BF2S Forums A "Hate Crime"

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

We do understand racism, we have fro a long time.

People do not want to venture outside their own realms of comfort and familiarity, and they don't want other bringing in theirs.

this has got nothing to do with punishing people based on race.

Lowing, you seem to be intentionally acting dense right now.

We might understand racism on an abstract, general level, but to say you already understand every personal perception that leads to racist acts is pretty arrogant.

The idea behind hate crimes is that a more severe punishment for those that commit racist acts should be a deterrent for future racist acts.  I don't personally believe that this actually works like that, but the idea is somewhat sound if effort is put forth to also understand what leads to these racist perceptions.

and you do not think punishing harsher or lighter based on someones race is not racism in itself? A murder is a murder. Motive goes toward establishing guilt or innocence, not punishment. lady justice is supposed to be fuckin' blind correct?

It's not racism if it is done consistently.

As I said before, our current way of doing it is racist, because black on white crime for racial reasons is not treated the same as white on black crime for racial reasons.  So yeah, that inequality in treatment is racist indeed.

However, if we were equal in the enforcement of hate crime legislation for both situations, then it would not be racism.

I have to sort of agree that "hate" crimes leigislation is kind of dumb. But I would still want to see some sort of elevated sentencing for crimes committed with a "hate" motive. Making the motive for the crime a crime in itself is pretty tough to prove and IMO its better to deal with hate crimes with sentencing guidelines. eg. you do X crime you get y time but if you committed this crime with the motive of a, b or c then those are aggravating circumstances and so you get an increased sentence to both deter you and others from what ever the stupid behavior was.

Its not as flashy as a "hate" crime but it would be easier to prove the crime and IMO in the long run much more effective. I believe that the movement towards hate crime legislation is in regards to the civil war amendments and because the POS racsists on juries in the south used to consitently let other POS racsits accused of crimes against black people go, like the Birmingham bombings. The feds past these laws to break these cycles of injustice and to bring the "it's all white" crowd into civilized society. So I think that hate crime legislation does have its place even today.

I would point out though that if you take two murders, for example, one being caused by a shooting while robbers are are trying to escape and the other the chain dragging murder of a guy because of his race, both are stupid and senseless BUT the dragging murder is also heinous and those people are not deserving of ANY mercy and if there is a line up for maximum punishment then those who committ heinous crimes should be at the front of the line. So I really don't care if its by "hate" crime or by elevated sentencing guidlines, as long as the job gets done. My only complaint is that I think that hate crime legislation may be too cumbersome and inefficient to rid my country of POS racists.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

I have to sort of agree that "hate" crimes leigislation is kind of dumb. But I would still want to see some sort of elevated sentencing for crimes committed with a "hate" motive. Making the motive for the crime a crime in itself is pretty tough to prove and IMO its better to deal with hate crimes with sentencing guidelines. eg. you do X crime you get y time but if you committed this crime with the motive of a, b or c then those are aggravating circumstances and so you get an increased sentence to both deter you and others from what ever the stupid behavior was.

Its not as flashy as a "hate" crime but it would be easier to prove the crime and IMO in the long run much more effective. I believe that the movement towards hate crime legislation is in regards to the civil war amendments and because the POS racsists on juries in the south used to consitently let other POS racsits accused of crimes against black people go, like the Birmingham bombings. The feds past these laws to break these cycles of injustice and to bring the "it's all white" crowd into civilized society. So I think that hate crime legislation does have its place even today.

Provide an example in the last twenty years that fits that model.

I can provide one: OJ.

Here's another: LA riots (various, to include the beating of Reginald Denny)

Sort of blows that whole argument right out of the water, doesn't it?

FEOS wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

I have to sort of agree that "hate" crimes leigislation is kind of dumb. But I would still want to see some sort of elevated sentencing for crimes committed with a "hate" motive. Making the motive for the crime a crime in itself is pretty tough to prove and IMO its better to deal with hate crimes with sentencing guidelines. eg. you do X crime you get y time but if you committed this crime with the motive of a, b or c then those are aggravating circumstances and so you get an increased sentence to both deter you and others from what ever the stupid behavior was.

Its not as flashy as a "hate" crime but it would be easier to prove the crime and IMO in the long run much more effective. I believe that the movement towards hate crime legislation is in regards to the civil war amendments and because the POS racsists on juries in the south used to consitently let other POS racsits accused of crimes against black people go, like the Birmingham bombings. The feds past these laws to break these cycles of injustice and to bring the "it's all white" crowd into civilized society. So I think that hate crime legislation does have its place even today.

