety laws. Regardless, its pretty dumb to think someone can threaten someone repeatedly and kick them and get away with it.

No, the reason that any conservative oppose hate crimes is the very narrow laws on hate crimes against Gays, and thats only because it scares the church goers into donating/voting(because they've convinced themselves that these laws will keep them for ripping homosexuality from the pulpit, which is patently stupid to think). And nothing is done to reverse those laws.

LMAO

And there's absolutely nothing in any conservative/republican doctrine that bigoted crimes are the same(or don't deserve extra punishment) as regular crimes without the racial/religious component. So, wrong.

Doctrine? No. Thinking, yes.

Again: believe whatever you want to. The hate crimes laws don't exclude charges for discrimination against whites or catholics. The FBI even tracks hate crimes against Catholics: Link (http://www.ncregister.com/blog/hate_crimes_against_catholics_increase/). Which means they're(or the local law enforcement) investigating these incidents. So, you're wrong.

Nice try. 75 reported crimes against Catholics in a year. 75. I would guess 73 or 74 were vandalism against a church. Trust me, I am not protected under any hate law.

It doesn't matter. If you want to claim/think that minorities can't be charged for hate crimes against whites, then its impossible for them to be charges with any hate crimes. If they can be charged for a hate crime against a black person, an asian, a martian or a one legged multi-racial mormon, they can be charged with a hate crime against a white person.

Yeah, in the same fantasy land where you can light up a cross and harass a black family, there are tons of convictions where blacks committed hate crimes against whites. In the real world, neither exist.

[RedskinsDave]

Dave - The one thing I would like you to reconcile in your current position is the fact that blacks and browns are much more likely to receive harsher sentences/jail time than their white counterparts for the same crime. If you are going to bitch about subjective inequities, I'd like to you acknowledge that one at least.

I don't see what that has to do with hate crimes, but it is documented to be true. Is where you make the argument similar to the ole "blacks can't be racist" theory?

[akhhorus]

Yeah, you might pretend there's no such thing as a liberal.

Umm...A has nothing to do with B here.

There are plenty of crimes that can be used there. I only cited a few and they are legit. I guarantee you a person can't just burn something in the middle of the street. There are public safety laws. Regardless, its pretty dumb to think someone can threaten someone repeatedly and kick them and get away with it.


When did I say that I would "get away with it?" I would get charged with minor crimes at best. The point of hate crimes enhancements is to make what can be relatively minor crimes and bring the penalties in line with their intent.

LMAO


Insightful retort lol.

Doctrine? No. Thinking, yes.


And there's never been even the slightest move, either in legislation or practice to reign in any of the hate crimes legislations since the first federal laws were signed nearly 45 years ago by any Republican administration. So, thinking-wise, the republican/conservative movement doesn't believe that this is a problem.

Nice try. 75 reported crimes against Catholics in a year. 75. I would guess 73 or 74 were vandalism against a church. Trust me, I am not protected under any hate law.


If that was true, there would be no investigations of any hate crimes against Catholics, so you're wrong, again.

Yeah, in the same fantasy land where you can light up a cross and harass a black family, there are tons of convictions where blacks committed hate crimes against whites. In the real world, neither exist.

I hate to use a freerepublic link, but I can confirm the contents of the post actually happened:

Link (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774400/posts)

9 convicted in Long Beach hate crime beatings New, 3 p.m. Witnesses to Halloween mob melee said several of those in crowd that attacked three white women yelled racial slurs. A 12-year-old girl is cleared. By Tracy Manzer Staff Writer

A juvenile court judge today convicted nine of 10 local black youths accused in the hate crime beating of three young white women during a mob melee on Halloween.

Long Beach Superior Court Judge Gibson Lee also handed down "true findings," the equivalent of guilty verdicts in juvenile proceedings, on hate crime charges against eight of the youths. The one minor who was cleared of the charges was a 12-year-old girl.

Lee announced the verdicts this afternoon, finding the petition, or charge, against nine of the 10 accused minors was true.

Some of the defendants hugged before the verdicts were read and some cried after hearing the decisions.

All 10 minors, nine girls and one boy ages 12 to 18, were charged with felony assault for the beating, which took place around 9 p.m. in the 3800 block of Linden Avenue, an affluent section of Bixby Knolls popular with trick-or-treaters for its lavish displays.

