Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hate-crime = Thought crime?
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 18 of 376 (537590)
11-29-2009 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
11-27-2009 8:42 PM


We're seeking to give additional charges to sweeten the pot, as if beating a person nearly to death isn't enough? Why not just make assault and battery penalties more strict if you want to get these kinds of monsters off of the streets? Why threaten the freedom of speech and free thought?
Something else to consider is, certain laws exist simply to give the illusion that something is being done, to set certain portions of our society at ease.
Like the raising of taxes on cigs, which just gives the illusion that the government is taking action against the Tobacco Ind., "hate crime" laws are just there to give certain members of society the illusions that the government is acting out against racism.
Like you point out, it really doesn't make much of a difference, the only difference it makes is that now society knows that they're fighting racism.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-27-2009 8:42 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-29-2009 8:48 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 26 by Rrhain, posted 11-30-2009 3:32 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 35 of 376 (537715)
11-30-2009 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Rrhain
11-30-2009 3:32 AM


You don't really know what hate crimes laws do, do you?
I'm guessing that's a rhetorical question, since you proceed to give your explanation of it.
Part of the law is that if a local jurisdiction is not taking the crime seriously, the feds can step in to make sure that justice is done.
Cool ... and?
If the local police and prosecutor think that a black man should know better than having a conversation with a white woman in a bar and thus the beating that required medical intervention shouldn't be prosecuted, then what?
Then we call Gene Hackman (like in Mississippi Burning), or, we get back in our time machine and head back to 2009.
Hate crimes laws allows the feds to step in when the local legal system refuses to enforce the law.
Cool ... and?
This idea that they don't do anything is simply flawed.
Perhaps you missed my point.
All laws do something, I'm not arguing that. I simply feel the "hate" crime laws are more superficial - like the taxes on tobacco, and causes more tension between groups than anything else. Its also a grey area, and left up to prosecutors to decide on, or the arresting office to determine. This leaves a lot of room for error.
Lets say I'm at a club and a couple of gay guys insult me (for whatever reason). However, me and my friends out number them and kick the shit out of them. When an officer arrives, he sees a couple of gay guys with their ass kicked and me and my heterosexual friends are responsible.
Was this a hate crime? No. Could it be confussed for one? Sure.
I found this quote to sum up my point:
quote:
More complexity in law and government does not guarantee more justice take the convoluted race laws of the old south for example. The basics of law, justice and civil rights are what the criminal justice system should cover, and group dynamics should be left up to citizens to figure out on their own. Enhancing grievances, which is exactly what hate crime laws do, will not promote tolerance so much as it will promote mutual suspicion and nurse a sense of group victimization.
The only thing law does do for sure, is make minorities feel the government is doing something about racism, and gives them a sense of value. This works as a great tool to motivate people during election time.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Rrhain, posted 11-30-2009 3:32 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Son, posted 11-30-2009 3:03 PM onifre has replied
 Message 56 by Rrhain, posted 12-01-2009 5:18 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 41 of 376 (537737)
11-30-2009 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Son
11-30-2009 3:03 PM


Hi Son,
higher taxes on tobacco are not there because leglislators thought that smoking was bad (in my country anyway) but to compensate for the higher cost to society that smoking induces in healthcare.
That is partially the reason in my country too, but it doesn't get to the heart of the issue. If tabacco is such a risk and places such a burden on healthcare, then why not place the penalties on the Tobacco Ind. rather than on the people who are (sadly) addicted to the product?
What the taxes do is increase revenue for the government and makes it seem as though something is being done about the risks tobacco causes. But it didn't reduce purchases on tobacco nor make the product any safer. The Tobacco Ind. never saw a decrease in sales and the government got more money from the taxes in the end. Obviously, the tobacco lobbyist did their job.
Likewise, hate crime laws do nothing more than make the government seem as though they are taking action against racism. The media gets to use it to hype up a story, and candidates can say things like "I am tough on hate crimes." Which is a redundant euphamism because they should just be tough on crime, period.
But it does have its use. It works well if you are trying to rally voters, say in the black community or the hispanic community ... or even in the gay community, which does become a relevant group if you're trying to run for office in the city of Miami Beach (or San Francisco).
I suppose the hate crime leglislation's purpose is more because criminals that are ideologicaly motivated are considered more dangerous than others since they will always be motivated to commit a crime again.
Nothing motivates crime more than oppression and poverty, lets not lose sight of that. But I do agree that ideological motives can cause someone to act out more aggressively, 911 is a perfect example. However, we have a word for that act, its called terrorism. And, while I'm not a fan of that word (because terrorism is relative), the laws that cover this act would cover racism too. But legislators, politicians, and DA's rather have the euphamism "hate crime" at their disposal to entice would-be voters - the media loves that euphamism because it sells stories and minorities feel warm and cozey because they are under the illusion that something directly for them is being done.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Son, posted 11-30-2009 3:03 PM Son has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 42 of 376 (537739)
11-30-2009 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by AZPaul3
11-30-2009 4:58 PM


