Hate Crimes in NY Up 14%

[GHook93]

Someone tell Kate Couric this because the biggest travesty to her is all the anti-Muslim bigotry!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqDDdBC0500

Word to the world, the reason antisemitism is so high in New York is because of the large Muslim population! They cry like little girls about being discriminated against and persecuted, yet they are the biggest perpetrators of bigotry, discrimination and hatred inspired violence!

Read more: Hate crimes up 14 percent in New York state - NYPOST.com

Hmmm. Interesting numbers, eh?

I'm glad you quoted the OP cuz I meant to ask about these numbers...

What exactly is UP 14%...convictions or allegations...?






"Word to the world, the reason antisemitism is so high in New York is because of the large Muslim population! They cry like little girls about being discriminated against and persecuted, yet they are the biggest perpetrators of bigotry, discrimination and hatred inspired violence!"




They too stand to be subject to the same laws...

I guarantee the majority of the "hate" crimes are intimidation (threatening words) and vandalism!

 

[AllieBaba]

Why does premeditated murder get a larger sentence...the crime is the same.

They are not the same.

If it can be proven that a fag basher had premeditated plans to go out that night and kick a queers head in, then I would support a harsher sentence. And that does not require speculating about what resides in his heart.

That's what I mean by concrete proof...it must be. Same with premeditated murder.

The courts don't often convict on circumstantial evidence. Unless it's just so patently obvious to everyone what happened. This is how murderers and other monsters end up paroled. They get a lesser sentence if the evidence is sketchy. Then everybody gets pissed off when they commit the same crime again, after being released.

 

[AllieBaba]

Why does premeditated murder get a larger sentence...the crime is the same.

They are not the same.

If it can be proven that a fag basher had premeditated plans to go out that night and kick a queers head in, then I would support a harsher sentence. And that does not require speculating about what resides in his heart.

Of course it could.

That's what developing a theory about whether a crime is premeditated or not is all about. Figuring out what the killer was thinking at the time of the crime. Was he oblivious due to mental illness or intoxication? Was he under the power of another individual? Had he made plans ahead of time or was it a crime of passion? YOu can't determine these things without speculation what resides in a perp's heart....

 

[jillian]

They are not the same.

If it can be proven that a fag basher had premeditated plans to go out that night and kick a queers head in, then I would support a harsher sentence. And that does not require speculating about what resides in his heart.

That's what I mean by concrete proof...it must be. Same with premeditated murder.

The courts don't often convict on circumstantial evidence. Unless it's just so patently obvious to everyone what happened. This is how murderers and other monsters end up paroled. They get a lesser sentence if the evidence is sketchy. Then everybody gets pissed off when they commit the same crime again, after being released.

most evidence is circumstantial.

if someone is convicted, the evidence wasn't sketchy because they had to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. there are then sentencing guidelines for the crime committed. in sentencing, the court can look at mitigating circumstances. but the sentence isn't based on the evidence being sketchy.

if its sketchy then there can't be a conviction.

 

[CountofTuscany]

ALBANY -- Hate crimes across New York state jumped 14 percent in 2009, led by an increase in attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions, state records released yesterday show.

There were 683 hate crimes reported to police authorities across the state in 2009 compared with 599 in 2008, according to a report released by the state Division of Criminal Justice Services.

Anti-Semitic incidents, which made up 37 percent of the reported hate crimes, were up 15 percent in one year, from 219 in 2008 to 251 in 2009.

The report found anti-black crimes, 21 percent of the total, were down slightly from 147 in 2008 to 144 in 2009. Anti-white hate crimes increased from 21 to 29.

Anti-gay hate crimes were up sharply, with those targeting male homosexuals jumping 32 percent, from 62 to 82, and those aimed at lesbians up by more than 200 percent, from eight to 25.

Crimes motivated by anti-Muslim sentiment rose from eight to 11.

Read more: Hate crimes up 14 percent in New York state - NYPOST.com

Hmmm. Interesting numbers, eh?

Very, whit hate on the rise but look at the hate against the gays. Shocking!