A hate crime enhancement was added to eight minors' charges, stemming from victim and witness statements that several youths within a crowd of 20 to 40 people yelled racial slurs as the victims were pelted with newspapers, fruit and pumpkins, then beat to the ground with fists, feet, a skateboard and tree branches

So, I guess the courts even in a liberal area are willing to charge and juries are willing to convict minorities of hate crimes against White people. Which undermines your argument entirely. It would be nice if you didn't take the predictable route and try to claim that "this was just one case." One case undermines your theory that it couldn't happen.

[RedskinsDave]

When did I say that I would "get away with it?" I would get charged with minor crimes at best. The point of hate crimes enhancements is to make what can be relatively minor crimes and bring the penalties in line with their intent.

Like I said, the laws in place take care of that. Just because you find one crime more repugnant than another doesn't mean it should carry a stiffer sentence. I would find that person's action equally repugnant but no more criminal than any other type of harassment or assault.

And there's never been even the slightest move, either in legislation or practice to reign in any of the hate crimes legislations since the first federal laws were signed nearly 45 years ago by any Republican administration. So, thinking-wise, the republican/conservative movement doesn't believe that this is a problem.

Really, wonkette? Would that go over like a fart in church, lead balloon or a stale cannoli?

If that was true, there would be no investigations of any hate crimes against Catholics, so you're wrong, again.

Seriously, if someone else used that as evidence for hate crimes against Catholics, you would mock them to no end. If you can find any evidence that any of the whopping 75 crimes were committed against someone who just was Catholic and not against an actual church building or priest, I would be nothing short of shocked.



I hate to use a freerepublic link, but I can confirm the contents of the post actually happened:

Link (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774400/posts)



So, I guess the courts even in a liberal area are willing to charge and juries are willing to convict minorities of hate crimes against White people. Which undermines your argument entirely. It would be nice if you didn't take the predictable route and try to claim that "this was just one case." One case undermines your theory that it couldn't happen.

Nice try by tossing in the last two lines since you know that's exactly the argument that shoots a hole in your effort. There have been a scattering of times where black on white crime has been charged as a hate crime. Each time I have found, the cases were widely publicized and public outcry dictated the charges.

Again, I am not protected at all in these laws. Only half of you is. ;)

[akhhorus]

Like I said, the laws in place take care of that. Just because you find one crime more repugnant than another doesn't mean it should carry a stiffer sentence. I would find that person's action equally repugnant but no more criminal than any other type of harassment or assault.

So, you would believe that there should only be one murder charge to fit every incident of homicide? If someone tortured someone to death with a melon baller, they should face the same charge as some drug dealer who killed a rival on the street or someone who accidently ran over someone on the street?

Really, wonkette? Would that go over like a fart in church, lead balloon or a stale cannoli?


If there was any was any will or thinking by conservatives or republicans in a position to actually challenge hate crime laws(the federal hate crime legislation in the 60s went to the Supreme Court, who upheld it and it hasn't been challenged since) or undermine it via the Civil Rights division of the DOJ(which is responsible for the federal funding of hate crime prosecution I believe), it would have been done in the 80s or during the Dubya years. I've yet to hear about anyone doing anything in those time periods that could come close to fitting that description. And the libs were complaining about Dubya underfunding/staffing that division of DOJ(but they still prosecuted cases).

Seriously, if someone else used that as evidence for hate crimes against Catholics, you would mock them to no end. If you can find any evidence that any of the whopping 75 crimes were committed against someone who just was Catholic and not against an actual church building or priest, I would be nothing short of shocked.


You disagreed that someone could be charged with a hate crime against a catholic. The fact that the FBI is tracking hate crimes against Catholics(and apparently every religious group) undermines your belief that no one in law enforcement would care.

Nice try by tossing in the last two lines since you know that's exactly the argument that shoots a hole in your effort. There have been a scattering of times where black on white crime has been charged as a hate crime. Each time I have found, the cases were widely publicized and public outcry dictated the charges.

Except for this time when "public outcry" didn't change anything. And if there's been a "scattering of times" where minorities have been charged for hate crimes against whites, then what the hell have you been complaining about? If they can be charged, then your fears are totally unfounded.

Again, I am not protected at all in these laws. Only half of you is. ;)

Believe that if you want. The law pretty clearly does protect you from anti-Catholic(or yankee fan) hate crimes.