Who says a crime is a "hate" crime?
Hate-crime laws separate out crimes against humanity from crimes against individuals, both of which society has the right to address.
And who determines if a single act was motivated by "hate" or not?
Isn't a person on trail for a hate crime before the jury has even had a chance to hear the details of the case? Is it not left to the arresting officer or prosecutors to say if in fact it was a "hate" crime?
All this does it pin the two groups against each other, in society.
Take my example. My friends and I get into a fight at a club with people who happen to be gay. We win. The arresting officers shows up and see a group of gay guys who just got their asses kicked by a group of straight men. The officers determine, on their own, due to the labels that each individual carries in our respective groups, that this was a hate crime.
Now the media grabs a hold of the story and promotes it as a hate crime. Note that my group has yet to set foot in a court room, however, we are now defending ourselves against a "hate" crime, and thus have received hate mail, or perhaps threats, or whatever else can come from that label, from groups who defend gay rights.
Again, we have yet to even step foot in a court room.
What this then does, is pin my group -VS- the gay rights people and/or the entire gay community in my area. Causing increased tension between our groups, and in some cases leading to actual hate of the group.
This is bullshit. If it had just been deemed a crime then it would not have had the repercussions that labelling it a "hate" crime had. It causes more harm than it does good, and it makes groups (minorities) look like oddities in our society that require special care.
Speaking as a minority, I say this is worse than the actual bigots who hate us.
The hate crime euphamism is a tool for politicians and the media, it helps in no other way.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by AZPaul3, posted 11-30-2009 4:58 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by AZPaul3, posted 11-30-2009 10:00 PM onifre has replied
 Message 57 by Rrhain, posted 12-01-2009 5:46 AM onifre has replied
 Message 60 by Legend, posted 12-01-2009 11:10 AM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 44 of 376 (537747)
11-30-2009 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Rahvin
11-30-2009 5:58 PM


If this is directed at me...
Punching a member of a protected class because he is a member of that protected class is a hate crime
And who determines whether or not someone should be charged with a hate crime?
and that motivation must be supported in court beyond a reasonable doubt in order for a hate crime charge to stand
Right, but you are on trial for a hate crime regardless of whether or not it is the proven motive. If it is not the proven motive, you were still charged with it. So who decides that?
That means that shooting a bunch of people because of their race, regardless of what the race is so long as the race is the motivator, is a hate crime whether the victims were all asian, black, hispanic, or even white
Right, and who determines whether the act in question should be tried as a hate crime or not?
Can't you see how this could get completely confussing and/or abused, or used for political reasons, etc.?
Mexican gang beats up black kid - hate crime? Who determines wether the Mexican gang members where beating him up because he was black or for being in the wrong hood?
Can you see how a motivated politician or DA could use this to motivate hate crime supporters?
Can you also see how adding the word "hate" to it could cause both groups to actually build hate toward one another?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Rahvin, posted 11-30-2009 5:58 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Rahvin, posted 11-30-2009 6:44 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 48 of 376 (537774)
11-30-2009 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Rahvin
11-30-2009 6:44 PM


Re: If this is directed at me...
PS - it was no more directed at you than anyone else. I don't think many people have bothered to read about what they're arguing about.
My only reason for replying to you was because I thought it was slightly directed at me. I understand the context of what you guys are discussing and I wasn't getting into that part of the debate.
I was simply defending what I wrote to Hyro originally.
I understand what you're saying, Oni - you're concerned about someone being charges with a hate crime when the incident should nto have qualified, as in your club fight example.
Sorta. I'm concerned with people having personal connections and/or personal interest in certain situations, or just lack enough intelligence to assess a situation properly, or any other reason for why someone might fuck up a case and begin giving labels to incidents when they are not legit. I am concerned about this, esp. when it involves throwing the word "hate" around.
This happens in court a lot, even in murder cases. If you try for murder 1 and fail to prove murder 1, the dude goes free. That's why prosecuters take extra care in murder trails to make sure they call it precisely what it is.
Now, the social ramifications of misclassifying it murder 1 -vs- manslaughter is absolutely none (except for having someone who may have commited and actual crime go free) - but not a big social consequence. However, the social ramifications of misclassifying a situation a "hate" crime -vs- calling it a crime, is enormous.
In a hate crime case, mislabelling the crime can cause more problems and tension between groups that all ready don't get along, but are tolerant of one another.
Thats one problem. Who gets to label these things and the ramifications that misclassifying it can have. At the very least, its cause for concern and should be weighed in against the benefits of having "hate" crime laws.
I think you're losing me in irrational conspriacy theory land, Oni.
Well I can do better, if mislabelling it a hate crime breeds more crime due to the ramifications I mention above, the only ones who stand to gain are those who work in the justice system. It works in the same way as making an addictive product illegal; you are guaranteed criminals.
All you've done is ask the identity of teh person who selects the charges to bring against the accused, whom we all know is the DA's office, in an effort to insinuate political conspiracies.
Not political conspiracy, but to show that there are consequences to that pathetic euphemism called "hate" crime that are more of a cause for concern than the extra few years you can add to a sentence.
Now I understand that you weren't talking about this, but still, don't misrepresent what I'm saying and dismiss it as a conspiracy. Sorry I don't agree with the hate crime laws. I know as liberals you guys like to feel like you're doing good for society, but sometimes good intentions can have bad results.
However, I was just defending what I said, and had no beef with your argument with Hyro.
The fact of the matter is that crimes that specifically target a protected class like race or gender do more harm to society and are often less well protected under the law.
You are talking as if calling it a crime does nothing at all. You are talking as if labelling it a hate crime impacts society in some way. You get a few more years to your sentence, wow.
Why not just make punishment harder across the board and resolve the issue? Does it make you feel better that you stuck it harder to a racist, really? What are we children?
The problem is that word "hate" attached to the crime forces the side being hated to hate back, it actually helps breed ignorance. The very ignorance the hate crime law is trying to fight against. It actually breeds hate. And misclassifying it can have grave results, even just throwing the word around in the media has bad results. Its a stupid route to go to get such an inconsequential return.
It has nothing to do with any argument I've made - it's wholly irrelevant. Would you care to debate what I;ve actually said, or would you like to continue with this red herring?
I hope you understand that I was responding to what you wrote. Since it had no direct person it was talking about, and I was the last to post, I thought I was part of those you said were "talking out of their ass." So I felt I should reply, but I know it was not in response to anything you said.
Do you believe hate crime legislation to violate the 1st Amendment? Why?
Don't really care. Because you and Hyro can go around in circles arguing that without actually getting to the root of the issue.
I felt this thread was also about those simply against the hate crime law, for our own reasons.
I feel there is no need for the hate crime law, for the reasons I express above, that is what I was debating.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Rahvin, posted 11-30-2009 6:44 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 59 of 376 (537863)
12-01-2009 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by AZPaul3
11-30-2009 10:00 PM


