should this alleged murder be charged with a hate crime?

[Xenophon]

Does a hate crime murder make the victim deader?

 

[Samson]

If I ever kill a white guy, I'm gonna spray-paint "I hate *******" over his body, just to make my trial more interesting.

 

[Dr Gregg]

A hate crime is one that's deliberately intended to intimidate the community at-large. It's not merely an act of violence. It's an act of violence done in a way that tells others, "you could be next." The intent of a crime should ALWAYS be taken into account. It's a necessary component of any justice system. Denying the existence of hate crimes is denying reality.

and intent is taken into context, hence the varying degrees of particular crimes. If its 1st degree murder, intent and planning is taken into account. Racism shouldn't be any more of a prison sentence than someone who kills another because they are in a rival gang, or killing a witness, or many of the other stupid reasons why people kill others. If it was planned then its first degree murder

So you're basically saying that our justice system should not concern itself with threats of violence directed at communities. It's really incredible to see people here suggesting that threats should NOT be considered criminal acts.

They should be, and if a crime is committed, the person gets prison time. As far as I know, there is no law against threats, unless it goes to the level of harrassment. But assault, rape, murder, etc are already crimes. You think having hate crime laws are going to stop violent racist? It's doesn't deter the assholes from being assholes anymore than the prison sentence for the crime that was already in place. Like somebody has said here, its a crime of thought, and its the actions that are punishable, not the thoughts.

 

[Dr Gregg]

No because one is murder in the first degree and one is not.

But "dead is dead" so why is motive in consideration in some cases but not the rest?

You shoot someone with a gun, they are dead a second later.

Then there is David Ritcheson. Some white kids, who were just kidding around, stripped him naked, burned him with cigarettes, they tried to engrave a swastika into his chest, but it's not as easy as it sounds.

They kicked him with steel-toed boots, broke bones in his face. Then, someone got the bright ideas of forcing the pointed end of a PVC patio umbrella pole up his butt hole while yelling out racist names. Sodomy wasn't enough. Fun, but not enough.

Then they poured bleach on the victim. Oh, that must have stung. The attack lasted five hours before they just got tuckered out. They left Ritcheson lying behind the house for more than 10 hours. They probably thought he was tired too.

At some point, someone called an ambulance.

What's a perforated bladder?

Ritcheson's lungs failed, and he was placed on a ventilator. But don't worry, they started them again, so it was only "assault".

According to Harris County prosecutor Mike Trent, the "kids" probably poured bleach inside the pipe as high levels of toxins were found in Ritcheson's organs.

Those on the right say, "Hey, assault is assault. It's all the same." It was only a "joke" that went a little too far. Don't make a federal case out of it.

And 15 operations later, the kid, while wearing a shit and piss bag and being confined to a wheel chair, didn't even die. At least not then. No, some months later, he got tired of being the victim and all the surgery and finally killed himself. Think those kids that tortured him thought he was a "wuss"? You betcha.

So let's see. Hmmm, would I rather have a gunshot or go through what that kid went through? Wow, that's a hard one. Gee, I'll have to think about that.

Like they say on the right, "Dead is dead" and besides, those white kids didn't kill anyone. He killed himself. All they did was "assault". Like giving someone a black eye or a fat lip.

Geesh, some people just can't take a fucking joke.

Now, tell me how a "hate crime" is the same. Tell me how "dead is dead".

Where in the law is this kind of torture covered? Except when it's a "hate crime"?

People do that to others without any racial motivation, that's the point. That level would render a stiffer sentence based on the jury and/or judge, regardless if it was racially motivated, or some gang war, or some mafia guy punishing a snitch or what not. There are varying levels of crimes. And what you stated above sounds like attempted murder, which is stiffer of a penalty than assault. The courts take these things into account in rendering sentences, and likely a racially motivated crime would receive stricter penalties from the jury and judge. But making a law specifically claiming racially motivated crime is more punishable than some completely other stupid reasons people commit crime is not necessary.

 

[gslack]

As much as I dislike agreeing DR. Douchebag, I agree with him on this...