[justinskins]

Believe that if you want. The law pretty clearly does protect you from anti-Catholic(or yankee fan) hate crimes.

Actually hate crime laws have an exception for Yankees fans. They deserve what they get.

Same goes for Dallas.

[akhhorus]

And as an example of a religious based hate crime:

http://www.longislandpress.com/2010/04/02/elderly-man-charged-with-hate-crime-against-jehovah%E2%80%99s-witnesses/

A 73-year-old Port Jefferson man was arrested Thursday after he poured motor oil onto the rear entrance of the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Mount Sinai, Suffolk County police said.

William Frank Kelly told Hate Crimes Unit detectives that he intentionally did the damage, “believing that he was doing God’s work,” police said.

Kelly had been in contact with members of the congregation Tuesday evening at a function celebrating a Memorial of Jesus Christ’s death. At the function, Kelly questioned the Jehovah’s Witnesses belief and was asked to leave the celebration, police said.

Kelly returned to the scene early Wednesday morning and poured two quarts of motor oil onto the rear entrance of the building. The incident was captured on video surveillance equipment installed at the location. Members of the congregation discovered the damage later Wednesday morning.

Kelly was charged with criminal mischief as a hate crime.

If the law is going to prosecute this as a hate crime, they'll prosecute for any crime against any religious group that appears to be motivated by hatred of said religion.

[RedskinsDave]

So, you would believe that there should only be one murder charge to fit every incident of homicide? If someone tortured someone to death with a melon baller, they should face the same charge as some drug dealer who killed a rival on the street or someone who accidently ran over someone on the street?

No and they aren't. Even if they are each charged as first degree murder, they will not be treated the same from the initial arrest all the way to sentencing. Maybe we should make a "wow, that was some heinous shyte law" since the ones we have on the books don't seem to work for everyone.

If there was any was any will or thinking by conservatives or republicans in a position to actually challenge hate crime laws(the federal hate crime legislation in the 60s went to the Supreme Court, who upheld it and it hasn't been challenged since) or undermine it via the Civil Rights division of the DOJ(which is responsible for the federal funding of hate crime prosecution I believe), it would have been done in the 80s or during the Dubya years. I've yet to hear about anyone doing anything in those time periods that could come close to fitting that description. And the libs were complaining about Dubya underfunding/staffing that division of DOJ(but they still prosecuted cases).

Its quite possible its not worth doing anything about. I don't care if they do. That doesn't change the fact that people are tried for their thinking and unequally so.

You disagreed that someone could be charged with a hate crime against a catholic. The fact that the FBI is tracking hate crimes against Catholics(and apparently every religious group) undermines your belief that no one in law enforcement would care.

I disagreed that anyone would be charged with a crime if it were against me for being a "pope lover". I have seen zippo that proves that wrong. Of course the FBI tracks things like that. Its their job. I am sticking by my assertion that each of these 75 cases were crimes against an actual church or church figure and not against a follower.

[quote]Except for this time when "public outcry" didn't change anything. And if there's been a "scattering of times" where minorities have been charged for hate crimes against whites, then what the hell have you been complaining about? If they can be charged, then your fears are totally unfounded. [/quote

I said the reason these crimes WERE prosecuted this way was public outcry, not the opposite. I didn't say minorities couldn't be charged. I said they are not. Sorry I didn't put (at least not often) at the end. That is the case. Unfortunately, the FBI only lists reported crimes and does not show the arrest, charge or conviction rates of the crimes. Anti-white crimes reported accounted for 16% of the race based hate crimes reported. It doesn't account for anything else.

[akhhorus]

No and they aren't. Even if they are each charged as first degree murder, they will not be treated the same from the initial arrest all the way to sentencing. Maybe we should make a "wow, that was some heinous shyte law" since the ones we have on the books don't seem to work for everyone.


So, there is a place for something like what happened to Matt Sheppard? At the very least you should agree with my first post in this thread here. (http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=1345198&postcount=3)

Its quite possible its not worth doing anything about. I don't care if they do. That doesn't change the fact that people are tried for their thinking and unequally so.


You can't be tried(at the very least convicted) for a hate crime unless there's overt evidence that the crime was based in hatred for the other person's identity.