 

[AllieBaba]

That's what I mean by concrete proof...it must be. Same with premeditated murder.

The courts don't often convict on circumstantial evidence. Unless it's just so patently obvious to everyone what happened. This is how murderers and other monsters end up paroled. They get a lesser sentence if the evidence is sketchy. Then everybody gets pissed off when they commit the same crime again, after being released.

most evidence is circumstantial.

if someone is convicted, the evidence wasn't sketchy because they had to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. there are then sentencing guidelines for the crime committed. in sentencing, the court can look at mitigating circumstances. but the sentence isn't based on the sentence being sketchy.

if its sketchy then there can't be a conviction.

I thought we were talking about murder convictions. I'm not a lawyer, but I was pointing out the difference between first degree murder convictions, and convictions which result in people being convicted, but receiving a lesser sentence.

Almost always it's because those cases relied on circumstantial evidence. I was trying to say it was common.

 

[jillian]

I thought we were talking about murder convictions. I'm not a lawyer, but I was pointing out the difference between first degree murder convictions, and convictions which result in people being convicted, but receiving a lesser sentence.

Almost always it's because those cases relied on circumstantial evidence. I was trying to say it was common.

ok. perhaps i misunderstood. yes, if the evidence was only sufficient to prove a lesser crime, then the sentence will be less severe. sometimes people then don't get the sentence they might otherwise deserve.

on the other hand, aren't you glad that if you are accused of something, you can't be convicted just because they *think* you should be?

 

[George Costanza]

People who are opposed to hate crime legislation are opposed to legislation designed to help minorities. That is the definition of covert racism. Covert racists do precisely that. They support programs that impede minorities and are opposed to programs that help minorities.

I am not at all "surprised" when posters such as these fling adolescent insults. Such is to be expected from posters of that ilk.

If hate crime legislation is designed to only help minorities it is itself racist. Hate crimes can be committed against anyone, minority or not.

It might be a good idea to know the elements of a hate crime before pontificating on what it says or does not say. Here is a fairly accurate, general definition of a hate crime:

A hate crime is any of various crimes (as assault or defacement of property) when motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group (as one based on color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation)

While I suppose a perp could "get it wrong," and attack someone who is not a member of one of the protected groups, in point of fact, this hardly ever happens. As such, hate crime legislation IS designed to protect minorities, and cannot be committed against just anyone, minority or not. (And since you seem to be pretty good at parsing words and phrases, let me point out that when I use the term "minority" in connection with hate crime legislation, I include in that term not only racial minorities, but also members of other minority groups such as gays, members of certain religious groups and members of certain ethnic groups.)

I don't recall anyone here supporting programs impeding minorities.

That doesn't mean that people here have not been supporting programs impeding minorities. It merely means that you don't recognize what they are doing as such.

You obviously are unaware of the concept of covert racism. Basically, covert racism (as opposed to overt racism) is the supporting of programs that impede minorities and opposition to programs that help minorities. Overt racism is no longer acceptable to our society. But that does not mean that attitudes toward minorities change. It merely means that these attitudes get expressed in different ways. A person who used the N-word or openly advocated for segregation, would be frowned upon in today's society. A person who opposes hate crime legislation for various straw man, bogus reasons, is not frowned upon, because his/her racism is hidden behind the false reasons given for opposition to whatever program is involved - in this case, hate crime legislation.

Covert racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even assuming it is perfectly reasonable to support unequal justice for minorities, hate crimes only help minorities some of the time. The minority man beat up because someone didn't like the band on his t-shirt; the minority woman who's business is vandalized because someone thought it was ugly; any of a vast array of possibilities of minorities victimized without provocation would not be covered by hate crimes from my understanding.

You are correct. However, dragging up the unusual cases as proof that hate crime legislation is not effective, is illogical and wrong. The examples you give do not prove that hate crime legislation is ineffective. Far from it.