Hate crime legislation is nothing more than placating nonsense. It serves no higher purpose than to propagate fear, and drum up votes for those legislators involved.

What is the difference in a person who kills because a person is a certain ethnicity, religion, or political affiliation, and one who kills for virtually any other reason? Is the victim any more or less dead? Trying to legislate feelings or thoughts are a lesson in futility long-term, and an example of form over substance in the short-term.

People who support this kind of ignorant waste of resources, are the reason hate still exists. The only way to get rid of hate or racism/bigotry is to purge it from our lives wholly and completely. THe only way to do that is to give it no time nor attention....

Stop reporting things as a hate crime, but rather just a crime and you take its power away. The media reports give most of us our take on a certain crime. They tell us the things like reasons or feelings of the perpetrators. They give it power when they do it. Why? Because it sells, sensationalism, racism, passion, hate, all of these things sell and they are the quick and easy way to get our attention.

The next step is for politicians to stop trying to cater to ethnic groups, or target minorities in their policies and claims. Start treating people as people and not as a demographic or ethnic body, and then we can cut in half the number of deluded social victims of circumstance, and beliefs of inferiority or the anger those feelings generate.

Stop allowing excuses based on social economical situations, ethnic/racial disadvantage, to garner lighter penalties or lesser sentences. This will take away the "race card", and allow for true justice and punishments which fit the crime. As well as simplify and expedite court proceedings.

Doing those things will take the power out of awful words. Don't believe me? I remember a lot of other derogatory racially charged names thrown about in my 41 years. Names Like "mick" was a derogatory word for Irish. Know how many times I hear it today? Maybe a couple times a year, and in about 10 years almost no one will remember it. It dies a natural death because it was allowed to. Allowed by the Irish like my father who worked and earned the right to never be called "mick" again... Allowed by a culture who after years of the Irish proving themselves have stopped viewing them as "mick" but people like any other.

The same will happen to any other group of people if they allow it, and even more importantly; if the media, politicians and con-men wanting to propagate racial or ethnic hate will allow it. And like it or not, every time a rapper uses the "N" word no matter what his stated intentions or claims, it is because it sells. And when he does that he puts the shackles back on himself. Anyone who perpetuates hate, is the problem.

Whether they report hate and pretend it makes a difference in the crime, they rap about the it using the same names used against them, or they use it as a podium to garner support for their political aspirations, it only feeds the beast and gives it more power.

 

[Gunny]

Hate crimes are the biggest bunch of bullshit. A crime is a crime. many people commit crimes for the stupidest and vile reasons, why make one reason for performing the action more punishable than another stupid reasona. why make a crime of thought, which is essentially what this is. As much as racism and racially motivated crimes are deplorable, crimes is a crime.

A hate crime is one that's deliberately intended to intimidate the community at-large. It's not merely an act of violence. It's an act of violence done in a way that tells others, "you could be next." The intent of a crime should ALWAYS be taken into account. It's a necessary component of any justice system. Denying the existence of hate crimes is denying reality.

The "intent" of a crime is bullshit, and completely unnecessary to an impartial justice system.

Denying red herrings is reality. Pretending that a crime is more more or less significant because some bonehead decides it's a "hate" crime is stupid. The term "hate crime" to people like you = any crime committed against an ethnic/gender minority when the fact is, ALL crimes can be called hate crimes.

Just a bunch of PC semantics from idiots who want to punish anyone who disagrees with their politics. *yawn*

 

[Samson]

Just a bunch of PC semantics from idiots who want to punish anyone who disagrees with their politics. *yawn*

You mean its not PC to disagree with the PC????



OMG!!

 

[Luissa]

Hate crimes are the biggest bunch of bullshit. A crime is a crime. many people commit crimes for the stupidest and vile reasons, why make one reason for performing the action more punishable than another stupid reasona. why make a crime of thought, which is essentially what this is. As much as racism and racially motivated crimes are deplorable, crimes is a crime.