I disagreed that anyone would be charged with a crime if it were against me for being a "pope lover". I have seen zippo that proves that wrong. Of course the FBI tracks things like that. Its their job. I am sticking by my assertion that each of these 75 cases were crimes against an actual church or church figure and not against a follower.

Knock yourself out. But law enforcement doesn't keep track of crimes that no one wants to prosecute.

I said the reason these crimes WERE prosecuted this way was public outcry, not the opposite. I didn't say minorities couldn't be charged. I said they are not. Sorry I didn't put (at least not often) at the end. That is the case. Unfortunately, the FBI only lists reported crimes and does not show the arrest, charge or conviction rates of the crimes. Anti-white crimes reported accounted for 16% of the race based hate crimes reported. It doesn't account for anything else.

If they're being reported, they're being investigated. We could only know for certain about how Law enforcement feels about it by going through each case(which I'm not doing lol). I'm going to make a triangulation that if California(and the very limo liberal part of it) is going to prosecute 10 underaged black kids(convicting 9 of them) for beating up some white girls because they were white(or may have provoked things by shouting slurs, but thats doesn't absolve the kids at all) that the prosecution of those 16% of reported hate crimes against whites is pretty high if they have a case for an indictment.

[justinskins]

If they're being reported, they're being investigated. We could only know for certain about how Law enforcement feels about it by going through each case(which I'm not doing lol). I'm going to make a triangulation that if California(and the very limo liberal part of it) is going to prosecute 10 underaged black kids(convicting 9 of them) for beating up some white girls because they were white(or may have provoked things by shouting slurs, but thats doesn't absolve the kids at all) that the prosecution of those 16% of reported hate crimes against whites is pretty high if they have a case for an indictment.

Give it up. RD is convinced that all liberals hate white people. You won't change his opinion.

[RedskinsDave]

Give it up. RD is convinced that all liberals hate white people. You won't change his opinion.

I am convinced you have added nothing to this conversation. You probably won't do much to change that opinion.

[RedskinsDave]

So, there is a place for something like what happened to Matt Sheppard? At the very least you should agree with my first post in this thread here. (http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=1345198&postcount=3)
.

I don't agree with that post. That's to the heart of my disagreement. You want special "he hate me" laws and I don't. You want to add time for an assault because some guy calls the other a Mexican? You want to put someone away for life for arson only if the arson was racially or religiously motivated. I think the assault and arson charges on their own work just fine.

[justinskins]

I am convinced you have added nothing to this conversation. You probably won't do much to change that opinion.

Of course you don't. You have no respect for anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

[shally]

I don't agree with that post. That's to the heart of my disagreement. You want special "he hate me" laws and I don't. You want to add time for an assault because some guy calls the other a Mexican? You want to put someone away for life for arson only if the arson was racially or religiously motivated. I think the assault and arson charges on their own work just fine.

+1

i could not agree with you more

[akhhorus]

I don't agree with that post. That's to the heart of my disagreement. You want special "he hate me" laws and I don't. You want to add time for an assault because some guy calls the other a Mexican? You want to put someone away for life for arson only if the arson was racially or religiously motivated. I think the assault and arson charges on their own work just fine.

What I said:
"Some drunk at a bar who hits a latino with a beer bottle while muttering "Damn Mexican" probably isn't committing a "hate crime" and doesn't deserve the enhancement of charges"

So, you didn't read clearly what I wrote. And someone who's torching as many of one certain type of holy building just because they're the holy place of a certain religion probably should be in jail for life. Thats not a reformable member of society. A couple wackos going around vandalizing synagogues with swastikas don't deserve jail for life, but they clearly deserve more than a small fine and short probation(at most).

[Keino]

I don't see what that has to do with hate crimes, but it is documented to be true. Is where you make the argument similar to the ole "blacks can't be racist" theory?

It speaks to your assertion that whites are unfairly punished under hate crime laws. You are arguing that they are inherently unfair to whites but ignoring the fact that Whites are less likely to see as much time as their minority counterparts for the exact same crime. You are loudly decrying a concept on the basis of fairness and equality that affects people who commit heinous crimes while not at all addressing the unequal enforcement of the current laws which as you acknowledge are more heavily prosecuted when a minority defendant is involved. In short, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot sit here and make statements like "we are either equal or not" and ignore the inequities in the system. I guess some are more equal than others.

