http://www.blogher.org/west-virgina-rape-case-not-hate-crime#readmore,

The individuals in this case arent being charged with additional hate crime charges. The argument is, as stated in the article, is that its not a hate crime because they were not violating a federally protected right.

Opinions?~

I hate the idea of thought police, so the notion of using a stronger penalty based on someone's motivation during a crime makes me uncomfortable. It is such an integrated part of our legal system that it is kind of irrational, though.

(edit) grammar

I hate the idea of thought police, so the notion of using a stronger penalty based on someone's motivation during a crime makes me uncomfortable. It is such an integrated part of our legal system that it is kind of irrational, though.

Not really. If you consider the different types of murder/manslaughter charges.


The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea), or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide), where murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder) requires either the intent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intent) to kill, or a state of mind called malice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_%28legal_term%29), or malice aforethought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_aforethought), which may involve an unintentional killing but with a willful disregard for life.The less serious offense of manslaughter, on the other hand, is the taking of human life but in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder/manslaughter.


Thus, it is considered that the motivation of the individual clearly defines the degrees of how they are charged with regards to murder/manslaughter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

Sixee's point is valid... and his example is proof we don't need hate crime law... it's redundant.

Sixee:

I was stating that the intent factors of a crime were so ingrained in our system that my dislike of them was irrational. I don't like the idea of legislating thought crimes of any sort.

In a murder case, showing that someone went out and bought a gun, a shovel, a tarp and a full tank of gasoline the day before the murder might show intent to commit a crime. Showing that someone is a racist, bigoted trodgolyte might also show intent or malice in certain circumstances, but it doesn't change the actual crime in any way. The fact of the matter is someone is still dead, and they shouldn't be. In both cases, it would be 1st degree murder and both people should be punished for it.

Agreed Esbat.
"Hate Crimes" are just a way for Federal Prosecutors to be able to justify getting a paycheck...

No, they're a way to point out in a formal -- and usually highly public -- manner that racism (or whatever -ism may be involved) is still alive and well and will be punished extra mega ++ for crimes performed under its banner. It's also a way of branding -- for all to see -- the perps as -ists (Though not as permanently as, say, pedophiles). And it's a way to make other members of the persecuted minority feel a little better about the whole thing, like justice was really, finally done.

Given that none of these reasons have anything to do with the crime itself (and can potentially prejudice a jury), I find such statutes suspect.

They (hate crimes laws) also serve another valid function; as a check on *judges* (and prosecutors in this case) who may be, even in this day and age, -ists of various types (most commonly homophobes these days) with regards to sentencing defendants convicted of crimes that have a race/sex/religion/orientation primary motivation.

I'm reminded of good old Jack Hampton of Dallas (whom I believe I've mentioned before), who gave a reduced sentence to a defendant convicted of the brutal slaying of two gay men in one of Dallas' public parks, along with the following remarks: "I don't much care for queers cruising the streets picking up teenage boys ...[I] put prostitutes and gays at about the same level ... and I'd be hard put to give somebody life for killing a prostitute."

Or, Circuit Judge Daniel Futch, on a pre-trial hearing for the murder of Daniel Wan, in Florida in 1987, who asked the prosecutor: "That's a crime now, to beat up a homosexual?" The prosecutor responded, "Yes, sir. And it's a crime to kill them." To that, the judge quipped, "Times really have changed." Fortunately, he was removed from that case, but I think you get my point - the laws do, on occasion, ensure that the victims crimes at least get *equal* consideration under the law.

With the current religious hysteria in this country, I'm sure there have been a few cases of zealotry-motivated hate crimes against Muslims and other religious minorities (including athiests) in recent history and again, considering the state of the *judiciary*, not to mention juries themselves, in many parts of the country, these laws sometimes serve as a means of making sure that justice is at least served. While I'm not terribly fond of these laws either, I think that, at least in some cases (depending on statute and severity), they are justified. In this particular case, I think the evidence for a hate crime is quite clear.

Regards,
Nydia

Nydia's first paragraph reminded me of another reason why I don't like these laws: it takes power off the judge's hands. This isn't a strong reason for me, with regard to hate crime laws, but it's the reason I detest mandatory minimums on drug laws and, to a lesser extent, 'three strikes and you're out' laws.

Interestingly, many who favor mandatory minimums and 3 strikes -- as a part of being "tough on crime" -- don't care for the hate crimes laws so much.