Re: Who says a crime is a "hate" crime?
Oni writes:
Isn't a person on trail for a hate crime before the jury has even had a chance to hear the details of the case? Is it not left to the arresting officer or prosecutors to say if in fact it was a "hate" crime?
The police may arrest the individual for murder. The DA may amend the charge to murder with bias (hate crime) depending upon the particulars of the evidence.
AZPaul3 writes:
No it is not the officer nor the DA who say in fact it was a hate crime. The officer does not make an arrest for murder with bias, just murder. The DA assesses the evidence and may amend the charge. Only the jury can say what the "fact" was. Only the jury can label it a hate crime.
Let me be clearer with my question, is a person on trail for a hate crime, or charge with a hate crime, before they go to court?
In the same sense as someone is charged with murder before they go to court - thats what I'm asking.
I understand that whether they are guilty or not is up to the jury, I'm asking who gets to charge you. And yes, the DA can amend the charge, but they would need the proper evidence for that, evidence gathered at the scence by the arresting officer.
If the DA so amends the indictment from his view of the evidence then your reputation is shot. That's life in a media-hyped world.
Right, and so the repercussions of this (maybe false) indictment could be grave, depending on the community that this happens in.
Are the benefits of labelling things hate crime worth the negative social repercussions that come with it?
What you need to worry about is those big guys in jail who want you to be their play thing.
Been there, done that, not that frightening, you should stop watching Lockup... the only play things in jail are the white guys btw.
Don't get all bent out of shape over your strawman.
Not a strawman, which I knew everyone would say. Its a true story, happened here on South Beach. The guys were falsely accused of a hate crime and the entire gay community went to the streets to protest. Fights broke out in bars all over beach. Gay guys and straight guys were being harassed. A few clubs even closed due to the fiasco.
In the end the guys were found not guilty of the hate crime but the repercussions of that mislabelling had lasting effects.
Thats on South Beach. Now imagine this same scenario in a small town in the south, and between blacks and whites.
Are the reprecussions on the community worth the extra years in jail for hate crimes?
The reality is quite different.
Indeed it is.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by AZPaul3, posted 11-30-2009 10:00 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Rrhain, posted 12-03-2009 2:25 AM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 62 of 376 (537883)
12-01-2009 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Rrhain
12-01-2009 5:18 AM


Right. You do realize that the feds have had to be called in to prosecute crimes that the local authorities would not, yes? That the only reason that they were able to do so is because of the hate crimes statutes, yes? About 26 a year, according to the FBI.
Sources, specifics, what cases, etc.....
You're assuming that no investigation is done and that anybody would go to trial based on 10 minutes of unreliable witness testimony. Please.
Did I say 10 minutes worth of testimony, did I say unreliable witnesses...
Surely you're not hinting that hate crimes prosecutions are out of control, are you?
Not at all.
Do you make a habit of beating up gay people?
Only when they're dressed like Peter Pan.
You're arguing against prosecuting criminals.
Having not heard the testimonies from the witnesses, not seen the case or the details of the fight ... how then do you know they are criminals?
Innocent til proven guilty, right?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Rrhain, posted 12-01-2009 5:18 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Rrhain, posted 12-03-2009 4:35 AM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 64 of 376 (537886)
12-01-2009 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Rrhain
12-01-2009 5:46 AM