You wish to see racism from anyone opposing your view on this and so you do, regardless of the facts. You assume anyone who disagrees with you must support programs that impede minorities, which is utterly ridiculous. You talk about people flinging adolescent insults; are yours more adult, and therefore more palatable? Despite various arguments having nothing to do with racism or any other bigotry being put forth for why some of us oppose hate crime legislation, you have accused me and every other person opposed of being racists, apparently secure in your self-righteous ignorance that there is no possible reason other than racism to oppose such legislation. Now, if you said my opinion is wrong, or even that I'm an idiot for holding that opinion, it is one thing; making baseless accusations which are completely disconnected from the things I've posted is another. I imagine THAT is why you have seen these adolescent insults.

My opposition to hate crime legislation has nothing to do with racism. If you insist on ascribing reasons to my opposition I have neither stated nor hold, perhaps adolescent insults are all you deserve.

You may see my accusations as baseless. That does not mean that they are. In order to understand what I am talking about, one has to have an understanding of covert racism, and very few on this board do. I think if you took a good look at it, you would see my point.

I weary of adolescent insults on boards such as this. They are unavoidable, I suppose, but they do little to add to the credibility of those who use them, or those (like yourself) who defend their use on the grounds that if someone makes an argument you (or they) disagree with, then they somehow "deserve" to be insulted on a personal level.

I have made (and am making) what I think is a rational and factually supported, argument for the existence of covert racism and its application in the area of hate crime legislation. If you really think that this justifies my being called an "asshole" and a "fuckstain" by other posters here, then I suggest you join them on the playground at recess so that the adults can continue to debate this interesting and important issue.

 

[AllieBaba]

In that entire post I don't see one fact posted. I see an incredibly long statement of your opinions with zero collaborating evidence.

 

[Synthaholic]

Again, since it was conveniently ignored the first time I posted it:

According to "conservatives", there is no such thing as a hate crime, because that is criminalizing thought.

Rush "Oxy" Limbaugh has stated this many times.

 

[manifold]

Why does premeditated murder get a larger sentence...the crime is the same.

They are not the same.

If it can be proven that a fag basher had premeditated plans to go out that night and kick a queers head in, then I would support a harsher sentence. And that does not require speculating about what resides in his heart.

That's what I mean by concrete proof...it must be. Same with premeditated murder.

Yet the example of "proof" repeatedly offered is if the perp is yelling epithets during the attack. That DOES NOT by itself prove premeditation (nor hatred necessarily).

 

[manifold]

Why does premeditated murder get a larger sentence...the crime is the same.

They are not the same.

If it can be proven that a fag basher had premeditated plans to go out that night and kick a queers head in, then I would support a harsher sentence. And that does not require speculating about what resides in his heart.

Of course it could.

That's what developing a theory about whether a crime is premeditated or not is all about. Figuring out what the killer was thinking at the time of the crime. Was he oblivious due to mental illness or intoxication? Was he under the power of another individual? Had he made plans ahead of time or was it a crime of passion? YOu can't determine these things without speculation what resides in a perp's heart....

^Bullshit.

For obvious reasons to anyone with a functioning brain.

 

[Montrovant]

People who are opposed to hate crime legislation are opposed to legislation designed to help minorities. That is the definition of covert racism. Covert racists do precisely that. They support programs that impede minorities and are opposed to programs that help minorities.

I am not at all "surprised" when posters such as these fling adolescent insults. Such is to be expected from posters of that ilk.

If hate crime legislation is designed to only help minorities it is itself racist. Hate crimes can be committed against anyone, minority or not.

It might be a good idea to know the elements of a hate crime before pontificating on what it says or does not say. Here is a fairly accurate, general definition of a hate crime:



While I suppose a perp could "get it wrong," and attack someone who is not a member of one of the protected groups, in point of fact, this hardly ever happens. As such, hate crime legislation IS designed to protect minorities, and cannot be committed against just anyone, minority or not. (And since you seem to be pretty good at parsing words and phrases, let me point out that when I use the term "minority" in connection with hate crime legislation, I include in that term not only racial minorities, but also members of other minority groups such as gays, members of certain religious groups and members of certain ethnic groups.)