By the way, this topic is particularly, erm, topical today for another reason: the Senate just passed the Matthew Shepard Act, which would expand current federal hate crime laws to include hate crimes against individuals "based on sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability". I'm mildly intrigued as to whether President Bush will balk at signing it in a show of deference to his religious right base, considering that his administration wasted no time in *removing* equal protection language based on sexual orientation from the EEOC when he was sworn in.

Regards,
Nydia

I haven't heard any buzz about whether he plans to veto it or let it quietly disappear if possible. On the one hand, he isn't running for anything; on the other, the base hates teh Gay quite a bit.

Nydia- In the cases you presented, the judges were not doing their job which is to sit in an impartial manner as a judge of the law. The law is all that should matter. In fact, it would make more sense to pass legislation that would prevent judges from nullifying the facts of the crime and punish those who do instead of bringing Orwellian overtones to the whole thing.

If you beat someone up because they are gay the fact is you beat them up. It shouldn't matter WHY you did it, the crime is assault and battery, aggravated assault and battery, whatever. Thoughtcrime has no place in the United States.

considering the state of the *judiciary*, not to mention juries themselves, in many parts of the country, these laws sometimes serve as a means of making sure that justice is at least served

Except people are being punished for their thoughts. That isn't justice, that is... I don't know what it is. I just don't like it.

Beat up someone who you hate to the depths of your being because they sing out of tune in their pool and their dog poops in your yard who happens to share your own race/sexual orientation/religion: probation and a fine.
Beat up someone who you hate because they are gay: Five years in prison.

Yeah. That isn't justice, it is a double standard.

Nydia- In the cases you presented, the judges were not doing their job which is to sit in an impartial manner as a judge of the law. The law is all that should matter. In fact, it would make more sense to pass legislation that would prevent judges from nullifying the facts of the crime and punish those who do instead of bringing Orwellian overtones to the whole thing.

If you beat someone up because they are gay the fact is you beat them up. It shouldn't matter WHY you did it, the crime is assault and battery, aggravated assault and battery, whatever. Thoughtcrime has no place in the United States.



Except people are being punished for their thoughts. That isn't justice, that is... I don't know what it is. I just don't like it.

Beat up someone who you hate to the depths of your being because they sing out of tune in their pool and their dog poops in your yard who happens to share your own race/sexual orientation/religion: probation and a fine.
Beat up someone who you hate because they are gay: Five years in prison.

Yeah. That isn't justice, it is a double standard.

It is a double standard, and possibly for a good reason.

To make hate crimes more severly punishable, you make it harder for someone who is intolerant to justify acting on their intolerance.

The goal being that the harsher the punishment the quicker we move towards less people killing others because of Race, Sexual orientation, beliefs and such.

I think you kinda have to ask yourself this to decide how you really feel about this.

Would it bother you more to know that John Smith killed Reggie cause he was Black and lord knows Black people are evil?

Or if John Smith killed Reggie cause Reggie slept with his wife?
Or if John Smith killed Reggie cause Reggie was an asshole?

Most people are more troubled by an innocent person being killed with no real reason other then something they cannot control. You cannot control the fact that your black, or gay...It makes people feel helpess to know that people might kill you just cause they dont like your kind. Therefore wouldnt it make sense to make it harder to live your life after commiting a Hate Crime?


Blah im rambling but i think you get the point i'm making

Making it a "hate" crime allows federal authorities to get involved. The case then can be tried in federal court and also prosecuted under civil rights laws.

Federal is a whole new set of judges than the local level that said the things Nydia posted.


But it is a double standard, If you dont like gay people or whatever and kill one then tell the cops Yeah, I Killed him cause he was queer colored or whatever then you should prolly be locked the f up. Its not an excuse but can see how it is used as one if you accidently killed a ( blank ) guy/gal and the prosecuter decideds its a hate crime and starts stirring the media for votes and stiffer sentence but again it all means something different on where you live in the US.

If you beat someone up because they are gay the fact is you beat them up. It shouldn't matter WHY you did it, the crime is assault and battery, aggravated assault and battery, whatever. Thoughtcrime has no place in the United States.

/concur

I do think that someone attacking someone out of pure bigotry is particularly heinous. That said, I do not think our justice system should be the sole arbiter in these instances. Is someone who kills someone for their wallet a better person than someone who kills someone because they're a certain race/gender/whatever? I don't know. It's certainly not a decision I want to put in the hands of the government.