A hate crime is one that's deliberately intended to intimidate the community at-large. It's not merely an act of violence. It's an act of violence done in a way that tells others, "you could be next." The intent of a crime should ALWAYS be taken into account. It's a necessary component of any justice system. Denying the existence of hate crimes is denying reality.

The "intent" of a crime is bullshit, and completely unnecessary to an impartial justice system.

Denying red herrings is reality. Pretending that a crime is more more or less significant because some bonehead decides it's a "hate" crime is stupid. The term "hate crime" to people like you = any crime committed against an ethnic/gender minority when the fact is, ALL crimes can be called hate crimes.

Just a bunch of PC semantics from idiots who want to punish anyone who disagrees with their politics. *yawn*

How is it punishing people who don't agree with them?
The people who commit the crime are punished, and would be anyways for the crime they commited. So, unless you beat up a minority, because they are a minority you will not be punished. The only people who are effected by this, are people who are commiting crimes.
It really is a non issue.

 

[gslack]

A hate crime is one that's deliberately intended to intimidate the community at-large. It's not merely an act of violence. It's an act of violence done in a way that tells others, "you could be next." The intent of a crime should ALWAYS be taken into account. It's a necessary component of any justice system. Denying the existence of hate crimes is denying reality.

The "intent" of a crime is bullshit, and completely unnecessary to an impartial justice system.

Denying red herrings is reality. Pretending that a crime is more more or less significant because some bonehead decides it's a "hate" crime is stupid. The term "hate crime" to people like you = any crime committed against an ethnic/gender minority when the fact is, ALL crimes can be called hate crimes.

Just a bunch of PC semantics from idiots who want to punish anyone who disagrees with their politics. *yawn*

How is it punishing people who don't agree with them?
The people who commit the crime are punished, and would be anyways for the crime they commited. So, unless you beat up a minority, because they are a minority you will not be punished. The only people who are effected by this, are people who are commiting crimes.
It really is a non issue.

How is it punishing people who don't agree with them?

legislating a feeling is exactly that in essence, and that is exactly what hate crime legislation is an attempt to do. How would you like a special law against not wearing a seatbelt was implemented where the persons reasons were also taken into consideration before punishment was passed down? What if an aggressive judge wanting to appear 'friend of the people" in the upcoming elections, was to decide you showed a tendency to disregard laws and deemed you a traitor or a menace to society, and gave you stiffer sentence?

That would not be justice, and that wouldn't be punishing your crime, but rather punishing you based on how they think and or feel about you or your crime. Justice has to blind to such things in order to function fair to all equally.

The people who commit the crime are punished, and would be anyways for the crime they commited.

Punished for their crimes not their feelings or thoughts. With hate crime legislation they will be given either special stipulations or punishments/procedures based on the their personal thoughts and feelings. Which again is not justice.

So, unless you beat up a minority, because they are a minority you will not be punished.

That is a thoughtless and ignorant claim... If I go and drag my neighbor out of his house and beat him, I will be arrested and charged with assault or worse depending on the severity. The same will happen in any circumstances one can think of were one person beats or attacks another. It will not matter what my neighbor said to me or did to get that beating, I will have been the aggressor and I would be punished accordingly.

Now if I am white and my neighbor black, with hate crime legislation I will not be tried for the beating, but rather whether or not I did it because he was black. The crime then takes a back seat to the reason. And that is an insane policy and expect to get justice. You cannot punish for thought or feelings. If we are to tolerate hate speech because of freedom of speech, we must tolerate hateful thoughts and feelings as well. If you allow for hate legislation it is the first step in infringing on free speech.

The only people who are effected by this, are people who are commiting crimes.
It really is a non issue.

That is completely inaccurate and shows the lack of higher thought given to this. People who have to administer justice in such cases will be affected. Friends, family, and loved ones will be affected by this. The greater social system will be affected by this.

A judge will now be burdened by the factor of having to administer justice in a system hamstringed from within by a punishment over thoughts and feelings. THis goes against the very nature of law and justice.

