Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do want to say one thing. I don't really like the definition of a "hate crime".
For instance, there is no man I hate more in American history than Abraham Lincoln. If I vandalized the Lincoln Memorial, would it be a hate crime, since it was motivated by hate? Even though I'm white and he is white?
I don't know if there is an Alexander Hamilton memorial, but I hate that bastard also.
Do you hate him for being white? I would think that it qualified if you have a particular bias against him which had nothing to do with his actions, behaviors, etc.
Do you hate him for being white? I would think that it qualified if you have a particular bias against him which had nothing to do with his actions, behaviors, etc.
Lets pretend I hate him because he was an elected official, and I think all elected officials are corrupt dickheads. Would that qualify as a hate crime? What if I hate all cops just because they are cops? Or all lawyers, just because they are lawyers?
Regardless, my point was, most violent crimes are hate crimes. As in, you only committed violence because you hate them.
Isn't that the sort of pathology of the typical rapist? That they hate women and want to "dominate, control, and punish them"?
In my view, this entire new class of crimes called "hate crimes" are pretty damn stupid. And the classification was only created for political reasons. Which is why people being charged for hate crimes are almost always done for political reasons as well.
Regardless, my point was, most violent crimes are hate crimes. As in, you only committed violence because you hate them.
Remember, "hate crime" is a euphemism. It's shorthand for victimizing someone because that person possesses some innate characteristic - because of his race, because of her nationality, because of her handicap, because of his sexual orientation (plus we throw in the chosen characteristic of religion). Most violent crimes are not committed because the person is white, or gay, or muslim, etc - so no, most violent crimes are not hate crimes.
Quote:
And the classification was only created for political reasons. Which is why people being charged for hate crimes are almost always done for political reasons as well.
That's a pretty bold - and false - allegation. Prosecutors will add a bias-motivated enhancement to any crime in which evidence of such motivation exists.
Remember, "hate crime" is a euphemism. It's shorthand for victimizing someone because that person possesses some innate characteristic - because of his race, because of her nationality, because of her handicap, because of his sexual orientation (plus we throw in the chosen characteristic of religion). Most violent crimes are not committed because the person is white, or gay, or muslim, etc - so no, most violent crimes are not hate crimes.
I know what it means. What I'm saying is, I'm not sure why there needs to be a separate class of crime with stiffer penalties than just a regular crime.
I mean, didn't the jocks give swirlies to the nerds because they were nerds?
Don't people pick on people who are smaller than them, just because they are smaller than them? Hasn't someone gotten into a fight with someone simply because they had red hair(IE no soul), or buckteeth, or hair lip, or whatever?
You steal a woman's purse because she is a woman, and you realize she is weak and can't defend herself.
What irritates me is the inconsistency of these kinds of laws. A crime committed against a cop merely because he is a cop, if we were being consistent would be a "hate crime". Or for that matter, a crime committed against a redhead merely because they are a redhead would be a hate crime.
Regardless, if there is no consistency in either the laws regarding hate-crimes, and if the enforcement of the hate-crime laws is also inconsistent, then the whole existence of the hate-crime legislation must necessarily be political in origin.
Anyone who pays attention to race-related incidents in this country should realize how often a black person isn't charged with a hate-crime when had the shoe been on the other foot, the white person would have been charged with a hate crime.
I remember clearly something called "Beat Whitey Night". No one was charged with hate crimes in that incident.
Who thinks if it had been "Beat blackey night", that no hate-crime charges would have been filed?
Regardless. I don't really care, I don't think there should be something as stupid as a "hate crime". If you killed someone, you killed someone. If you beat someone up, you beat someone up.
I know what it means. What I'm saying is, I'm not sure why there needs to be a separate class of crime with stiffer penalties than just a regular crime.
It's not a separate class of crime - it's a sentence enhancement. We have plenty of other sentence enhancements laws on the books. You get a sentence enhancement if you're a repeat offender. You get a sentence enhancement if your victim is a child or elderly. You get a sentence enhancement if you commit certain crimes near schools.
Do you think all killings should be treated the same? Should there be a distinction between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder?
Why is stealing a 50 dollar watch from a poor man a misdemeanor, but stealing a 2000 dollar watch from a rich man a felony? Shouldn't the crime of stealing a watch be treated the same? Perhaps stealing the poor man's watch should be a felony and stealing the rich man's watch should be a misdemeanor because the theft has more of a financial impact on the poor man than the rich man?
Quote:
Regardless, if there is no consistency in either the laws regarding hate-crimes, and if the enforcement of the hate-crime laws is also inconsistent, then the whole existence of the hate-crime legislation must necessarily be political in origin.
Anyone who pays attention to race-related incidents in this country should realize how often a black person isn't charged with a hate-crime when had the shoe been on the other foot, the white person would have been charged with a hate crime.
I remember clearly something called "Beat Whitey Night". No one was charged with hate crimes in that incident.
Who thinks if it had been "Beat blackey night", that no hate-crime charges would have been filed?