To make hate crimes more severly punishable, you make it harder for someone who is intolerant to justify acting on their intolerance.

For many criminals, the threat of punishment is not adequate deterrence.

I come from a family of mixed racial and cultural folks.

The Hate Crime issue is an utterly ignorant one.

You wanted to perpetuate violence on someone you should pay....regardless of color/race/religion.

Ya'll don't get it, and likely never will, but this just draws further lines and brings negative attention upon the victims and their familes.

Quit getting all Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton and focusing the negative will you please.

Yes there is still unreasonable hate on this earth and in our country...

News flash Nancy, there always has and always will be...

Punish them and be done with it...

Fandros Finglaflin

Ya'll don't get it...Who are you talking to?

I thought it was spelled Y'all

In the days following the 9/11 attacks, there were some attacks against people of Middle Eastern descent (a surprisingly small number, thankfully). If the attacks against us had not occurred, these retaliatory attacks most likely would not have.

So, should the Hate Crime issue be taken into account when prosecuting? Or should they be treated as merely more random acts of violence?

If you beat someone up because they are gay the fact is you beat them up. It shouldn't matter WHY you did it, the crime is assault and battery, aggravated assault and battery, whatever. Thoughtcrime has no place in the United States.

Except people are being punished for their thoughts. That isn't justice, that is... I don't know what it is. I just don't like it.

I have to disagree. Hate crime laws aren't punishing people for their thoughts, they're punishing people because their thoughts went from being just thoughts, into physical action with the intent to impose their oppresive beliefs.

So Tim, from the victim's perception he's more alive aslong as it was someone of the same race/religion?

It's painting shades of grey inside a very dark crime.

Imho we should ramp up the penalty for ALL violent crimes, not make it sorta better as long as you hated the victim based on race/religion.

6 years till parole for murder in some states is absolute bullshit.

Make it a hard penalty and make it stick, don't paint fancy lil shades to appear more compassionate or is it to appear more civilized?

Fandros

Fandros, more alive is a unique way of putting it, but yes.

I can't think of any situations where an individual from the same race beats up another member of his/her race with the intent to oppress because of their skin tone.

When a member of the ethnic/cultural majority beats up a member of the ethnic/cultural minority because they hate all of said minority members, they're doing with the intent to oppress them. It's the oppression imposed that would make them less alive then compared to more alive when a member of the same race would beat them up for some unknown reason.

Apparently Tim you've had lil experience in bar fights/playground fights or an open brawl for no other reason than Mr Neighbor threw darts at your dog...

Whenever there's conflict, for any reason what so ever , it's to oppress your opponent.

To inflict harm, to impose your will upon them.

There is no difference, maybe the emotion you identify with is muddied with dislike for a fellow's skin/religion but it's still wrong.

Put teeth in the existing laws so that violence is dealt with. Put the focus THERE, not on some emotion you THINK the perp MIGHT feel.

Muddy shades of gray I tell you....

The oppression he's talking about is sending a message to other members of whatever group, not the actual victim, thus the concept of a hate crime being a larger crime than simply the assault, since it is targeted at an entire group of people.

Whether or not you agree with the thoughtcrime-esque legal abstraction there, you can't ignore the difference. When I throw a hammer at my neighbor for not trimming his trees, I'm not trying to bring my entire block under the thumb of the neighborhood association. If we get together beat up those towelheads at the local McFalafels that just opened in UpperCrustVille, chances are we had an agenda.

Dear Fandros and Esbat:

I could not help but be struck by the vehemence you both attacked the thought of 'thoughtcrime' with, as well as the umbrage and, well, 'righteous indignation' that you expressed and went after Timshon and my rationales in favor of hate crimes laws with. Little bit of persecution or privelege complex-related spin there, as potential members of the 'priveleged' race/class, beyond the mere idealism and libertarianism you've expressed, perhaps ;)?

In a perfect world, people would be treated equally under the law for all crimes. The fact is, they are not, and bias is rampant in many sectors in the law (one such case going before the Supreme Court this year deals with the huge inequity in sentencing laws for possession of crack vs powder cocaine, which one could make a pretty convincing argument for race/class bias in btw ;) ).

I think what is at the heart of what Timshon is getting at is, that as a country which enshrines equality under the law as one of its core precepts, we should regard crimes which are perpetrated *upon the liberty and equality of citizens* as their primary motivation as particularly serious, and thus worthy of additional consideration, because they violate a central American principle (the inherent worth and dignity of all human beings) and are corrosive to the society as a whole beyond the immediate means by which they were perpetrated. In addition, of course, it can be seen as an effort to make sure justice *is* at least served, as I mentioned before.

