- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 20,271
- Reaction score
- 28,078
- Location
- Mid-West USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I was browsing a thread on Paula Dean and the "N" word when a series of questions came to mind about our views on racism in the U.S.A.
I have seen many examples in criminal trials around the nation of “hate crime” enhancements alleging a white defendant’s use of the word “nigger” during the criminal act amounted to a need for additional punishments as a racial hate crime. But..:
Has anyone ever seen “hate crime” enhancements used on a Black defendant for using racial epithets against a victim of another race?
Or a member of another faith against a Christian church?
Or a member of a “democratic” political party against a communist, socialist, or fascist party member?
Is it only a “hate crime” when the victim is a member of a certain class or a minority or is there any evidence it is used equitably for all citizens, faiths, and political groups?
Any examples and your thoughts on the matter?
Why do we need to punish people for what's in their heads and not just the crime itself?
Why do we need to punish people for what's in their heads and not just the crime itself?
Agreed. We need to do away with hate crime legislation entirely. If you commit a crime, you should be punished for it, it shouldn't be made worse by an additional thought crime.
A black Chicago-area teenager has been charged with a hate crime for allegedly beating a 19-year-old white youth during a robbery because he was angry about the killing of Trayvon Martin, the Chicago Tribune reports. Alton Hayes, 18, of Oak Park, was charged with attempted robbery and aggravated battery along with a hate crime, the Cook County state's attorney office said. He is being held on $80,000 bail.
Black Ill. teen accused of beating white youth over Trayvon
Chad Washington was charged with misdemeanor aggravated harassment as a hate crime. Police say the 19-year-old defensive lineman followed the victim from his dorm room, grabbed him by the collar, yelled racial slurs and threatened to beat him up. Washington was arraigned Wednesday and released without bail. His attorney, Daniel Fetterman, says the allegations don't accurately reflect the events. The victim is of Asian descent. Washington is black.
http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/columbia-university-football-player-charged-with-hate-crime-050813
Why do we need to punish people for what's in their heads and not just the crime itself?
Should there be no difference between manslaughter and murder? Intention is purely in the head, yet that alone for a lot of people, looking at the same physical occurrence where the only difference is intention, would see a very different punishment to be appropriate.
If someone ran over someone with a car, it makes a huge difference arguably whether they did it on purpose or on accident, so much so that it's the determining factor between manslaughter and murder.
I was browsing a thread on Paula Dean and the "N" word when a series of questions came to mind about our views on racism in the U.S.A.
I have seen many examples in criminal trials around the nation of “hate crime” enhancements alleging a white defendant’s use of the word “nigger” during the criminal act amounted to a need for additional punishments as a racial hate crime. But..:
Has anyone ever seen “hate crime” enhancements used on a Black defendant for using racial epithets against a victim of another race?
Or a member of another faith against a Christian church?
Or a member of a “democratic” political party against a communist, socialist, or fascist party member?
Is it only a “hate crime” when the victim is a member of a certain class or a minority or is there any evidence it is used equitably for all citizens, faiths, and political groups?
Any examples and your thoughts on the matter?
Why do we need to punish people for what's in their heads and not just the crime itself?
Because intent matters in crime.
Labeling something as a 'hate crime' is to make one group more important than another, that their death or harm was worth more than someone else's.
It doesn't change what has been done, if a person is dead, they are dead, regardless of 'intention'. It doesn't matter what was said, racial or otherwise, someone is dead or harmed, and that is the key.
It doesn't act as a deterrent to label it as such, and someone who verbalizes during the crime is no more and no less guilty than someone who doesn't.
Someone who targets a specific group to terrorize is a special problem for society.
It still doesn't change the outcome, be it because they 'hate' someone, have a mental illness, or you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Why should one be 'worth more' than the other?
They are not. Also not all crimes get the same sentence.
Terrorists should get harsher senten2.
Labeling something as a 'hate crime' is to make one group more important than another, that their death or harm was worth more than someone else's.
It doesn't change what has been done, if a person is dead, they are dead, regardless of 'intention'. It doesn't matter what was said, racial or otherwise, someone is dead or harmed, and that is the key.
It doesn't act as a deterrent to label it as such, and someone who verbalizes during the crime is no more and no less guilty than someone who doesn't.
Someone who targets a specific group to terrorize is a special problem for society.
I was browsing a thread on Paula Dean and the "N" word when a series of questions came to mind about our views on racism in the U.S.A.
I have seen many examples in criminal trials around the nation of “hate crime” enhancements alleging a white defendant’s use of the word “nigger” during the criminal act amounted to a need for additional punishments as a racial hate crime. But..:
Has anyone ever seen “hate crime” enhancements used on a Black defendant for using racial epithets against a victim of another race?
Or a member of another faith against a Christian church?
Or a member of a “democratic” political party against a communist, socialist, or fascist party member?
Is it only a “hate crime” when the victim is a member of a certain class or a minority or is there any evidence it is used equitably for all citizens, faiths, and political groups?
Any examples and your thoughts on the matter?
Why do we need to punish people for what's in their heads and not just the crime itself?
So, then 'everybody' is a special group and should be treated as such, therefore making all equal. People don't commit a crime without some intention, be it momentary or well planned. If they happen to kill someone during that crime, regardless of intention, they are still dead, yes?It might appear that way to some, especially since enhancements were originally initiated to inhibit shooting police officers in the performance of their duties. At the time it was felt that since they risked their lives as part of the job they deserved special consideration when it came to sentencing any criminal who killed one. I recall being fairly upset as a youth when I heard about this because I thought the same thing, that police were somehow considered more important that us common folk.
However, that was not the motivation for hate crime enhancements if memory serves. These came about because hate groups were intentionally targeting innocent members of minority race, religious, and sexual preference groups for attack. There were church and temple burnings and defilements, assaults and battery, lynchings and murders solely because the targets were hated and for no other reason. But that is not so prevalent these days (or is it?).
No, IMO there is no difference. A life has been taken, and all lives as such have a value, and one is not worth more than another. It matters not if they died because of race, gender, sexual orientation, or because their eyes were blue.Are you certain? I mean there seems to be a definate difference between someone killed randomly during the commission of a crime or murdered for profit/revenge, and someone targeted simply because the attacker does not like their race, national origina, religion, or sexual preference. Or am I wrong?
Your analogy is not valid. Criminal intent and preplanning is what makes the separation in the "classes" of murder.
There are not any levels based on what that specific intent was. Killing for money/hire, to silence a witness or to exact revenge for some perceived wrong makes no difference - you either planned the act in advance with a specific victim in mind (first degree murder), intended to kill a specific person but did not plan to do so in advance (second degree murder) or your actions caused the death of an unintended person (manslaughter).
I am not sure of the validity of using victim class (race, sexual orientation, ethnicity or religion) alone as an enhancement for the charge/sentence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?