The jury, just like they decide everything else about the case, including if you had intent to commit it.
The point is, why are you on trail for a hate crime to begin with? Who made that decision?
A mistake in calling it a hate crime can have grave repercussions in the community, add to the already present tension, etc. This is the real world scenario.
There is no gain from calling something a hate crime. What is the point?
The prosecution must convince the jury that the crime is a hate crime. If the prosecution doesn't think it can't, it won't introduce such evidence. But if they do think they can, the jury can still say that they haven't established their case.
What does it gain?
All the while this case is taking place, what are the ramifications of it in the community?
Yes, the prosecutor is the one who decides what charges will be tried (which is true for all trials), but it is the jury who decides if the prosecution has satisfied its burden. It can easily return a verdict that the defendant is guilty of the crime but not of a hate crime.
I understand this, but what you must also realize is that you are playing around with a word that has hardcore, real world, social repercussions that are not needed, nor do they help in any way.
If the person is found not guilty, yet the community is now further divided and more tension between the groups has occured, and more "hate" crimes follow ... would it be worth it?
Irrelevant. The media doesn't draw up the charges.
What world do you live in?
The cops don't define charges. The prosecution does.
What does the prosecution use as evidence for the trail?
Except that your fantasy has no connection to reality.
Except that this was an actual situation, like I explained to AZPaul3.
It would only be a hate crime if it could be established that your specific actions at the time were directed at the group
And who decides that?
The group gives their testimony to the cops and adds specifics to the case that may not have happened. A few other witnesses (eye witnesses which is shit - how many UFO's have people seen?) confirm the lie and now you are accused of a hate crime.
This is exactly what took place, so don't tell me what is fantasy or not.
These laws have been on the books for forty years. Where is this "dogs and cats sleeping together" mass hysteria you're so afraid of descending upon us?
Trails didn't have the media hype then that they do now. Also, minorities didn't live so integrated then as they do now.
The problem is liberals try to help out minorities so much, when in reality, minorities can't stand them, that's the funny part.
Most minorities are conservative, anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc., type of people, and can't stand the pussyfication of America that you guys try to do with your bullshit politically correct laws. That actually cause more harm than they do good!
But you can't stand to hear that maybe you're wrong, that 'racists' won't be punished worse. Its almost as though you guys feel you must carry the burden for years of discrimination ... please, get over it. There is no positive gain from this politically correct attitude. People don't need special laws to protect them. And these laws create more tension within the groups that they are trying to protect.
Fuck, white guilt must be a bitch, huh?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Rrhain, posted 12-01-2009 5:46 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-01-2009 2:51 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 69 by Rahvin, posted 12-01-2009 3:03 PM onifre has replied
 Message 75 by Rrhain, posted 12-02-2009 7:07 AM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 72 of 376 (537923)
12-01-2009 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Rahvin
12-01-2009 3:03 PM