I'm swamped with grading today but I didn't want to leave Timshon out to dry on this; while I think that, much like crack cocaine simple possession sentencing and 'three strikes' laws, such hate crime statutes can be excessively restrictive or punitive, I don't believe there is complete parity in that example and that there *is* intrinsic value in recognizing that there is something particularly heinous/damaging *to society* about these types of crimes that merits them being singled out.

Regards,
Nydia

The oppression he's talking about is sending a message to other members of whatever group, not the actual victim, thus the concept of a hate crime being a larger crime than simply the assault, since it is targeted at an entire group of people. An excellent point. I don't know that it makes the case for hate crimes laws, but judges should have the leeway to take things like this into account when sentencing. Simple assault with intent to "send a message" to a certain demographic does seem different than simple assault for robbery or rage.

And, Gaah, Malse beat me to it (and more succinctly) while I was in the editor, damn 30 minute hack sessions ;)...

Please Nydia, don't feed me the mental bs "privelaged class" my lilly white ass.

I've had a cross burnt in my damn yard , death threats to family and home and given verbal debate to folks organizing KKK rallies. All for my Father and Step mother daring to adopt 2 wonderful , omg albiet African American, sisters into our family.

It's the idiots and the mental prima donna's such as Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton and those gentle misguided few that cause more division and destroy MLK's vision each time we force greater wedges.

Yes I get a bit upset, I've had to deal with this my entire life.

The sooner we push to judge a person on his traits/persona and action...the more we push to see a person for a person and not for something that's based solely on his race/religion the better in my opinion.

I surely didn't mean to sound as tho I'm attacking Timshon personally, he's a good egg as are the rest of you. However the issue is one near and dear to my heart and to be quite frank pisses me off to no end.

The sooner we push to judge a person on his traits/persona and action...Ironically, the above is precisely what hate crimes legislation does: extends judgment to action, traits and persona. Which you didn't mean, but I'm interested in how you'd address the point that Malse originally advanced.

The sooner we push to judge a person on his traits/persona and action...the more we push to see a person for a person and not for something that's based solely on his race/religion the better in my opinion.

I don't see what hate crime laws have to do with this issue; I think you are creating a false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible to judge people both *for* the crimes they commit and simultaneously recognize that certain crimes are more serious ('aggrevated' assaults, if you like) because of the threat and oppressive force they pose towards certain groups who have, historically (and currently, on occasion) been treated unfairly. If it makes it less problematic, consider hate crimes laws as singling out actions that cause harm to society and the American ideal of equality as a whole rather than something focused on the individual (because the *crime* usually isn't, and that's a key point that differentiates them, especially when things like murder are involved, from a usually highly personal crime of passion)

People's ingenuity with 'ism' hate knows no bounds, unfortunately. My good friend in Oklahoma has had CPS repeatedly called on her in the last year for such bogus complaints as sending her daughter to school in the same *sweater* multiple days in a row and other non-issues, simply because one of her neighbors can't stand that she and her husband are a mixed-race couple (he black, she caucasian).

And I apologize for my off the cuff remark, but I was really struck by the reactionary nature of both of your replies and was curious as to what underwrote it.

Regards,
Nydia

Thor on paper hate crime legislation is indeed intended to break down barriers.

I find it ironic we try to break down barriers by creating more barriers.

We've made great strides in the march to equality without the politizication (spelling pain pills are in full effect atm) of an awful set of crimes.

Again, fix what's broken , i.e. the weak sentances for all crimes...

Don't try to create more laws to create more division.

Don't try to create more laws to create more division.I think an argument could be made that not recognizing the impetus for a given hate crime furthers division from the perspective of the demographic of which the victims are a part. Arguably, lack of hate crimes legislation may provide a free pass of sorts for crimes of minor harrassment or vandalism against a demographic. Shall spray painting a smiley face on a Jewish grave have the same penalty as "die jew die!"?

It makes sense that a stiffer penalty is handed down in the latter case, though again, judicial latitude should address that (unless the judge also hates that demographic, which can be a problem).

This is a very interesting discussion and I can see Fandros's point as well the others. I'm not sure what I think about either side yet but do hope this discussion continues. I did hear about the cocaine vs. crack sentences today and thought that was interesting. I honestly would not have considered it was a racial thing but then I don't know the statistics of race and drug traffic.