As to your oversimplification of a past discussion, Black people can have racist attitudes. They do not have the power in numbers/political power/economic power to enforce those attitudes. A Black person with racist attitudes cannot deny rights or otherwise affect a white person on any macro level. There is an element of power to racism. Black people have no power to enact laws that deny rights to whites. This of course is speaking to the American experience.

[RedskinsDave]

Of course you don't. You have no respect for anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

Actually I have plenty of respect for Keino and Akh despite disagreeing with them often. You haven't added anything and often don't. You have 11 posts in this thread. Maybe the 12th will add substance.

[RedskinsDave]

It speaks to your assertion that whites are unfairly punished under hate crime laws. You are arguing that they are inherently unfair to whites but ignoring the fact that Whites are less likely to see as much time as their minority counterparts for the exact same crime. You are loudly decrying a concept on the basis of fairness and equality that affects people who commit heinous crimes while not at all addressing the unequal enforcement of the current laws which as you acknowledge are more heavily prosecuted when a minority defendant is involved. In short, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot sit here and make statements like "we are either equal or not" and ignore the inequities in the system. I guess some are more equal than others.

I am arguing that hate laws disproportionately represent white victims of the same crimes called "hate crimes" in other cases. Whether certain people receive harsher sentences than others is a separate issue. Tying them together is a sort of political vigilante-ism. The reasons for the sentencing inequities isn't corrected by additional laws.

As to your oversimplification of a past discussion, Black people can have racist attitudes. They do not have the power in numbers/political power/economic power to enforce those attitudes. A Black person with racist attitudes cannot deny rights or otherwise affect a white person on any macro level. There is an element of power to racism. Black people have no power to enact laws that deny rights to whites. This of course is speaking to the American experience.

I don't have any of those powers either.

[justinskins]

Actually I have plenty of respect for Keino and Akh despite disagreeing with them often.

Really? Because you respond to their arguments the same way you do to most other posters on the forum. When you are presented with a well-reasoned argument, you usually respond with a one-liner dismissing it. I don't even think you have even bothered to read most of what Akh has written in his posts. At best you simply reiterate your own position as if it were logically indisputable, or continue with the slimy, race-baiting drivel you seem to prefer.

[RedskinsDave]

Really? Because you respond to their arguments the same way you do to most other posters on the forum. When you are presented with a well-reasoned argument, you usually respond with a one-liner dismissing it. I don't even think you have even bothered to read most of what Akh has written in his posts. At best you simply reiterate your own position as if it were logically indisputable, or continue with the slimy, race-baiting drivel you seem to prefer.

I replied to him line-by-line. Slimy, race-baiting drivel? Sounds precisely like the idiocy you type out. Again, I am still waiting for you to contribute to this thread. It's amazing how you have done exactly what you're accusing me of doing. You're comically stupid.

[akhhorus]

I replied to him line-by-line.

You have, except for my last post when I pointed out that you completely got my opinion wrong in a previous post lol.

[RedskinsDave]

You have, except for my last post when I pointed out that you completely got my opinion wrong in a previous post lol.

I didn't completely get your opinion wrong. I misread your first example. Your other ones you said that arson is arson unless its driven by hate and then a 20 year sentence should be life just because of the motivation. Is that correct? If so, I disagree strongly.

[akhhorus]

I didn't completely get your opinion wrong. I misread your first example.

Thats basically the same thing. You thought I said that the drunk in the bar should get penalized for a hate crime when I basically said the opposite.

Your other ones you said that arson is arson unless its driven by hate and then a 20 year sentence should be life just because of the motivation. Is that correct? If so, I disagree strongly.

In that example they should get whatever the arson penalties are+an additional penalty for it being a hate crime.

[justinskins]

Slimy, race-baiting drivel? Sounds precisely like the idiocy you type out.
Think again, friendo. You're always the first person in the politics forum to bring up race, no matter how tangentially related it is to the topic at hand. You are also the first to start accusing other posters of racism. Take a look at the Lou Dobbs thread I started a couple weeks ago; you were literally begging other posters to accuse you of racism so that you could indulge your pet theories about how racist liberals are. That's race-baiting, pure and simple. You're also almost clinically paranoid about reverse discrimination.

