user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
I'd like to see the country work at changing the underlying structures that promote such atrocities, rather than merely focus on after-the- fact punishment.
On one hand, I can see what you're saying ... all crime is a form of hate crime. However, crimes motivated by racism do strike me as a different classification ... an institutionalized hatred that transcends generalized hatred and threatens to marginalize a particular group of people. In this regard, it proves a more divisive crime against society and thus, could be seen as meriting additional punitive measures.
I know exactly what you mean.
Cath: so it's right to punish people for what they were thinking rather than for what they did?
Cath: so it's right to punish people for what they were thinking rather than for what they did? Sounds kinda orwellian to me.
Herzog- As of now hate crimes only go after people that commit a crime where race is a contributing factor. Motive has always played a role in the degree in which a person is punished. Whether you are charged with 1st or 2nd degree murder is determined by whether or not your motive was established before you committed the crime or whether it was done on the spur of the moment. There are stiffer penalties for crimes strictly based on the motive in all areas of law and crimes such as blackmail and extortion are committed through threats and thus are crimes that are more based on what you are trying to achieve mentally rather than your actions.
Cath was right when he said that these crimes effect our society in a negative way and deserve distinction, because hate crimes can and do directly marginalize and perpetuate fear in the races they target. The men in Jasper that dragged that black guy to death were committing an act of terrorism and that’s what hate crimes are. They didn’t target him for any other reason other than the fact that they hoped to instill fear and submission in the black race through their terrorist actions.
The day I can read the mind of another I will support the concept of hate crime. I believe that a jury, when presented with facts, can decide culpubility. But determining a hate crime is another thing.
Not so fast elvis. Are you saying that spray painting OKLAHOMA SUCKS on the house of Jewish family is the same as spray painting a SWASTIKA on the house of a Jewish family?
Wow lennon, I never looked at it that way--you're pretty smart.
But what about spray painting OKLAHOMA SUCKS on some Sooner fan's house? Would that be a hate crime?
Of course not elvis, because everyone knows that Sooners can't read.
Generally, I agree with Cathexis and RobinGaylord, but also understand what my man, Cletus, is saying about hate crime laws being enforced unequally.
The trend in describing such crimes now is to call them "bias crimes", so as to distinguish the factors of racial/religious/ethnic intolerance in the commission of crimes. But, from your view, you have a valid point.
Totally agree. It has to apply to all or none. If it is only applied in when a member of a certain race is involved, then it has no meaning. A hate crime is a hate crime, as long as it can be proven that racial or other prejudice was the motivator.
ps, I know these things because I watch all 52 versions of Law and Order. LOL!!
"As of now hate crimes only go after people that commit a crime where race is a contributing factor. Motive has always played a role in the degree in which a person is punished."
Motive should, like did you plan on committing the crime or was it an accident. But think about it: why is it less wrong to kill people the same color as you than it is to kill people a different color? Intent does matter in the first instance, a person who went up to a clock tower and shot a bunch of people should recieve a harsher punishment than some idiots whos gun went off accidently and killed a person. But two people who go up into a clock tower, kill 15 people each, if one of them happens to shoot a protected class of people he'll recieve a harsher punishment than his buddy. Explain the logic in that.
And of course this ridiculous law isn't even applied fairly, a black guy gets beaten up by a white guy: automatic hate crime. A white guy gets beaten by some black guy, well he shouldn't have been in that neighborhood anyway.
This is an interesting take on the "hate crime" statutes. Hmmmm. I see your point. Well, my general thoughts about "hate crimes" laws have been vaguely supportive, but I admit to giving it little thought.
A question occurs: When existing laws cover violence against persons, why do we need special laws which kind of "pile on" the offenders. And perhaps they should be piled on. I'm not sure.
I guess my bottom line is that we need to avoid too many laws when just about every ugly situation is currently covered.
Thought-provoking ballot. Thanks.
Has anyone ever been charged with a hate crime against their own ethnicity?
herzog- I stated earlier that the law wouldn’t charge someone with a hate crime just because a white guy happen to kill a black person. Interracial crime doesn’t necessarily mean it is a hate crime and the judicial system is aware of this. In order for someone to be convicted of a hate crime you must first establish that the suspect has a racial bias (such as being a Nazi or clansman) and that they at least had a partial motive to commit the crime as a terrorist act against another race. And there is no “Guarded Race” a black person that commits a hate crime against a white person would be charged equally under the law with a hate crime.
Look hate crimes prosecution has overwhelmingly been used to prosecute white defendants. Now we often here from the lefties here that the death penalty is overutilized on blacks. I guess those same people aren't going to have anything to say about the disproportiant use of hate crimes against white people. I suppose that they might even claim that black people don't committ hate crimes. Rather when a black beats up a white person because of race (happened in Hercules California recently) that is really just the white persons fault because they are part of the establishment that enforced slavery and Jim Crow. Even if the victim is only 15 years old and the child of immigrants from Iran.
Robin: well for starters it never works that way, it is always whites who are convicted of hate crimes, end of discussion.
And what if the person was a horrible racist, but didn't make it obvious? They weren't in the klan, they didn't have a "I hate blacks" t-shirt on, they didn't spraypoint signs of racial hatred all over their house. There would then be no proof of his racist intent, so he would get a lighter sentence then someone who just happened to be more open, but no more hatefilled. That strikes me as a stupid way to run a legal system.
Besides which: the idea of punishing people for thinking unacceptable thoughts strikes me as a slippery slope. Punish people for the crime they committed, not what they were thinking about at the time.
I really hate this...
1st--Hating something/someone is not a crime, and criminalizing hatred when linked to a crime takes us over time down the road of government control over our thoughts--is this what people need?.
2nd--Hating someone (regardless of the reason for hating them) while killing/stealing from/battering/or otherwise victimizing them doesn't make them any more dead/stolen from/battered/victimized.
3rd--Laws which raise the "status" of a victim (as shown by the harsher punishments for hate crimes) to a higher level based on their membership in a protected category eventually leads to presdisposition to treat such a group differently than others, which is the essense of racism
5th--Hate crimes, as current laws provide for, are notoriously difficult to prosecute, because they are based on proving beyond a reasonable doubt exactly what someone is "thinking" while committing a crime--based on their actions and those of others around them.
6th--A more effective approach to solving so-called Hate Crimes is to pour the money currently being spent on their legislation, promotion, prosecution, and so on, into education about racism at ALL levels of society.
4th--from above (I skipped #4 by accident). So-called "hate crime" laws exist mostly to push political agendas--I don't believe a victim's loved ones/associates feel any better if the offender's coviction has the word "hate" in it, nor do I believe these convictions will lower the freqency of such crimes--quite the opposite in fact.
|
|