Nydia, I am appalled to think that in this day and age bigots such as your friend is having to experience exist. People really are idiotic. :(

I did hear about the cocaine vs. crack sentences today and thought that was interesting. I honestly would not have considered it was a racial thing but then I don't know the statistics of race and drug traffic.

Nydia, I am appalled to think that in this day and age bigots such as your friend is having to experience exist. People really are idiotic. :(


Cocaine is considered the drug of the jet set; an expensive little something to serve with the wine at trendy parties, as so many movies and TV shows tell us. Crack, on the other hand, is the lower class version of the drug, easily made available to anyone on the corner. Few street crimes, burglaries, cases of prostitution, etc., can be tied to heavy usage of cocaine; but, crack addiction is a major precipitating factor in a large portion of the above crimes. I have seen estimates back several years that showed crack use was almost 75% minority. I would not be surprised to see law enforcement and corrections figures would still support that number.

As far as there still being idiotic people that are bigots, it is very true. My niece is an executive secretary/office manager making approx. $54k per year, and dresses like you would expect a professional person to. She is also the daughter of a mixed relationship. She was recently grabbing a cup of coffee on the skyway in St Paul when she bumped into a woman she figured to be about 65-70. She apologized, but before she could leave the woman said in a loud voice, "Don't you ni****r*s ever watch where you are going?" Needless to say, my niece was dumbfounded by this outburst, and simply walked away.

My older sister started dating a black guy in 9th grade, before Martin Luther King's assassination. My mother was outraged, being a twice-divorced mother of three, and not needing the headaches of people's prejudice. In 1973, my mother married a black entertainer and they remained together, happily, until his death a year ago last spring. Two of my folks' closest friends were another mixed couple, only this was a white male and black female. They used to joke about who would get the deferential treatment when they went out to eat together.

There is a lot of bigotry remaining in this country, and world. I have watched way too many examples of it to say otherwise.

Few street crimes, burglaries, cases of prostitution, etc., can be tied to heavy usage of cocaine

Au contraire, Bylimet, it's simply a matter of class/price. A good deal of white collar crime (and white collar prostitution) can be tied to cocaine habits (and if you remember the late '70s and early '80s cocaine addiction was primarily a middle-upper class phenomenon); the only difference is, it isn't the poor stealing from the slightly-less poor to support those habits, but the relatively to very rich stealing from their clients, stockholders, companies, creditors (as well as in the more mundane fashion), etc ;).

Personally I think personal possession should be decriminalized, but parity of penalties equivalent to the degree of whatever crimes were committed to support those habits, regardless of who commits them or what drug they were related to. Now if that isn't idealistic... ;)

Regards,
Nydia

When I throw a hammer at my neighbor for not trimming his trees, I'm not trying to bring my entire block under the thumb of the neighborhood association. If we get together beat up those towelheads at the local McFalafels that just opened in UpperCrustVille, chances are we had an agenda

They are two very different crimes- I think the second one is a whole lot more serious. Let's compare apples with apples: Throwing a hammer at someone for not trimming the trees vs. throwing a hammer at someone for being gay/black/latino/whatever. The punishment /should/ and /ought/ be exactly the same.

Now, the other crime you mention is different and I agree that it should be handled differently as well. It might be better prosecuted under anti-terrorism laws, since the intent was to inspire terror in a populace. It doesn't matter /why/ they were trying to inspire terror, the point is that they were and should be punished for that.

It is also very different from having hate crime charges brought against you for beating up a muslim who is sleeping with your wife because, in a fit of rage, you happened to call him a "towelhead" to insult him while you were administering the beating. However, hate crime statues can be applied to both cases, when the intent behind both was different.


we should regard crimes which are perpetrated *upon the liberty and equality of citizens* as their primary motivation as particularly serious, and thus worthy of additional consideration, because they violate a central American principle (the inherent worth and dignity of all human beings) and are corrosive to the society as a whole beyond the immediate means by which they were perpetrated. In addition, of course, it can be seen as an effort to make sure justice *is* at least served, as I mentioned before.


If you're dead because you slept with my wife or because you've got blue skin, the point is you're equally dead. None of these crimes /should/ happen in an ideal world, but the point is that they do, and they should be punished in equal measure.