As any one who has ever had a family member, friend, or loved one convicted of a crime can attest to the punishment affects them. So having that person they care about convicted of a hate crime will affect them equally if not more so considering it points to thme in a small way as well. Racism is not born, its taught....

I think there is too many people wanting laws to reflect their feelings and beliefs, rather than the needs of society....

 

[DiamondDave]

Isn't all murder in actuality a hate crime then?? You really don't get a murder that is more akin to a 'kindness crime' or 'happy crime' or 'respect crime'


The whole concept of the hate crime is racist bullshit...

 

[Reasoning]

it's good to see that many people are aware of how incredibly stupid "hate crime" designations/legislation is.

a crime is a crime if there is a victim

.

 

[Madeline]

A hate crime is one that's deliberately intended to intimidate the community at-large. It's not merely an act of violence. It's an act of violence done in a way that tells others, "you could be next." The intent of a crime should ALWAYS be taken into account. It's a necessary component of any justice system. Denying the existence of hate crimes is denying reality.

There aren't different levels of being dead, you know. You murder somebody they're just as dead as anybody else who has been murdered. The reason for their murder is irrelevant. The result is the same and the punishment should be the same.

If I kill you because of your race and leave evidence at the scene which tells the community at-large that my crime was racially motivated then it's not just about your death. I have both killed you AND threatened others in the community with violence. It's a deliberate tactic of intimidation designed to coerce the behavior of an entire group of people who were not targets of the crime. We all understand that this was the intent of racial violence in the bad old days. KKK types tried to coerce blacks into submission. Hate crime laws were passed for the expressed purpose of punishing this kind of community intimidation. The phenomenon is real and we all know it. Denying it is denying reality.

I really do not like being in the position of arguing against anything that may send a big ole' Fuck You Asshole Again to the KKK, but....

Tell me, Brubricker, what flavor of Murder In The First does NOT "threaten others in the community with violence"? Isn't that kinda sorta the whole reason we HAVE laws against murdering anyone? After all, any killer who can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the victim was so "unique" that he could never possibly murder anyone else again would be, wait it's coming, ACQUITTED because such acts are shown to be, wait it's coming, Justifiable Homicide and thus, not criminal.

There is a Feel-Good thingy to hate crime enhancement laws that just seems to grab the public where they live. Protests verging on riots have occurred over whose murder charge gets enhanced and whose doesn't. Every single last murder victims' families sees their beloved as a person so special, that OF COURSE, the killer should get an Enhanced Sentence. They feel judged as Less Than if the DA declines to ask for Enhancement, and very understandably, this deepens their pain and spreads distrust among the community at large who share their desire for "specialness" status for the victim. This is reality too. Denying it won't alter it a whit, either.

But if every single solitary Murder in The First is Enhanced unless the DA seeks the death penalty, what is accomplished? Sure, the killer gets 25 to life rather than just 20. But any state could amend its sentencing laws to up the Murder One sentence by five years. There's growing support for the use of LWOP in all Murder One cases....in that event, Hate Enhancement would become obsolete. How can any state's residents need BOTH LWOP and Hate Enhancement? It's illogical...but the public never sees that.

The poor DAs, dear God. Now they don't just have to figure out what the facts are, what evidence can be admitted to prove them, and what to charge the defendant with. It's no longer enough to ask them to design the best possible trial strategy to secure a conviction. Nope. Now they also have to "balance" these analysises and objectives wih a second consideration wholly apart from, and somewhat antagonistic to, the drive to conviction. Now they have to ALSO consider if they should attempt to prove the elements necessary to secure an enhancement. If the best trial strategy for conviction is A, but the best strategy for enhancement is B, what would you like the DA to choose? A or B? And if he abandons the effort to enhance and sticks with A, the public and the family reacts as if he had made a deal to let the killer walk.

Hate Crime enhancement is not MORE Justice.

It's Instead-Of Justice.

Whose needs are really being served? Future murderers?