Stereotype much?
All the time, I make a living from it.
BUT.....
I'll get more serious in this post than in the one to Rrhain, since I apparently hit a nerve and I didn't mean to offend you or anyone else - except Rrhain.
Hate crimes are only those crimes that target their victims due to their race, religion, color, national origin, (perceived) sexual orientation, or (perceived) gender. These crimes have a chilling effect on the entire subset - for example, if the KKK were to use harassment and intimidation to prevent blacks and Jews from voting. This is obviously and objectively far more damaging to society as a whole than simple charges of harassment would normally convey.
And I get this. Trust me, I do applaude the efforts made by trying to reconcile years of discrimination.
Harassment of any kind, to any group, specifically because they are who they are should not be tolerated. I advocate for this whenever I argue for gay rights - look at my responses to Hyro in the other thread.
But justice can still be served without the euphemism of "hate" crime. A crime is crime, there is no need for the labelling, especially when the mislabelling can lead to further tension.
But hate crime laws aren't jsut for "minorities." The apply equally to every race, to every religion, etc. This isn't about "liberals" supporting a bunch of "minorities" who don't want the white man's help. That line of thought is itself absurdly racist and offensive.
Fair enough.
Society cannot exist when free speech, the ability to vote, to attend school, or even to simply walk down the street is impaired - and the harm is increased more than cumulatively when an entire subset of the population is denied those rights.
When one child is prevented from going to school, harm is done. But when an entire subset, say, boys, or girls, or blacks, or Jews, are prevented from attending school, the harm is greater than the total number of children. The chilling effect of such hate crimes on society is far worse than ordinary harassment and violence.
But you must agree, that we are long past the days of George Wallace, and continuing to set laws with this frame of mind prevents us from moving forward from that tainted past.
If there were areas where people were being prevented from going to school or voting specifically because of the color of their skin or the religion they practice, then I'd say you have a point. But this simply does not exist in todays society.
There needs to be a reform in the laws, we should removes the labels from crimes that associate it with our racist/bigoted/call it what you want, past. Your argument made sense when it was relevant, it is no longer the case, and we need to now be aware that they may work in a negative way, especially in our media-hyped society where small issues become national news.
Even the risk of increasing racial tension by possibly identifying a person incorrectly as a racist is nothing compared to the harm done by intimidating an entire community, preventing entire subsets of society from exercising basic rights and participating.
I agree, or I should say, I agree(d) with your argument when it was relevant. Where do you find intimdation of an entire community by another race these days? If you tried to tell a black guy to sit in the back of the bus these days you'd wake up in the hospital. That is the reality of it. that is one example. Try telling a Jewish person he can't attend public school, try telling a gay person he can't vote, etc....
These "groups" that you are speaking about can handle themselves and get the doors opened on their own, which they have!
I fail to see where your argument is relevant. Now, I agree that it used to be, but I don't feel it is anymore.
In fact, the only people that I see in our society that aren't allowed basic rights are gays in regards to marriage. Other than that, no one is denied ANY rights by any majority group. And trust me, not calling something a "hate" crime, and simply refering to it as a "crime," is NOT going to give rise to the America of the past.
I feel calling it a "hate" crime does however bring up those lingering feelings of the past. It brings to the mainstream images of slavery, segregation and intolerance - plus, it divides the communities where they take place. It does more harm than good.
Do you even comprehend what happens when a subset of society is denied the ability to participate on teh same level as everyone else?
You are talking to the child of immigrant parents. My parents felt that which you speak of first hand when they got to this country (early 50's, they are old school), so yes, I comprehend it quite well. I've been told of the stories from my dad of not being able to get work, or eat at a diner, of being harassed by cops because he didn't speak the language or because he didn't understand road signs - so I feel what you're saying, but this is not the reality that we live in anymore. Nor is it the reality that we should think we live in anymore, and advocate for laws that keep to this era.
We have moved on, all of us.
It's still difficult for homosexuals to come out of the closet because of fear of violent reprisal, for example. It still results in mockery and derision and in some cases even violence. v
And I agree, this is a sad state for our current America. But the answer, just as with the Civil Rights movement, is not through euphemisms. Its through action at the legislative level. Classifying something as a "hate" crime solves none of the things you are talking about. And misclassifying it can have very bad results. I just don't see the need for it anymore.
The fact is, even if you try and convict someone of a hate crime, all the problems still exist, nothing happened. You added a few more years to the sentence, that's all. So how did you solve any issue? Are you saying that harsher prison sentences resolve this issue, or makes us all get along better socially? Really? Because that kind of thinking (increase prison sentencing) has actually worked in the opposite direction in the war on drugs, so what are you saying the benefits are?
"pussifying America"
That is copywritten, btw.
It is blatantly obvious that, given the increased severity of the harm done to society by crimes of this nature that those crimes, when identified, should carry additional penalties.
It is a perceived increase in severity by a group of law makers had a reason then but are out of touch with the real world now.
They should not carry additional pusishment because it is not that big of epidemic now a days. And additional punishment does nothing to help the actual problems in our society, Rahvin.