Again, I am still waiting for you to contribute to this thread.
Why don't you go back and look at the first few pages. I wrote some substantial posts. Heck, I even agreed with something you wrote... of course, that was when you were still pretending that you primarily disagreed with hate crime laws because they aren't used against anti-white racism, and before you revealed that you actually disagree with the fundamental principle behind hate crime laws and would never support them despite how they are enforced. That's your MO: pretend to be somewhat interested in the problems being discussed, until you decide to give up on reasonable discussion and retreat into a fundamentally conservative position while belittling any other way of looking at things.

You're comically stupid.
That's interesting, because being called stupid by you just makes me laugh.

[RedskinsDave]

Think again, friendo. You're always the first person in the politics forum to bring up race, no matter how tangentially related it is to the topic at hand. You are also the first to start accusing other posters of racism. Take a look at the Lou Dobbs thread I started a couple weeks ago; you were literally begging other posters to accuse you of racism so that you could indulge your pet theories about how racist liberals are. That's race-baiting, pure and simple. You're also almost clinically paranoid about reverse discrimination.

Again, you were the one doing that in the Dobbs thread. I do think you're a racist but, don't worry, you're among friends here.


Why don't you go back and look at the first few pages. I wrote some substantial posts. Heck, I even agreed with something you wrote... of course, that was when you were still pretending that you primarily disagreed with hate crime laws because they aren't used against anti-white racism, and before you revealed that you actually disagree with the fundamental principle behind hate crime laws and would never support them despite how they are enforced. That's your MO: pretend to be somewhat interested in the problems being discussed, until you decide to give up on reasonable discussion and retreat into a fundamentally conservative position while belittling any other way of looking at things.

And I guess your MO is to jump in threads and tell people how they feel. Guess what, you're not qualified in any way, shape or form.

That's interesting, because being called stupid by you just makes me laugh.

Yeah, you're probably used to it.

[Keino]

I am arguing that hate laws disproportionately represent white victims of the same crimes called "hate crimes" in other cases. Whether certain people receive harsher sentences than others is a separate issue. Tying them together is a sort of political vigilante-ism. The reasons for the sentencing inequities isn't corrected by additional laws.

I don't understand what you are trying to say in the first half of this.

I honestly don't see how they can be viewed as separate issues. Hate crime laws impose harsher penalties than the underlying crime calls for and that seems to be a major sticking point for you. You have on multiple occasions cited the fairness of this, given that based on your perceptions that a minority will never get charged with a hate crime when the victim is white. Since Hate crimes add additional time in the tank, and the fairness of said extra time in the tank ruffles your feathers, it is fair to question whether or not the fact (not perception but fact) that minorities do more time than their white counterparts and are more heavily prosecuted that their white counterparts rankles you as much, since both issues fall under the umbrella of the criminal justice system.



I don't have any of those powers either.

Which is why I said on a macro level. You as an individual cannot affect me, or deny me rights. It has been proven that you as a collective can, because you as a collective did. If you and the rest of the whites in this country decided to re-impose Jim Crow, the rest of us would be pretty powerless to stop you. The political power, the economic power and the strength in numbers are what make racism possible in addition to the dehumanizing attitudes.

In what way is Justin a racist? And by extension, how are the rest of us? This is not the first time you have called me, a dude of bi-racial heritage a racist (This time by implication). The last time was because I correctly called Clarence Thomas an uncle tom.

[RedskinsDave]

I don't understand what you are trying to say in the first half of this.

I honestly don't see how they can be viewed as separate issues. Hate crime laws impose harsher penalties than the underlying crime calls for and that seems to be a major sticking point for you. You have on multiple occasions cited the fairness of this, given that based on your perceptions that a minority will never get charged with a hate crime when the victim is white. Since Hate crimes add additional time in the tank, and the fairness of said extra time in the tank ruffles your feathers, it is fair to question whether or not the fact (not perception but fact) that minorities do more time than their white counterparts and are more heavily prosecuted that their white counterparts rankles you as much, since both issues fall under the umbrella of the criminal justice system.

I assumed you were tying the two together. I do agree that something should be done whenever any one group is unfairly represented. When it comes to sentencing, that has been an issue for a while. Unfortunately, black juries have recommended harsher sentences more than white juries. It is pretty hard to fix the problem when its not blatantly racist.

