Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
and WHO decides whether to charge a hate crime? I can tell you without doubt that if that charge is thrown in there it is rarely going to be a not guilty when the defendant is found guilty of actually committing the crime. So essence the state will be deciding what is and what is not a so called hate crime.
You say Hate Crime Legislation is race neutral and I absolutely agree with that statement. However, I would ask this question of you. Do you think prosecution of Hate Crimes is race neutral or sexual orientation neutral? I don't think it is.
That being said, and both of us understanding that the legislation is neutral when it comes to the victim, can you tell me that you really believe that latinos who beat a white man screaming, "damned gringos" while they do so, would be charged with a hate crime rather than just assault? Some how, I think prosecution in this case would be lacking.
OK - I understand that view. I certainly do not agree with it, but I understand that it is your view. We have a basic disagreement here, wouldn't you say? So - how about those Giants, huh?
Well, I'm at a loss at how you disagree with the thought that a victim isn't deader because of the motivation of the perp.
The victim is deader?
On the contrary, I fully agree that a victim is just as dead, regardless of the motivation of the perp.
So please explain why involuntary manslaughter can get a perp as little as three years in state prison while a murder for hire can get a perp executed. In both cases, the victim is just as dead.
and what makes this more serious than if they did it to a Hetero person?
Some folks would like us to institute 'thought crimes.'
We already have them....called premeditation and degree of intent. But it still has to be proved in a court of law as does hate crime intent.
Why do you see the victim in this case as being more deserving of retribution than a straight white kid who was beaten and robbed simply because he was an easy target?
Immie
Because a racially motivated attack is more culpable than an attack for non-racial reasons. It is not so much providing retirubtion to the victim as it is a desire to prevent such crimes from happening in the first place. The idea is, that increased punishment will act as a deterrent.
Why is there more interest in deterring racially motivated attacks than in deterring "regular" assaults? Because racially motivated attacks are more culpable.
You don't think they are?
Some folks would like us to institute 'thought crimes.'
What makes it more serious is the MOTIVATION for the crime. This is a crime that would never have been commited but for the sexual orientation/ethnic origin of the victim. Had a straight, white guy been standing there, nothing would have happened.
Crimes such as these are more serious than "plain" assaults, because of the motivation for the attack. You may disagree - but the legislature feels hate crimes should be punished more severely, which is why hate crime legislation has been enacted.
Question:
If you consider this a hate crime because it was only done based on the sexuality of the victim. Could you then consider all rapes hate crimes? As it is a male offender perpetrating his crime on someone solely because it is a female?
I actually consider all violent crimes hate crimes. It's the selective enforcement that really pisses me off. The hypocritical nature of the beast, the arrogance that they think they know better.
Intent is never a question in any other crime? Hate crime legislation simply codifies THAT intent. See. it isn't so hard, is it?
It does more than that. It establishes a greater penalty, selectively with prejudice.
Prejudice against whom - racists who attack others for racially motivated reasons? Damn right. As Barb has noted - the more serious the crime, the more serious the penalty.
did George drop the ball?i'm not a bigot, i'm equally against ALL assaultsi'm against ALL assaults
you dont think only racial assaults should be punished, do you?
Good comeback. I too am against all assaults. I am just more against racially motivated assaults. HA!
(Your move)
ball back in your court
did George drop the ball?i'm not a bigot, i'm equally against ALL assaultsGood comeback. I too am against all assaults. I am just more against racially motivated assaults. HA!
(Your move)
ball back in your court
I actually consider all violent crimes hate crimes. It's the selective enforcement that really pisses me off. The hypocritical nature of the beast, the arrogance that they think they know better.
All violent crimes are hate crimes. But not all violent crimes are racially motivated crimes, and therein lies the distinction.
of course it got over the netdid George drop the ball?i'm not a bigot, i'm equally against ALL assaults
ball back in your court
George NEVER drops ths ball! Ball is not back in my court. Still in yours. You didn't get it over the net.
and WHO decides whether to charge a hate crime? I can tell you without doubt that if that charge is thrown in there it is rarely going to be a not guilty when the defendant is found guilty of actually committing the crime. So essence the state will be deciding what is and what is not a so called hate crime.
The DA decides whether to charge a hate crime.
Yes, of course it's the state that decides what is and what is not a hate crime. That's what the state does -defines and prosecutes crimes. Not sure where you are going with this post.
Hate crimes have been discussed here for a long time. Much of the discussion is unfocused and many of the opinions expressed based upon incomplete information. Want to see what a real hate crime looks like? I just took this case in. The arrest report contains the following:
Note that here is no question here as to WHY the suspects were attacking and robbing the victim - they SAY SO throughout the attack and the robbery."The victim is standing in the rear alley of his apartment talking to friends. The suspects are also in the alley, and begin yelling at the victim, calling him a 'fag' and a 'faggot.' The victim, who is gay, ignores the suspects. The suspects then approach the victim and begin hitting him with their closed fists in the face and head area. The victm falls to the ground, and the suspects begin kicking the victim in the head. While the suspects are hitting and kicking the victim, the suspects continue to call the victim a 'fag' and 'fucking faggot.' One of the suspects also states, 'you should die' and 'go back to Mexico." The suspects then search the victims pants pockets, and one of the suspects removes the victim's immigration papers from his pants pockets. The suspects then flee on foot, W/B through the alley and out of sight."
All right, hate crime apologists - have at it. Come on and defend these animals.
and what makes this more serious than if they did it to a Hetero person?
Some folks would like us to institute 'thought crimes.'
What makes it more serious is the MOTIVATION for the crime. This is a crime that would never have been commited but for the sexual orientation/ethnic origin of the victim. Had a straight, white guy been standing there, nothing would have happened.
Crimes such as these are more serious than "plain" assaults, because of the motivation for the attack. You may disagree - but the legislature feels hate crimes should be punished more severely, which is why hate crime legislation has been enacted.
they should recieve the full punishment for the crime, regardless of WHO it was done toSo you are saying that the suspects in this case should NOT be punished more severely than anyone else who commits a "plain" assault on a victim? Sure sounds to me as if you are defending the animals in this case.
equal justice under the law
if someone attacks me they should receive the same punishment
Wrong analysis. Hate crime legislation does not single out one class of citizens for punishment. Anyone (white, black or green) can commit a hate crime. If we had a hate crime statute that said: "Any white person who attacks any person of a minority race for racially motivated reasons is guilty of . . . " then there would be an equal protection argument. But that is not the way hate crime statutes are written.
what if the guy wasnt actually gay?Because of what the suspects said during the attack. Their motivation is clear here.
Interesting question. I think the crime would have been complete, but you might have more trouble getting a prosecutor to file on it. Good quesiton.
The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.
Islamist extremists tell you who they are, too. They say so. But nobody wants to call that "hate."
It does more than that. It establishes a greater penalty, selectively with prejudice.
Prejudice against whom - racists who attack others for racially motivated reasons? Damn right. As Barb has noted - the more serious the crime, the more serious the penalty.
Prejudice against those assaulted for reasons other than Racism. PC School for Felon's- How to avoid Hate Crime Charges selecting your victims more intelligently. Recycle through the system faster, get more done, just avoid the protected classes. It's all bullshit George.