I'm at a loss to offer a better way to recognize and punish what I agree are actions that are corrosive to society as a whole, but the legislated double standard at work here is no different from the de facto double standard that you've mentioned with the crack cocaine vs. powder cocaine argument. Due to media hype, it can be argued that crack cocaine is viewed as more addictive and damaging to society as a whole, so there should be stiffer sentences. Look where that got us. (Just read Byl's reply on the subject, and he summed it up nicely).

Hate crime statues might be the best way out of all the bad ways of punishing bigotry made manifest, but I just can't bring myself to get behind them at all. I think that anti-terrorism laws might be expanded and used for some cases, but even that will not address the whole spectrum of events that can happen.

I just don't know.

Fandros, it seems your advocating a color-blind attitude, and before I comment further I want to make sure that is the case.

On powder/crack cocaine: 90 % of crack cocaine arrests are of African-Americans, and 75 % of powder cocaine are of caucasians. It takes 5g of crack cocaine for a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years. It takes 500g of powder cocaine to be dealt the same sentence. Seems a bit fishy to me.

(Having trouble finding the figures, once I find them i'll add them.)

Color blind might be a close descriptive of what I'm advocating.

I'm not naive enough to think the general populace will ever reach that level. That being said you don't slam the bar low because you feel your populace is all of that lowest denominator.

See, I'm also against slots being held in college/jobs because of race or gender.

I think we force our society to a lower standard when we keep viewing everyone differently.

Just waking up, thoughts are a bit muddied ;P

Fandros

Au contraire, Bylimet, it's simply a matter of class/price. A good deal of white collar crime (and white collar prostitution) can be tied to cocaine habits (and if you remember the late '70s and early '80s cocaine addiction was primarily a middle-upper class phenomenon); the only difference is, it isn't the poor stealing from the slightly-less poor to support those habits, but the relatively to very rich stealing from their clients, stockholders, companies, creditors (as well as in the more mundane fashion), etc ;).


Au contraire?

I said street crime was tied to crack, and you pointed out white collar crime can be tied to cocaine, which does not refute the point I made. I cannot point to any statistics, but I would wager you will find a ratio of crack related crime to cocaine related crime being somewhere around 40 - 1, at least; most likely even higher.

I do not discount the crimes committed at the white collar level. The point is most victims are not at risk of losing their lives to the perpetrator, and most of the perps are plea bargained out, with treatment, which is where the folks that point to the racial disparity have their goods. Even though the cocaine related crime may be in the four and five figure neighborhood in terms of victim impact, that perp is less likely to do time than the one who got 100-200 from a gas station for his crack.

Color blindess is really just a subtle, unintentional form a racism. Usually the color-blind mentality is adopted when you think color is the problem. Even if you deny that, once you start advocating color-blindness your denying someone else what they may percieve to be an important part of their own identity and force them into a culture where things are geared toward a narrow segment of the population.

Color blindess is really just a subtle, unintentional form a racism. Usually the color-blind mentality is adopted when you think color is the problem. Even if you deny that, once you start advocating color-blindness your denying someone else what they may percieve to be an important part of their own identity and force them into a culture where things are geared toward a narrow segment of the population.

Hence why I said it might be close. I don't give a damn about someone's color. My family and friends are multicultural and to be honest I have a really hard time with folks with the mindset you describe THINKING they know what it might be like if we didn't see a person for their pigment first.

Try again Timshon, but this time attempt to see what it might be like without your own paradigms.

Think this old man did pretty good for himself and his family. My son is even more confused by folks who hate merely because the tint of a fellow's skin is different.

Fight the hate mongers, ignore their message of forcing further division and hate/dislike/love/like people for their own foibles I say...Lord knows we have enough internal reasons to be disagreeable folks without petty shit.

Fandros

Just waking up, thoughts are a bit muddied ;PWait til later, they'll be positively opaque! ;)

Funny thing about hate crimes, I've never see a minority being charged with them....
I don't think I've ever read or heard of a news story where someone of minority status has attacked someone based on the color of thier skin, and been charged with it.
Does this mean that minorities are not capable of commiting a crime, based on the color of thier victim's skin?



According to this table at the FBI, the hate crime statistics in 2005, there were 828 Incidents, 935 Offenses, 975 Offenses, and 963 Known offenders who were motivated by hatred of white people.
Where were these stories, in the news?