That doesn't mean that people here have not been supporting programs impeding minorities. It merely means that you don't recognize what they are doing as such.

You obviously are unaware of the concept of covert racism. Basically, covert racism (as opposed to overt racism) is the supporting of programs that impede minorities and opposition to programs that help minorities. Overt racism is no longer acceptable to our society. But that does not mean that attitudes toward minorities change. It merely means that these attitudes get expressed in different ways. A person who used the N-word or openly advocated for segregation, would be frowned upon in today's society. A person who opposes hate crime legislation for various straw man, bogus reasons, is not frowned upon, because his/her racism is hidden behind the false reasons given for opposition to whatever program is involved - in this case, hate crime legislation.

Covert racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even assuming it is perfectly reasonable to support unequal justice for minorities, hate crimes only help minorities some of the time. The minority man beat up because someone didn't like the band on his t-shirt; the minority woman who's business is vandalized because someone thought it was ugly; any of a vast array of possibilities of minorities victimized without provocation would not be covered by hate crimes from my understanding.

You are correct. However, dragging up the unusual cases as proof that hate crime legislation is not effective, is illogical and wrong. The examples you give do not prove that hate crime legislation is ineffective. Far from it.

You wish to see racism from anyone opposing your view on this and so you do, regardless of the facts. You assume anyone who disagrees with you must support programs that impede minorities, which is utterly ridiculous. You talk about people flinging adolescent insults; are yours more adult, and therefore more palatable? Despite various arguments having nothing to do with racism or any other bigotry being put forth for why some of us oppose hate crime legislation, you have accused me and every other person opposed of being racists, apparently secure in your self-righteous ignorance that there is no possible reason other than racism to oppose such legislation. Now, if you said my opinion is wrong, or even that I'm an idiot for holding that opinion, it is one thing; making baseless accusations which are completely disconnected from the things I've posted is another. I imagine THAT is why you have seen these adolescent insults.

My opposition to hate crime legislation has nothing to do with racism. If you insist on ascribing reasons to my opposition I have neither stated nor hold, perhaps adolescent insults are all you deserve.

You may see my accusations as baseless. That does not mean that they are. In order to understand what I am talking about, one has to have an understanding of covert racism, and very few on this board do. I think if you took a good look at it, you would see my point.

I weary of adolescent insults on boards such as this. They are unavoidable, I suppose, but they do little to add to the credibility of those who use them, or those (like yourself) who defend their use on the grounds that if someone makes an argument you (or they) disagree with, then they somehow "deserve" to be insulted on a personal level.

I have made (and am making) what I think is a rational and factually supported, argument for the existence of covert racism and its application in the area of hate crime legislation. If you really think that this justifies my being called an "asshole" and a "fuckstain" by other posters here, then I suggest you join them on the playground at recess so that the adults can continue to debate this interesting and important issue.

As far as I can tell, hate crime legislation affects both those in the majority or the minority. Your post gave at least a possible implication that it is only for minorities, which seems to be untrue; hence my statement.

You make the argument that, just because there is no evidence of people supporting programs that impede minorities doesn't mean it isn't true. Well, of course anyone here MIGHT do so. They might not, as well; the point is a person's opposition to hate crime legislation does not automatically make it true. Do you not see how your posts have been insulting? Do you not see that you have called me a racist when you do not know me, have almost no knowledge of what I think, and on the very issue that caused you to draw this conclusion I have made no arguments based in racism or bigotry? You have basically said, "I don't know you, and you have said nothing of the sort, but because I have decided there is only one reason to oppose hate crime legislation, you are a racist. Oh, and further, despite my continuing lack of evidence, I also know that you support programs which impede minorities."