Provide an example in the last twenty years that fits that model.

I can provide one: OJ.

Here's another: LA riots (various, to include the beating of Reginald Denny)

Sort of blows that whole argument right out of the water, doesn't it?

Even if I didn't provide an example, why should such laws be taken off the books, doesn't it add a layer of protection for individuals that history has shown is necessary? ITs kind of like the argument to get rid of wall street regulation, it sounds like a good idea until you see the consequences.

Anyway, if some retard picks a person out of crowd because of their religion, skin color, sexual orientation etc and decides  to do harm to that peron for no other reason, then the answer would be yes, that person needs to be punished more harshly for the reasons of deterrence. You can't have people with a mind set that its ok to run around and bully, assault and kill other people because they don't don't like the looks of them. Deterrence is a valid goal of criminal law.

The fact that these laws are on the books is all the proof you need to know that other sensible and pragmatic people believe the same thing. While it might be nice to theorize about true equality this is where a pragmatic approach to solving some real world problems is required.


BTW the OJ example is a little off the mark. True he murdered a white woman and a black jury let him off, but he didn't kill the woman because she was white, he killed her as  her crazy ex-spouse with jealiously issues. If OJ had gone down to Walmart and picked out a blond blue eyed woman out of the crowd and killed her because he now hated white women, then you would have a heinous hate crime.


And Lowing your offf base, again , What I said was if you were going to rank crimes from worst to less worse, the front of the line should be reserved for heinous crimes. And despite your one size fits all solution, the criminal justice system doesn't have one punishment for crimes with the same result. A intoxicated manslaoughter might get 10 years, and a criminal shooting and killing someone while robbing them might get the lethal injection. To use your absolutist thought process, I guess that means that a person raping a 4 year should be treated just like a college guy raping a soriety sister at a frat house party are either deserving of mercy, obivously NO, but the punishments are sure going to be different.

Anyway, having people run around and hurt kill or harass other people because of the way they look can't be tolerated in a civilized society. people need to know that strangers are not going to be running up and assaulting them while they are in public. Most of us don't do that because we don't want others doing it to us. But other people need the coercive force of the law hanging over their heads. These laws are on the books, they serve a purpose, you can theorize all you want on equality, but if the laws save one person from a chain dragging death then they are worth hurting your sense of equality.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Even if I didn't provide an example, why should such laws be taken off the books, doesn't it add a layer of protection for individuals that history has shown is necessary? ITs kind of like the argument to get rid of wall street regulation, it sounds like a good idea until you see the consequences.

I never said they had to be taken off the books. The example you give below is an example of a hate crime. On the other hand, a run-of-the-mill crime that isn't based on racism but still involves two people of the same race is not necessarily a hate crime.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Anyway, if some retard picks a person out of crowd because of their religion, skin color, sexual orientation etc and decides  to do harm to that peron for no other reason, then the answer would be yes, that person needs to be punished more harshly for the reasons of deterrence. You can't have people with a mind set that its ok to run around and bully, assault and kill other people because they don't don't like the looks of them. Deterrence is a valid goal of criminal law.

The point being that not every crime involving people of different races need be pursued as a hate crime. Either that, or all crimes involving a victim with a different race, sex, ethnicity, etc from the attacker should be initially pursued as a hate crime--regardless of the combination.

The problem with the application of the law is that you never see investigations--much less prosecutions--of minorities for engaging in hate crime. Thus, the law is inherently unfair...at least in its application.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

The fact that these laws are on the books is all the proof you need to know that other sensible and pragmatic people believe the same thing. While it might be nice to theorize about true equality this is where a pragmatic approach to solving some real world problems is required.

There are laws on the books prohibiting donkeys from sleeping in bathtubs, too.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

BTW the OJ example is a little off the mark. True he murdered a white woman and a black jury let him off, but he didn't kill the woman because she was white, he killed her as  her crazy ex-spouse with jealiously issues. If OJ had gone down to Walmart and picked out a blond blue eyed woman out of the crowd and killed her because he now hated white women, then you would have a heinous hate crime.

The problem is that if OJ had done what you describe, it would've just been prosecuted as a "standard" murder, not a hate crime. You know that as well as I do.