The laws may exist, but the laws are benefiting, and in some cases, making matters worse.
Are you having fun continuing to stereotype entire segments of the population?
I'll admit, I kinda was.
Quantify the harm done by hate crime legislation, and prove that it is less than the harm caused by harsher penalties for hate crimes.
Wait, the law exists, right? So prove to me that the harsher punishment reduces "hate" crimes and then you'll have a case. Note however, that bigotry will exist regardless of how much you punish someone, just as drugs will exist even if you get 15 years for a bag of weed.
You of all people I thought would understand that punishing someone hasher alleviates nothing. So that's one thing, what is the benefit?
The other is common sense, and can be seen on TV whenever there is a race issue, or religious issue, or any issue that pins two social groups against each other; it's always going to be negative. So there is a clear, easy to see, negative side.
I feel no such burden. You're the one making this about race, Oni. Not anyone else. I've listed the subsets covered by hate crime legislation how many times now?
Realistically speaking, the laws may be for everyone but they signal out minorities.
I recognize your subset, and in reality, the only ones suffering in the manner that you are saying are gays in our culture, that's it. So lets get real, dude, and don't patronize me with "these laws protect white people too." I get that they would if there was ever a case in the HISTORY of America where this group was being pushed to the proverbial "back of the bus."
This may be your future, but certianly not your present, and definitely not your past.
When a gay person/black kid/whatever is beaten to death simply because of his/her race/gender/religion/whatever, other members of that subgroup are terrorized.
That is hyped up nonsense. It no more increases terror than crime in and of itself. If someone robs your neighbor the whole block now feels "terrorized." Is your argument just about how a specific crime makes an entire group "feel" afterwards? And how do you know how people "feel"...? How do you know this doesn't make them rise up and kick some ass on their own?
You speak of these groups as though they were weak, helpless individuals. Your arguments are usually sound, strong arguments - this one fails, Rahvin.
How could you possibly speak for the emotions of an entire community which your are completely disattached from?
In some cases this fear can result in an entire group withdrawing from integrated society - an effect we still see today. It can prevent subsets from going to school or voting - the effects of which we can still see today. It can prevent people from being able to express themselves honestly in public - a problem that still exists today.
Where, where is this happening? Be specific and we'll see if this isn't due to another reason. Except for gays, and atheists in politics (and we know the source of the problem for BOTH of these groups), where do you see this?
When a racist kills a black kid just because he's black, the kid is not the only victim. Every black person in the community is at that poitn avictim of terror, as the racist has attempted to terrorize that community.
Terror? Fear? From the black community? Get the fuck outta here, dude. I can tell you spend very little time in "the black community." When a black kid gets his ass kicked, the terror should be on the white people in the neighboring communities!
This is exactly my point - "others" speaking up for people who they are out of touch with. Have you asked the black community if they feel "terrorized"...?
This is the same type of argument that people brought up when someone like Imus or Michael Richards tried to make a joke and it didn't go well.
Everyone tries to speak up for everyone else. They try to establish what should and shouldn't be considered "funny," and claim that people got "offended" ... Who, who are these people? Who the fuck got offended? You know who, white liberals, that's who got offended. And, since their politically correct asses or on TV, they try to speak for everyone else.
Its the same as you or anyone else claiming that certain crimes make people "feel" like victims. That is PC bullshit.
Hyro lived in Miami a while back, maybe he remembers when a white police officer shot a black kid in the back while fleeing on a motorcycle. Ask him, or I can tell you, exactly what was the reaction from the black community? It wasn't feelings of terror, it wasn't fear for cops, it was balls to the walls aggression toward anything that had a badge - even a rent-a-cop.
No group is a "victim" anymore, that's the reality you have to open your eyes to. And by continuing to call them "victims" you reduce them to second class members of society who require special attention.
Hate crime legislation has nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do with recognizing that hate crimes are those crimes which victimize more people than only the individual(s) attacked or harassed - and therefore should carry harsher penalties.
Only in the eyes of those who are not intune with said "groups."
YOU see them as victims, they see themselves as more than capable of handling the situation on their own, even if that entails releasing a little terror of their own.
Becasue all supporters of hate crime legislation are white, right? Because this is all about the fucking white man feeling all guilty like a pussy and trying to make up for the sins of his fathers?
Here again I'll admit that I was being a douche to Rrhain, but come on, can you blame me?
The white man is jsut as protected against being attacked by a group of Hispanic thugs as a Hispanic kid is protected against a bunch of white assholes trying to prevent him from attending school because they claim he's an "illegal."
Of course they/we/everyone is protected, we are protect regardless of what you call it, but prosecuting it as a "hate" crime and continuing to re-live the days of the past, is not helping. Everyone is protected under the same laws, Rahvin. Isolated incidents don't make it the norm.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Rahvin, posted 12-01-2009 3:03 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Legend, posted 12-02-2009 4:17 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 77 of 376 (537988)
12-02-2009 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Legend
12-02-2009 4:17 AM