You can talk about overt and covert racism all you like. Calling me a hidden racist is as insulting as saying I am a racist openly, with as little reason behind it. You seem to be backtracking a bit and making this more of a hypothetical, but your previous posts made it an attack against every one of us who has posted against hate crime legislation. If you meant to say that there are some who oppose it for racist reasons, I agree completely. If you want agreement that there are some who are racist but hide those feelings, these covert racists, again I will agree. Neither of those things are what I said would cause you to deserve the adolescent insults, however. You have accused EVERY person who opposes hate crime legislation of racism (covert or otherwise). You claim you are using rational and factual arguments, but what you have done is to irrationally generalize based on almost no facts. Again, if that was not your intent and you merely meant to point out that some people who oppose the legislation are racist, please clarify that, because your previous posts have told a different tale.

 

[Valerie]

They are not the same.

If it can be proven that a fag basher had premeditated plans to go out that night and kick a queers head in, then I would support a harsher sentence. And that does not require speculating about what resides in his heart.

That's what I mean by concrete proof...it must be. Same with premeditated murder.

Yet the example of "proof" repeatedly offered is if the perp is yelling epithets during the attack. That DOES NOT by itself prove premeditation (nor hatred necessarily).

I agree that a verbal slur in the moment is not by itself proof of motivation for a crime, which is I assume your big objection to hate crime laws...If for example you got into to a scuffle with someone who pulled a knife on you and you ended up grabbing his wrist and turning the knife on him in self defense and you happened to yell you dumb N*** as you did it, THAT is not a hate crime. It has to be proven as the MOTIVATION for a crime which you have been found guilty of.

 

[Ravi]

They are not the same.

If it can be proven that a fag basher had premeditated plans to go out that night and kick a queers head in, then I would support a harsher sentence. And that does not require speculating about what resides in his heart.

That's what I mean by concrete proof...it must be. Same with premeditated murder.

Yet the example of "proof" repeatedly offered is if the perp is yelling epithets during the attack. That DOES NOT by itself prove premeditation (nor hatred necessarily).

sigh...I didn't mean it had to be premeditated...it had to be provable like premeditated murder. I don't know if there is a charge for premeditated assault.

Why would you yell fag while beating someone if you respected gay people?

 

[Ravi]

That's what I mean by concrete proof...it must be. Same with premeditated murder.

Yet the example of "proof" repeatedly offered is if the perp is yelling epithets during the attack. That DOES NOT by itself prove premeditation (nor hatred necessarily).

I agree that a verbal slur in the moment is not by itself proof of motivation for a crime, which is I assume your big objection to hate crime laws...If for example you got into to a scuffle with someone who pulled a knife on you and you ended up grabbing his wrist and turning the knife on him in self defense and you happened to yell you dumb N*** as you did it, THAT is not a hate crime. It has to be proven as the MOTIVATION for a crime which you have been found guilty of.

Ah...thanks for that. The mani mind is often inscrutable.

 

[manifold]

Why would you yell fag while beating someone if you respected gay people?

Why should lack of respect for anyone be a criminal offense?

 

[Samson]

 

[Valerie]

That's what I mean by concrete proof...it must be. Same with premeditated murder.

Yet the example of "proof" repeatedly offered is if the perp is yelling epithets during the attack. That DOES NOT by itself prove premeditation (nor hatred necessarily).

sigh...I didn't mean it had to be premeditated...it had to be provable like premeditated murder. I don't know if there is a charge for premeditated assault.

Why would you yell fag while beating someone if you respected gay people?

I think this is a common misperception involving hate crime laws...That somehow if you happen to commit a crime where the victim is {fill in the blank} then you are automatically going to be charged with a hate crime...As if these {fill in the blank} get more protection than everyone else, but really these laws stand to protect ALL of us.


If I may presume to answer your question to Mani, you could think of my previous example where he calls the person dumb N***...He could do the same and say you stupid fag...Out of anger or frustration, in this case a scuffle...Sometimes people may say offensive things or even think offensive things, but the words alone or the thoughts alone are not criminal...It is the act that is criminal (say assault) and if the motivation for the criminal act can be proven to be sheer hatred toward any group the victim belongs to, the convicted criminal will be subject to enhanced punishment.




"Hate Crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity ..."

Hate crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Valerie]

What, no octopi to occupy your time today...?