You didn't address the lack of hate crime charges against those knuckleheads who beat Reginald Denney...whose only mistake was being a white guy driving through Compton during the LA riots. That crime was purely racially motivated, but no hate crimes were alleged against the attackers. What would've happened had the racial situation been reversed? You can damnbetcha "hate crime" would've been thrown around from the beginning.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Anyway, having people run around and hurt kill or harass other people because of the way they look can't be tolerated in a civilized society. people need to know that strangers are not going to be running up and assaulting them while they are in public. Most of us don't do that because we don't want others doing it to us. But other people need the coercive force of the law hanging over their heads. These laws are on the books, they serve a purpose, you can theorize all you want on equality, but if the laws save one person from a chain dragging death then they are worth hurting your sense of equality.

Nobody is arguing the opposite. The argument is that if one person kills or attacks another, the punishment should be the same, regardless of the motivation for said action.

FEOS wrote:

The problem is that if OJ had done what you describe, it would've just been prosecuted as a "standard" murder, not a hate crime. You know that as well as I do.

You didn't address the lack of hate crime charges against those knuckleheads who beat Reginald Denney...whose only mistake was being a white guy driving through Compton during the LA riots. That crime was purely racially motivated, but no hate crimes were alleged against the attackers. What would've happened had the racial situation been reversed? You can damnbetcha "hate crime" would've been thrown around from the beginning.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Anyway, having people run around and hurt kill or harass other people because of the way they look can't be tolerated in a civilized society. people need to know that strangers are not going to be running up and assaulting them while they are in public. Most of us don't do that because we don't want others doing it to us. But other people need the coercive force of the law hanging over their heads. These laws are on the books, they serve a purpose, you can theorize all you want on equality, but if the laws save one person from a chain dragging death then they are worth hurting your sense of equality.

Nobody is arguing the opposite. The argument is that if one person kills or attacks another, the punishment should be the same, regardless of the motivation for said action.

It sounds like what you are talking about is the application of the law or prosecutorial discretion in charging. I'm sure there are lots of crimes that are black on white or brown on white or brown on black that are hate crimes that aren't brought as hate crimes. Could the guy who got a brick in the head during the LA riots been the victim of a hate crime? sure. Could the application of the law be discrimintory? sure. Its a similar argument to the one where the number of blacks on death row are out of proportion to the number of charges brought and their numbers in society, people complain that its because of prosecutorrs abusing their discretion when bringing the charges.

That's why I was trying to say that I'm not a fan of hate crime legislation because IMO its harder to prove a racist motive and easy to prove the intent to harm.
Did you throw the brick? Yes
Did you intend to harm this guy because he's white? No (not an obivous answer)
But by throwing the brick you knew you would cause harm? Doesn't matter the answer becuase its obivous
By throwing the brick you knew you could kill him? Again obivous answer

its the kiss prinicple, keep it simple, and use sentencing to view aggravating circumstances like racist motives.

While others are posting that you don't take the victim into account, I would disagree. Courts look at things like age where the victim is young or elderly, gender, sexual orientation and race. IMO if the sole motive for the crime is race, that means that the victim could have been any member of the public and that means that that criminal is a menace to every individual. Public safety demands that that person be dealt with in a manner that will protect the public and hopefully the sentence will deter others from copy cat crimes.

Also, the idea that ciminal law should probably look at the impact on the victim or the results of the crime as being definitive as to the punishment metted out is interesting and might actually be a good idea, its just not the way the criminal justice system works now. the Criminal justice system looks at the motive of the criminal when charging and in sentencing eg. negligent homocide gets one tier of punishment and an intentional homocide gets another although the victim is just as dead. Under the system as it exists, IMO, it is a valid to take racism into account. But not every crime will be defined by racism, a robbery where the victim happens to be another race is just a regular crime. But where a gang of one race target a neighborhood to clear that neighborhood of another race, now that's a hate crime. Or where someone targets a church for burning because they don't like the race of people going to that church, now that's a hate crime.  Where a regular arsonist might get 10 years in prison, I don't think it would be unreasonable to send a racist arsonist away for more than 10 years, perhaps for 20 years.

Anyway, the op was calling for a debate on hate crimes and as you can see a debate of disregarding motive is a lot larger than just defning away race as a factor to be considered. Its would be monumental shift in the way the criminal justice system works and it might be a change for the better.