Re: Spot on - post of the month for me
A short, sharp explosion of reality checking. I take my hat off to you sir!
Thanks, Legend.
This specifically...
Oni writes:
Everyone tries to speak up for everyone else. They try to establish what should and shouldn't be considered "funny," and claim that people got "offended" ... Who, who are these people? Who the fuck got offended? You know who, white liberals, that's who got offended. And, since their politically correct asses or on TV, they try to speak for everyone else.
...are not only my words. Take a look at this video. Its a (great) comic out of NYC who breaks down the PC arguments that always come up when other people try to speak up for the entire community and/or nation:
Plus these video on Imus:
Which IMO is the same type of argument that is being presented here by the supporters of "hate" crime laws.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Legend, posted 12-02-2009 4:17 AM Legend has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Rahvin, posted 12-02-2009 1:30 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 88 of 376 (538040)
12-02-2009 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Rahvin
12-02-2009 1:30 PM


Re: Spot on - post of the month for me
Hi Rahvin,
I support hate crime laws...but hate crimes are only those crimes which are motivated by hate.
I do not in any way support chilling free speech, even when I personally find some speech abhorrent.
Absolutely, and I wasn't trying to confuse the 2 ... maybe my post made it seem that way so I'll clarify.
My only point was in regards to how the crimes "make the community feel."
One's actions may be targeting a specific group, in hopes to strike fear in that entire group, but this (currently) is never the case. What the crimes usually do is instil anger in the groups that they target, so to refer to the entire group as victims is IMO going too far to establish a point. What do you think gave rise to the Civil Rights movement, fear and terror, or, anger and pride...?
In the Imus deal, or the Opie and Anthony deal, or any of those other deemed "offensive" issues, people tend to use terms like "the nation was offended" or "the community is offended" - they take to speaking up for a large portion of society which they are not in communication with.
My point was equal to saying the above in regards to "hate" crimes.
When people say "this crime brings fear and/or terror to the community" or "the black/gay/jewish community is a victim" - or something else along those lines, they really have no idea what they are saying. They have no clue, and can't possibly have a clue, as to how an entire community feels about a crime.
A crime was commited against an individual, that was the victim, and that is the only victim. And we deal with crime already in our society. The community that is of the same race, religion, etc., of the individual is not the victim. That makes for good talking points, it makes for good TV news, it works great as an emotional tool, but it is not an accurate representation of anything, other than the persons opinion who said it.
"Kick a Jew day" and the "Caucasian Crew" are not free speech. They aren't making comments about "nappy hair," and they aren't putting homosexual displays of affection in the public eye. They're committing acts of violence against entire communities.
We used to have black -vs- hispanic day at our school. We would kick the shit out of each other on that day (about once a year - maybe twice) and the community had no clue, because the media never got a hold of the story. That's one point, the media and their twists.
But, we didn't have any aggression toward the community of black people, just against the kids we were fighting. Nor did I ever feel that the black kids we fought hated hispanics - most of us had friends on the other side of the fight. But it could easily have been judged the way you are seeing things (especially since we used racial epithets at each other the entire time). It could easily be seen as though it was a "hate" motivated day, where 2 races who "hate" each other would attack one another. But it wasn't like that at all, and people shouldn't get involved when they don't understand what they're dealing with. Judging cases from the outside in and trying to establish intentions and motives is a tricky game you play, and, can lead to greater problems in the future.
Even if their intentions are to commit a crime against an entire community, even if that's the case, it doesn't make the act of violence, harassment or vandalism any greater. This is an opinionated decision by people who are judging it from the outside in. People decided that its of greater consequence and that's that - its of greater consequence.
But how? How is it of greater consequence? If the best answer you can come up with is, it terrorizes and strikes fear in the entire group and thus it is of greater consequence, I think you should step back and realise that these groups feel no fear and experience no terror. And calling them out as such can makes the seem weak and inferior.
Question: Did you feel fear and terror after 911...? Did you feel like a victim too...?
I know I didn't, and I assume you didn't either.
So why would people feel that attacking a single person from a specific race/religion/etc will strike terror and fear in the entire group, when attacking 3000 people in the towers did nothing like that to any of us?
And if you notice, the only people who claimed "fear" or "terror" after 911 were those who allowed the media to dictate their feelings on the matter. Those who bought in to Bush's lies about the the terrorists. And what did that lead to? Unwarrented attacks on Muslims for no reason other than media frenzied hype - this is exactly what happens when you call something a "hate" crime and claim that it was to strike fear in the whole community - you will get unwarrented backlash from certain members of that community who don't consider themselves victims.
It is the same media hype, but this time in a PC formate, that makes people believe entire communities are being terrorized and made to feel fear when a single act of violence or harassment takes place.
It is an act of violence toward a single individual (or a few, or whatever) and the only ones victimized are those who were attacked. The attackers intentions could be whatever they want it to be, it doesn't matter and its irrelevant.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Rahvin, posted 12-02-2009 1:30 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-02-2009 6:52 PM onifre has replied
 Message 93 by Straggler, posted 12-02-2009 7:08 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 95 of 376 (538053)
12-02-2009 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Lithodid-Man
12-02-2009 7:22 PM


Same argument on both sides
I'll answer CS and Straggler later cuz I gotta run.
But...
I am saying that the perceived consequences are not a necessarily a valid argument against hate crime legislation.
But it seems like "the perceived consequences" are trying to be used as a valid argument for the hate crime legislation.
You said:
quote:
Analogously a hate crime then becomes the original crime (murder, battery, assault) PLUS the added threat to members of the targeted community.
What added threat to the community? Are you sure the community feels threated? Or, is this the perception the crime gives?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-02-2009 7:22 PM Lithodid-Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 12-03-2009 8:48 AM onifre has replied
 Message 103 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-03-2009 1:23 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 111 of 376 (538321)
12-05-2009 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Straggler
12-03-2009 8:48 AM