You have to remember that there must be EVIDENCE that the SPECIFIC person who committed the crime did so because of prejudicial bias - and it must be enough evidence to prove the motivation beyond a reasonable doubt. I submit that there is no inconsistency in prosecuting people for "hate crimes." Whenever evidence exists that the specific criminal acted out of prejudicial bias, he or she is prosecuted with a bias motivated sentence enhancement.
If BC (black criminal) beats up WV (white victim), the fact that a group of people were chanting "Beat Whitey Night" nearby sometime on the same night is not evidence BC committed a hate crime when he beat up WV. You would need something like a video of BC himself chanting "beat whitey," or a witness saying he heard BC screaming "beat whitey" as he beat WV, or a post of BC's facebook page that day saying "I'm going to the fair to beat up white people", or an admission from BC that he beat up WV because WV is white.
And it's funny you bring up "beat whitey." The Supreme Court upheld hate crime laws as Constitutional (unanimously) in Wisconsin v. Mitchell. In that case, a group of black men watched Mississippi Burning, and then angered by it decided to go beat up white people. The first white person they came across was a 14 year old boy, who they beat into a coma. Witnesses testified to their statements about wanted to go beat up white people, and they were convicted with bias motivated sentence enhancements.
Quote:
Regardless. I don't really care, I don't think there should be something as stupid as a "hate crime". If you killed someone, you killed someone.
You're only considering 1 of the reasons we punish people - because they deserve it (retribution). We also punish people to keep society safe (hence a 3 time felon getting a longer sentence than a 1st time felon for the same crime), and to rehabilitate (hence a 1st degree murderer gets a longer sentence than a 3rd degree murderer). We punish people who seem more likely to re-offend and harder to rehabilitate with longer sentences.
Consider several "one punch homicides" - you intentionally punch someone, not intending to kill him, and not in self-defense, but when he falls to the ground the striking of the back of his head on the pavement kills him. Assume every instance below is a one-punch battery that results in death. Should all of these killers - who killed in the exact same way - be punished the same?:
1) Two strangers in a bar get into a disagreement and "take it outside" to settle things.
2) A Muslim immigrant - enraged by what he considers the US's Jew-supported assault on the Middle East - decides to punch the first Jew he comes across, and he does.
3) An 18 year old meth addict who was sexually and physically abused in various foster homes as a child punches a woman because he wants to steal her purse for drug money.
4) By random circumstance, a father runs into his daughter's rapist who was just released from serving a 10 year prison sentence. Excited to have his chance to beat up the dude after 10 years, he punches him.
5) A drunk man is calling a woman a ***** and a **** after she refused his advance. The woman's husband tells him to stop, but he doesn't, so the husband punches him.
6) Three guys decide to stakeout a gay bar and beat up the first guy who leaves alone. The killer screams out gay slurs as he punches the victim, and he runs a website about the evils of homosexuality.
7) A man hits his wife for the 5th time this year.
8) A woman discovers that her boyfriend has been cheating on her. She goes to the other woman's house, and punches her.
9) A woman discovers that her boyfriend has been cheating on her. She punches her boyfriend.
It's not a separate class of crime - it's a sentence enhancement. We have plenty of other sentence enhancements laws on the books. You get a sentence enhancement if you're a repeat offender. You get a sentence enhancement if your victim is a child or elderly. You get a sentence enhancement if you commit certain crimes near schools.
Well, I certainly think discretion should be used in sentencing. But discretion is already used in sentencing, regardless of the crime. I'm even strongly opposed to "mandatory minimums".
The issue here stems from the question "Why do we send people to prison?".
We send people to prison to protect the rest of society from them.
People think prison sentencing should be longer or shorter depending on the seriousness of the crime. But in reality, prison sentencing should only be as long as is necessary to prevent that person from being a danger to society, and nothing more.
Prison isn't there to punish people. Its there to protect society. A prison system which is designed only to punish is a stupid system, run by vengeful idiots.
If someone committed a crime and was truly sorry the next day and they were no future danger whatsoever to society. Then he shouldn't go to prison. In fact, going to prison is largely counterproductive. You don't become a better person in prison. You actually become a worse person the longer you stay in there.
My point is, laws and punishments shouldn't be political. Hate crime laws are political laws. They were created for political purposes. They are enforced in largely political ways. And they are designed to punish certain crimes greater than others, regardless of the actual danger the person who committed them poses to society.
A hate crime law would be more similar to a law which punished people who vandalized government property at a much higher level than someone who vandalized private property. It isn't that the person who vandalized one or the other is a greater threat to society. Its that the people who created the law value one more than the other.
Any law or punishment which is "political" in nature, and seeks to punish people in arbitrary and disproportionate ways, is necessarily unjust. I am against unjust laws.
If it was two white guys who hate blacks and did it to upset the black community than I'd say it was a hate crime. If it was two black guys who did it to upset the black community against whites( thinking whites would be blamed), then its also a hate crime. Not against blacks, but whites.
If it was done by two idiots on a drunken rampage, then no.
Another example. Obama's vandalizing the country but not targeting any specific ethnic or religious group so he's not guilty of a hate crime. He's just a cretin.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