 

[CurveLight]

It's too obvious to ignore. Th hypocrisy. It's overwhelming and palpable. The majority bitching about hate crimes have been the biggest supporters of hate crime legislation over the past ten years. You have supported torture, secret prisons, indefinite imprisonment, occupations of other nations, throwing the 4th amendment out the door.......you have supported all of that based on a crime being a hate crime by your own words.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Mississippi white supremacist found dead in burning house; neighbor arrested | - NOLA.com

Well only if you feel that the implementation of a law should be in keeping with the reasoning on which the law rest.

Hate-crime is thought control... but the Left can't advertise it as 'thought-control' for obvious reasons, so they dress it up in the rationalization to which you're referring; that it's designed to make "Hate" a crime.

Didn't read the article, but using the title; I'd say, that IF someone feels sufficiently strongly that the subject of their emotion needs to be burned down to ashes, that it's a fair bet that there's 'some Hatin' going on down der...' and when Hate is a motivating factor in the commission of a crime, WELL... Our leftist PC Indoctrination tells us THAT THIS IS A HATE CRIME!

Now this stands in contrast to the Immutable Principles of Nature, on which America Rests... It flies in the face of everything America stands for; is morally reprehensible... as there are many EXCELLENT reasons to HATE; and there are some EXCELLENT REASONS TO KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING... and hating their ass is usually tied directly to those reasons; albeit, those are not mutally exclusive.

But where someone is a clear and present threat to your human rights and your very life... it's a fair bet that there's a sound measure of hate present; and such stands as a valid moral justification to strip them of their life.

But Hate-Crime is a Progressive Idea... and as such it is an unsound idea... thus it is an unsustainable idea; for the reasons to which you're pointing, in the OP.

It's another classic case of where Progressive Policy demonstrates it's chronic Regressive tendencies...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It's too obvious to ignore. Th hypocrisy. It's overwhelming and palpable. The majority bitching about hate crimes have been the biggest supporters of hate crime legislation over the past ten years. You have supported torture, secret prisons, indefinite imprisonment, occupations of other nations, throwing the 4th amendment out the door.......you have supported all of that based on a crime being a hate crime by your own words.

And once again another Progressive comes to conflate war with criminal prosecutions...

But such is a common limitation of Left-think... and stands as a classic demonstration of why Progressives should not be allowed within 10 miles of a voting booth.

 

[CurveLight]

It's too obvious to ignore. Th hypocrisy. It's overwhelming and palpable. The majority bitching about hate crimes have been the biggest supporters of hate crime legislation over the past ten years. You have supported torture, secret prisons, indefinite imprisonment, occupations of other nations, throwing the 4th amendment out the door.......you have supported all of that based on a crime being a hate crime by your own words.

And once again another Progressive comes to conflate war with criminal prosecutions...

But such is a common limitation of Left-think... and stands as a classic demonstration of why Progressives should not be allowed within 10 miles of a voting booth.

You're so fuxxing stoopid you pretend there is a "war" to justify hiding your hypocrisy. Oops. I mean try to justify hiding your hypocrisy. You're a liberal but you're too ignorant to understand why. Partisan hacks like you love to just bitch bitch bitch but you have no argument, no intelligence, and no ability to defend your positions so you simply go....


Blah blah the Left blah blah Progressives....blah blah blah......

 

[Truthmatters]

Mississippi white supremacist found dead in burning house; neighbor arrested | - NOLA.com

Of course not. Negroes kill whites all the time. It's what they do.

Got racism

 

[logical4u]

Hate crimes are the biggest bunch of bullshit. A crime is a crime. many people commit crimes for the stupidest and vile reasons, why make one reason for performing the action more punishable than another stupid reasona. why make a crime of thought, which is essentially what this is. As much as racism and racially motivated crimes are deplorable, crimes is a crime.

A hate crime is one that's deliberately intended to intimidate the community at-large. It's not merely an act of violence. It's an act of violence done in a way that tells others, "you could be next." The intent of a crime should ALWAYS be taken into account. It's a necessary component of any justice system. Denying the existence of hate crimes is denying reality.

Who defines 'hate'?

