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 suspect it is not very common, but hate crimes against white males have gone to trial:
In 1993, the Supreme Court revisited hate-crime legislation and unanimously adopted a coherent approach. In State v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 113 S. Ct. 2194, 124 L. Ed. 2d 436 (1993), Todd Mitchell, a young black man from Kenosha, Wisconsin, was convicted of aggravated Battery and received an increased sentence under the Wisconsin hate-crime statute. The incident at issue began with Mitchell asking some friends, "Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people?" Shortly thereafter, Mitchell spotted Gregory Reddick, a 14-year-old white male, walking on the other side of the street. Mitchell then said to the group, "You all want to **** somebody up? There goes a white boy; go get him." The group attacked Reddick. Reddick suffered extensive injuries, including brain damage, and was comatose for four days. Mitchell appealed his conviction to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which held that the hate-crime statute violated the First Amendment. The state of Wisconsin appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court's ruling. The high court ruled that the Wisconsin statute was constitutional because it was directed at conduct, not expression. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Hate+Crime
Common compared to what? And I never stated that it doesn't happen, I stated that "good luck finding a prosecutor or government official" willing to prosecute as such. There was a case in NYC where a few white kids got beat by a group of black teens shouting racial slurs and the usual "get whitey" kind of nonsense, NYC declined to prosecute as a hate crime. It didn't make more then 5 seconds of national news, no prayer vigils, no DOJ investigations, no "increased over site of prosecution", nothing.
Fact is that prosecutors can say what they want to press charges for in court, and few of them will actually charge black on white crime as a hate crime. The opposite is not true.
You misunderstand hate crimes. They don't dole out extra punishment based upon any racial, gender, or religious distinction of the victim. Hate crime laws don't distinguish based on victim at all - they distinguish based on the provable motive of the criminal.
...and that's why they are so ridiculous!
One man attacks another while thinking he hates the color of his skin, while the next man attacks another screaming he hates the color of his skin.
Those who attack the elderly, police or those of the poor who are not among the “protected classes” do not get lengthier “hate” sentences than the law provides. Doesn’t this make lesser citizens of these victims?
Actually, most states (if not every) have sentencing enhancing laws that require greater punishment if the victim of certain crimes is elderly (or a child).
And again, you're making it about the victims. It's not. Bias-motivated sentence enhancement laws (so called "hate crime") laws punish worse criminals with harsher punishments - they don't make value judgements about what victims are greater or lesser citizens.
Quote:
Crimes motivated by hate deserve vigorous prosecution, but so do crimes motivated by absolute wanton disregard for life of any kind. No matter against whom.
Hate crime laws have nothing to do with prosecution. All crimes deserve prosecution. It's about motive, how crimes with certain motives actually have greater and father reaching negative effects on society and communities, and how biased motivated criminals are much harder to reform and are more likely to re-offend.
Consider these two identical criminal acts with different motives:
A man sees a Muslim (a complete stranger to him) on a train platform. This man hates Muslims. Because he hates Muslims, he pushes that Muslim in front of the train.
A man sees his daughter's rapist (who just got out of prison after serving 10 years for raping her) on a train platform. This man hates his daughter's rapist. Because he hates his daughter's rapist, he pushes his daughter's rapist in front of the train.
Same act - same exact criminal behavior. As a matter of law, who should be punished more harshly?
And what you're doing here is making a policy argument - the fact remains that my description of what a "hate crime" law actually is is a correct description, and your understanding (or characterization) is wrong.
One man attacks another while thinking he hates the color of his skin, while the next man attacks another screaming he hates the color of his skin.
Same crimes, same punishment, period!
Consider these two identical criminal acts with different motives:
A man sees a Jew (a complete stranger to him) on a train platform. This man hates Jews. Because he hates Jews, he pushes that Jew in front of the train.
A man sees his daughter's rapist (who just got out of prison after serving 10 years for raping her) on a train platform. This man hates his daughter's rapist. Because he hates his daughter's rapist, he pushes his daughter's rapist in front of the train.
Same exact act - same exact criminal behavior. As a matter of law, you really think they should be punished exactly the same?
Consider these two identical criminal acts with different motives:
A man sees a Jew (a complete stranger to him) on a train platform. This man hates Jews. Because he hates Jews, he pushes that Jew in front of the train.
A man sees his daughter's rapist (who just got out of prison after serving 10 years for raping her) on a train platform. This man hates his daughter's rapist. Because he hates his daughter's rapist, he pushes his daughter's rapist in front of the train.
Same exact act - same exact criminal behavior. As a matter of law, you really think they should be punished exactly the same?
In reality the man served his time, and the father (through his blind rage) murdered him, making him worse than the rapist himself - legally speaking.
Law should have some rare extenuating circumstances, however hate is hate. In both of your examples the father and racist hated their victims, so they murdered them.
Location: East St. Paul 651 forever (or North St. Paul) .
2,860 posts, read 3,386,800 times
Reputation: 1446
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
Consider these two identical criminal acts with different motives:
A man sees a Jew (a complete stranger to him) on a train platform. This man hates Jews. Because he hates Jews, he pushes that Jew in front of the train.
A man sees his daughter's rapist (who just got out of prison after serving 10 years for raping her) on a train platform. This man hates his daughter's rapist. Because he hates his daughter's rapist, he pushes his daughter's rapist in front of the train.
Same exact act - same exact criminal behavior. As a matter of law, you really think they should be punished exactly the same?
Consider these two identical criminal acts with different motives:
A black man sees a white man (a complete stranger to him) on a train platform. This man hates whites. Because he hates whites, he pushes that white man in front of the train.
A white man sees a black man (a complete stranger to him) on a train platform. This man hates blacks. Because he hates blacks, he pushes that black man in front of the train.
Same exact act - same exact criminal behavior. As a matter of law, you really think they should be punished differently?
Consider these two identical criminal acts with different motives:
A black man sees a white man (a complete stranger to him) on a train platform. This man hates whites. Because he hates whites, he pushes that white man in front of the train.
A white man sees a black man (a complete stranger to him) on a train platform. This man hates blacks. Because he hates blacks, he pushes that black man in front of the train.
Same exact act - same exact criminal behavior. As a matter of law, you really think they should be punished differently?
Well, DO YOU?
No.
And both (assuming evidence of their biased-motive) would be charged with a bias motivated sentence enhancement (in laymen's terms, a "hate crime").
In reality the man served his time, and the father (through his blind rage) murdered him, making him worse than the rapist himself - legally speaking.
Law should have some rare extenuating circumstances, however hate is hate. In both of your examples the father and racist hated their victims, so they murdered them.
Life Sentences for both.
If you're a throw the book at them, a felony is a felony is felony and felons should go to jail for life kinda guy, then this particular crime isn't a good hypo.
How about this one.
Criminal one vandalizes personal property - the side of a stranger's house - by spray painting a smiley face on it.
Criminal two, a Jew hater, vandalizes personal property - the side of a building used as a synagogue - by spray paining a swastika on it.
Same exact criminal act. Should the punishment be identical?
Then how do we rectify the fact that crimes such as the ones I posted in this thread are not prosecuted as such?
What you're calling a "fact" to be rectified is just you lying.
(well, perhaps it's said out of ignorance rather than a lie)
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.