By Race

An analysis of available race data for the 6,804 known hate crime offenders revealed that:

60.5 percent were white.
19.9 percent were black.
12.3 percent were unknown.
5.2 percent were groups made up of individuals of various races (multiple races, group).
1.1 percent of known offenders were American Indian/Alaskan Native.
0.9 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander.
(Based on Table 9 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table9.htm).)

This means that 39.4% of all hate crimes are commited by people who are not white.

Conversely, Anti-Black bias counted for 2,630 Incidents, 3,200 Offenses, 3,322 Victims, and 2,581 Known offenders. I guess there are just more news stories to pick from on that side of the fence.

Wouldn't Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton be up in arms claiming the unfairness of how the laws are applied, if the situation was crack cocaine usage vs powder cocaine rather than hate crime motivation? They'd be marching on the streets singing "We Shall Overcome". But you can't do that if you are white, because that's insensitive....

I have no illusions that the numbers bear out the fact that hate crimes are overwhelmingly commited by whites. But when the statistics pan out against minorities, the race card is played. When it pans out against the majority, there is no recourse.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table1.htm

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/offenders.htm

Since when does unknown mean non-white?

Sorry, that should read 27.1% of all crimes are commited by people that are verified as non-white.

First off, only a very small percentage of hate crimes make the news overall. Second, whether the crimes are newsworthy is irrelevent to whether the laws themselves make sense, which is what the rest of the thread is about. Third, with whites as the majority of the populace, and with the long history of racial tensions in the country, it's no surprise at all that whites commit the largest number of "hate" crimes.

I'm not saying that ethnicity/culture needs to be seen first, I'm just saying that it needs to be considered. I'm having lots of trouble seeing anything close to a color-blind attitude that wouldn't invalidate the experiences of a person of color. Maybe you can specify something.

and for my negative rep comment (:()

so ignoring race is racist, and focusing on race is racist. Please do tell what is NOT racist then.

I'm not sure when I ever said focusing on race is racist, please point me to anything that can be interpreted that way.

edit - fixed quote

Interesting statistics, considering 2005 racial makeup of this country shows these numbers:

White 80 % of current population

African American 12% of current population.

Now if the statistics quoted above are true, and these census estimates are true, per capita Blacks commit more hate crimes than whites.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762156.html

Now if the statistics quoted above are true, and these census estimates are true, per capita Blacks commit more hate crimes than whites.

Damn...us white folk are getting passed by for almost everything, maybe your mere presence here can help correct that.

I'm not saying that ethnicity/culture needs to be seen first, I'm just saying that it needs to be considered. I'm having lots of trouble seeing anything close to a color-blind attitude that wouldn't invalidate the experiences of a person of color.

We should learn from the past, but move towards the future. We should never forget what happened in the past, but it shouldn't exert undue influence on our legal system. Once you start making exceptions in the law for culture, religion or any other factor, you're dilluting the pillars supporting your society. Look where cultural sensitivity can go when it gets out of hand: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,473017,00.html

The path to a homogeneous culture takes generations. Considering we're one generation out of segregation, we can't honestly expect attitudes to shift until the pieces of shit that believe such things were good or just are dead and their children, whose minds were poisoned by their rhetoric, are dead. Possibly longer. Expecting a bigot to change his mind or support a change to the status quo is unrealistic- we must wait until such schools of thought are so far into the minority that their opinions just don't matter.*

So, the fact remains- prosecute and punish the crime as written into law, because that is the standard that people living in the USA are held to. The justice system /should/ and /ought/ be the same for everyone, regardless of race, culture or income- so that is what we should be striving for.

*Education is the best way to reach that point. Legislating tolerance won't change the underlying bigotry, it just leaves it to simmer on the back burner until it boils over.

Damn...us white folk are getting passed by for almost everything, maybe your mere presence here can help correct that.


How?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/03/deafschool.racial.incident/index.html

So, what should be the penalties in this case?

They held him against his will, that is kidnapping. Life in prison is one option.

To be fair, I lived in the Northern Virginia area, and the students that go to Gallaudet University are generally known as buttholes.
Yes, there are people with disabilities that can be pains in the ass, too.


The two groups separated, she said, but later, six white students and one black student -- all between the ages of 15 and 19 -- took one of the black students into a dorm room and "held him there against his will."



Well at least they weren't segregationalist in these activities. They included a person of color to participate in the hazing.....

They held him against his will, that is kidnapping. Life in prison is one option.

Life in prison is just to much of an expense on the tax payers forever. Death Penalty is the most humane and cost effective approach.