 

[The T]

Mississippi white supremacist found dead in burning house; neighbor arrested | - NOLA.com

Well only if you feel that the implementation of a law should be in keeping with the reasoning on which the law rest.

Hate-crime is thought control... but the Left can't advertise it as 'thought-control' for obvious reasons, so they dress it up in the rationalization to which you're referring; that it's designed to make "Hate" a crime.

Didn't read the article, but using the title; I'd say, that IF someone feels sufficiently strongly that the subject of their emotion needs to be burned down to ashes, that it's a fair bet that there's 'some Hatin' going on down der...' and when Hate is a motivating factor in the commission of a crime, WELL... Our leftist PC Indoctrination tells us THAT THIS IS A HATE CRIME!

Now this stands in contrast to the Immutable Principles of Nature, on which America Rests... It flies in the face of everything America stands for; is morally reprehensible... as there are many EXCELLENT reasons to HATE; and there are some EXCELLENT REASONS TO KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING... and hating their ass is usually tied directly to those reasons; albeit, those are not mutally exclusive.

But where someone is a clear and present threat to your human rights and your very life... it's a fair bet that there's a sound measure of hate present; and such stands as a valid moral justification to strip them of their life.

But Hate-Crime is a Progressive Idea... and as such it is an unsound idea... thus it is an unsustainable idea; for the reasons to which you're pointing, in the OP.

It's another classic case of where Progressive Policy demonstrates it's chronic Regressive tendencies...

Murder is already against the law. Three basic precepts govern human kind, Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness. The basis as to why anyone whom denies any or all, deserve what they get, excluding their 'thought process'.

 

[logical4u]

No because one is murder in the first degree and one is not.

But "dead is dead" so why is motive in consideration in some cases but not the rest?

You shoot someone with a gun, they are dead a second later.

Then there is David Ritcheson. Some white kids, who were just kidding around, stripped him naked, burned him with cigarettes, they tried to engrave a swastika into his chest, but it's not as easy as it sounds.

They kicked him with steel-toed boots, broke bones in his face. Then, someone got the bright ideas of forcing the pointed end of a PVC patio umbrella pole up his butt hole while yelling out racist names. Sodomy wasn't enough. Fun, but not enough.

Then they poured bleach on the victim. Oh, that must have stung. The attack lasted five hours before they just got tuckered out. They left Ritcheson lying behind the house for more than 10 hours. They probably thought he was tired too.

At some point, someone called an ambulance.

What's a perforated bladder?

Ritcheson's lungs failed, and he was placed on a ventilator. But don't worry, they started them again, so it was only "assault".

According to Harris County prosecutor Mike Trent, the "kids" probably poured bleach inside the pipe as high levels of toxins were found in Ritcheson's organs.

Those on the right say, "Hey, assault is assault. It's all the same." It was only a "joke" that went a little too far. Don't make a federal case out of it.

And 15 operations later, the kid, while wearing a shit and piss bag and being confined to a wheel chair, didn't even die. At least not then. No, some months later, he got tired of being the victim and all the surgery and finally killed himself. Think those kids that tortured him thought he was a "wuss"? You betcha.

So let's see. Hmmm, would I rather have a gunshot or go through what that kid went through? Wow, that's a hard one. Gee, I'll have to think about that.

Like they say on the right, "Dead is dead" and besides, those white kids didn't kill anyone. He killed himself. All they did was "assault". Like giving someone a black eye or a fat lip.

Geesh, some people just can't take a fucking joke.

Now, tell me how a "hate crime" is the same. Tell me how "dead is dead".

Where in the law is this kind of torture covered? Except when it's a "hate crime"?

This is terrible. It should have been 'attempted murder'. That is the justice system...deals and pleas.

Have you noticed when blacks do similar things to whites (and state that it is being done because they are white), that the blacks committing the crimes are not charged with 'hate crimes' (4 black girls beating a white girl that wanted to be a big sister type near Spartenburg, SC, that resulted in her death comes to mind). If the law is not applied equally, then it is a bad law and needs to go. As for the the implied threats...there are laws against that too. Hate crime laws 'weaken' criminal laws.