Which is why I said on a macro level. You as an individual cannot affect me, or deny me rights. It has been proven that you as a collective can, because you as a collective did. If you and the rest of the whites in this country decided to re-impose Jim Crow, the rest of us would be pretty powerless to stop you. The political power, the economic power and the strength in numbers are what make racism possible in addition to the dehumanizing attitudes.

If that's true then no individual can be a racist and we both know that ain't true. Any assumption that whites have some power to re-impose Jim Crow laws is quite simply wrong.

In what way is Justin a racist? And by extension, how are the rest of us? This is not the first time you have called me, a dude of bi-racial heritage a racist (This time by implication). The last time was because I correctly called Clarence Thomas an uncle tom.

He is for comments he made in the Dobbs thread. I have not implied you are. Where'd you get that? If its my "among friends" comment that was telling him he can say what he wants because he's a liberal. We don't censor them.

[Keino]

I assumed you were tying the two together. I do agree that something should be done whenever any one group is unfairly represented. When it comes to sentencing, that has been an issue for a while. Unfortunately, black juries have recommended harsher sentences more than white juries. It is pretty hard to fix the problem when its not blatantly racist.

I think that's true of all systemic racism. It's an unintended consequence of the system and therefore not the easiest to dispose of.



If that's true then no individual can be a racist and we both know that ain't true. Any assumption that whites have some power to re-impose Jim Crow laws is quite simply wrong.

As to the first part, that's pretty much where I am with it. An individual can have racist attitudes, but it is the power to enforce those attitudes that will actually affect lives. As to the 2nd part, I am inclined to agree that it will never happen again, my point was just illustrating the strength in numbers and power.

Edit: Need to clarify that I do believe an individual in a position of power can be a racist. No matter the color.



He is for comments he made in the Dobbs thread. I have not implied you are. Where'd you get that? If its my "among friends" comment that was telling him he can say what he wants because he's a liberal. We don't censor them.

Yea, it was the among friends comment that made me think you were implying that. My apologies.

[akhhorus]

This is from awhile ago, but this is interesting..

Link (https://www.msu.edu/course/psy/442/cialec4.htm)

THE LAZY MAN'S SUBSTITUTE

Neither black nor white store owners are in business to display the virtues of admitting people of all colors, creeds, and fashions to their stores. They are in business to make money. I would want to take precautions to prevent robbery; I would look closely at people entering the store. The race of a potential customer would be one factor among many to be considered as I girded myself against thieves.

But in Washington and almost all other major cities, blacks do patronize jewelry stores. A jeweler in Beverly Hills who closed his door to heavily bejeweled Mr. T would be foolishly closing his cash register. Unless I am a racist, race and age cannot be the sole deciding factors in calculating whom I will and will not let into my store. And I certainly would not close my door to, say, all young black men - not even to those who are casually dressed and behaving nervously. I would act cautiously in dealing with them, as I would with an antic, strangely dressed white man.

As a cabdriver I would apply the same considerations. Discrimination can be used judiciously. I would certainly exclude one class of people: those who struck me as dangerous. Nervous-looking people with bulges under their jackets would not be picked up; nor would those who looked obviously drunk or stoned. It all comes down to a subjective judgment of what dangerous people look like. This does not necessarily entail a racial judgment. Cabdrivers who don't pick up young black men as a rule are making a poorly informed decision. Racism is a lazy man's substitute for using good judgment.

The elevator question is disingenuous. I suspect you are suggesting that i am a white woman getting into an apartment building elevator with a strange black man. Of course, black women have just as much to fear as white women. Nevertheless, black women living in black neighborhoods ride elevators with black men frequently, and do so without being raped. In this situation and all others, common sense in my constant guard. Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.

Juan Williams

Juan Williams is a reporter for the Washington Post

[tuckahoeskin]

IBB,

Just had to give you a pat on the back for starting this thread. You and I have been on opposing sides plenty of times. Good to see an area where we find agreement.

Thanks,

Don

[Ibleedburgundy]

IBB,

Just had to give you a pat on the back for starting this thread. You and I have been on opposing sides plenty of times.

I'd say pretty much every time lol.

Anyway, I simply agree with Cohen here. Punish the crime, not the thoughts. It's too arbitrary. If the punishments are too easy, make them harder.

Thanks though.

[tuckahoeskin]

Basically it should come down to this: if we consider people of all races equal, we shouldn't put a premium on punishments for crimes against certain races over others.