Re: Hate Laws - Straggler's Case In Favour
Hi Straggler, sorry for the delay.
To be convicted of a hate crime merely for getting into a fight with a guy who happens to be gay (for example) is patently ridiculous.
Of course. And this isn't happening at an alarming rate, where people are being falsely convicted - that's not the point on that at all and not what I'm saying the problem is.
Point is, the conviction is irrelevant. One can still be charged with a hate crime and stand trail for one. The media can blast it all over the airwaves. And at the end of the trail, you could be completely innocent, yet the damage to your reputation, to the community and to those of the 2 opposing races/religions/etc has been done.
Add to that the bonus of causing increased tension, and creating new bigots and racists (from all sides), and you have a law with great intentions but shitty results.
If you are just trying to add more time to a sentence so it can be used as a deterent, yet it doesn't deter and actually can instigate or simply make matters worse, what's the point?
Also, this is only something to consider for "hate" crimes, no other crime pins two groups against each other like that and divides communities when they get misclassified. So there is no point in comparing it to murder as is being done in this thread.
What this is about is the evidenced targeting of vulnerable minorities
Here's the problem, Straggler: "vulnerable minorities" is a term defined by others. Minorities don't see themselves/ourselves as vulnerable. No form of threat, violence, or intimidation of any kind to another hispanic would make me feel vulnerable in any way.
Where are you getting this stigma of vulnerability?
I feel your logic is just assuming that lesser numbers automatically makes them/us feel vulnerable or weaker...?
...for the purposes of intimidation and subjugation.
You would have to show me how it intimidates, and, how a small minority of racist/bigots/straight up haters is going to subjugate groups, that while considered "minorities," still out number by a long ways any racist organization out there. There are more black people in the US than there are Klan members, hell there are more black gang members than there are Klan members. So who is intimidating who?
If anything, I'd say the racists and bigots are the ones who are feeling threatened, intimidated and fear subjugation from "minority" groups. Certainly they feel this for the Jews - what with their control of the banks and hollywood, lol.
I feel the perceived intimidation and subjugation that is given as the purpose behind a crime is subjective also, and doesn't accurately represent the reality of the situation.
So there's that too, how does it intimidate? Where is the evidence that it does? The reality of it is, I feel, that it doesn't intimidate in any way, so my advice would be to stop thinking/saying that it does, so that racists and bigots will stop thinking it will work.
Maybe if we don't treat it like an indimidating action, it won't be thought of as one, and people will stop doing it?
Now my example involves a school and particularly vulnerable kids who blatantly need protecting from such bigotry.
Well that's the whole point isn't it? You're example is of a physically weak group of people that will feel this their entire lives, but do you actually think that those kids who taunted and tormented them did it because of their hatred of mentally challenged people and wanted them out of their country?
Do you think they were trying to send a message of intimidation to mentally challenged people throughout the community?
But that just isn't the point. The same sort of treatment could be dished out to any minority social grouping by a large enough majority.
And it is, everyday, by the rich to the poor, by the upper class to the lower class. Just because its done passive aggressively doesn't make it different. At least with someone who is openly racist or a bigot you know its coming.
And it isn't just about individuals.
It is until you can prove that it does in fact indimidate to the degree which is being claimed. If that's your reason for seeing it as a hate crime, then you need to show evidence for your main argument.
If not, its no more different then any other crime.
If someone kills a jewish person, then draws a swastika above them (1) they are being unoriginal, a copy cat (2) is only doing so because they think its going to send a message of intimidation, why, because that's what they assume based on what they've heared, read and/or seen, and (3) IMO stupid because the Jews fought back against Hitler, why would anyone think a picture is going to intimidate them? They sent a message, a stupid non-effective message.
It is also about places of social gathering and the right to attend such places freely and safely under the law. A mosque. A gay bar. A wedding ceremony. An ethnic community. Whatever.
Pardon the following cynical reply:
This isn't done for certain minorites at all, forget protection from racist and bigots, I just mean normal everyday obstacles. Try going to school in the ghetto "freely" and "safely" without fear - and the threats and intimidation don't come from racists or bigots. Where's the concern there? Where's the laws to protect there? Where's the actions being taken to deter this?
There is none.
And you know why there is none (and I hope we can all be honest here and admit that the government does nothing to help minorities in their neighborhoods) - because minorities fight other minorities. Gang members fight each other for territory, for respect, etc. Kids arm themselves to shoot each other. Kids and adults have weapons to protect themselves from themselves - So the violence is controlled and keep within the group.
HOWEVER, when a black person is mudered by a racist white guy, the retaliation is against the white community, and that can't happen. NOW the law steps in. Not to protect future aggression by racists toward blacks or other minorites, but to protect the white upper class from violent retribution from minorities, and/or lose control of their work force.
See, that is why I call "hate" crime a euphemism, that is why I say it is superficial, because it is a law placed to protect the upper class, but is promoted as something to protect minorities. You call a crime a hate crime, show the world the disapproval people have of that, and the minorities feel as though something is being done. Also, you add to that the great talking points about how its for everybody, that even white people would be protected by this (which is all true but who cares - the reality is these laws are for minorities and "others" get protected by happenstance) and you calm the situation, you calm the minorities down.
Everything done at a "hate" crime scene is normal, everyday police work. The process of trail and conviction is the same as all other crimes. The only difference is the punishment - and the reason for that is to send a message to minorities that the government cares for them - but then why doesn't it care about any of the other stuff?
/end of cynical rant
If there is DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE that a minority or social grouping is being systematically targeted then as a society we have to stand up and say that this is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
See above response.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 12-03-2009 8:48 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Rrhain, posted 12-07-2009 5:06 AM onifre has replied
 Message 121 by Straggler, posted 12-07-2009 3:06 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 113 of 376 (538325)
12-05-2009 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by New Cat's Eye
12-02-2009 6:52 PM


Re: Spot on - post of the month for me
A mixed black/white couple moved into my parents old neighborhood after which someone through a malatov through their window. They moved because someone burnt a cross in their previous front yard.
Well first, they need a new real estate agent! lol
But, yea, I agree, this is horrible.
People who are doing shit like that are rally trying (ie intending) to send a message to the entire community. I think that does make it a worse crime that deserves a worse punishment.
Worse punishment than what? There are laws against intimidation already.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-02-2009 6:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024