Racially Motivated Attack? Is the media biased?

[jeffsg4mac]

I think the term "hate crime" is a socially damaging and dangerous fiction. To create a more serious catagory of severity and punishment for a crime deemed to fit some arbitrary profile is demeaning and insulting to victims of and families of the victims of "random crimes" or thrill killings.

Does anyone remember when justice was ideally supposed to be blind?

Well put. Just the term, hate crime, makes me think of Orwell's 1984 or Fahrenheit 451.

 

[Jack Hammer]

I thought it may be fictional too at first, but it seems to check out. Try a google search on it if you'd like. Here are just a couple links that came up when I just did one.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/carr/verdict_ctv.html
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/classics/carr_brothers/6.html

Oops, I initially did a a few google searches and got zero results. I must have mistyped something?? Ah, figured it out, I searched google news, not the regular internet search. Thanks

Jack

 

[Jack Hammer]

Having "hate crimes" as a category was a good and well meant idea that hasn't seemed to pan out to well. It was initially intended to make the penalty for any crime more severe that was solely committed out of hatred and intolerance. Such as attacking or killing someone only because of their racial/ethnic/religous/sexual/ etc makeup or preference.

It's been taken too far in that if playground taunts are used, it becomes a hate crime instead of just trash talking. So now any crime between people of different racial/ethnic/religous/sexual/etc makeups or preferences occurs it can get blown up into a hate crime, even though that wasn't the original intent of the crime. It got stupid.

Jack

 

[Rob Babcock]

Why is it any worse to kill someone because you don't like blacks or gays than because they cut you off in traffic? Murder is almost by definition a "hate crime". I think it's an artificial distinction that makes our system of loss less fair and equitable than before.

 

[zhimbo]

One single case? You just quoted statistics that showed ~one thousand hate crimes committed against whites in the year 2005, alone. Think what you like about the media but a little critical analysis would indicate you're, as you say, wrong.

It's that "ready made script" you're talking about that includes the bias, by the way.

You're confused about what I was talking about. I was talkinig about "one single" case that was huge national news, not one that *happened*.

 

[zhimbo]

Zhimbo,ive got an example of a hate crime that went uncovered by the media & it is a recent & true story,it is a classic example of race motivated neglect that gets swept under the rug.

Again, whether one single story does or doesn't get picked up by national news makes little impact on my opinion on whether the news media is showing bias in this sort of matter. You can't argue trends by pointing at single cases.

 

[Jack Hammer]

Murder is almost by definition a "hate crime". I think it's an artificial distinction that makes our system of loss less fair and equitable than before.

True.

Why is it any worse to kill someone because you don't like blacks or gays than because they cut you off in traffic?

You have to look at the original intent of the law regarding "hate" crimes. All murder is heinous and generally not justifiable. The difference they originally intended to make distinct in your example is when some one cuts you off in traffic and you over react kill them for it, you are responding in anger to something that was done against you. You are angry at the driver who cut you off.

If you murder a total stranger who has done absolutely nothing to you and nothing to draw your anger other than they simply exist and you don't like it, it becomes more heinous. You kill them because you don't like Mexicans, caucasians, blacks, gays, skateboarders, hippies (well, maybe that ones ok ), or whatever. There was nothing perpetrated on their part to draw your ire other than you don't like ******'s.

Jack
Feel free to insert derogatory comment or your choice where the asterisks are.

 

[zhimbo]

You have to look at the original intent of the law regarding "hate" crimes.

I haven't been a big fan of the idea of "hate crimes" as a separate criminal offense. If all it does is criminalize the motive as well as the action, I figured, what's the point?

But, to the degree that a hate crime is a terrorist threat against a group - many of the activities of the old KKK being a prime example - that's different. It's clear that there were many killings in the civil-rights era that were terrorist threats against blacks (and whites who were also working for civil rights). These seem like different sorts of crimes than "mere" murder, and I think that's pretty obvious and undeniable.

But then I do understand that if a person or a group of people just pick someone to beat up (or worse) because of their race, etc., that could also be seen as threatening an entire group, even if it isn't part of an organized terror campaign. The randomness of the act implies that anyone of that group is "fair game".

So I think if race/ethnicity whatever, is the SOLE motivation for a crime, I think I'm coming around to seeing the value of "hate crime" laws. But I'm still wrestling with the idea.

 

[Jack Hammer]

Zhimbo, you hit it on the head. The intent was to make the punishment for the types of attacks you mention more severe as a way of discouraging groups like the KKK. Because some groups would not just murder someone (a felony) but beat, maim, torture, and otherwise try to humiliate someone solely for being of a certain race, creed, or sexual preference. It was intended to take that misdemeanor assault charge and automatically make it a felony. But like many well intended laws, they end up getting used out of context. Many times now, if an altercation occurs between people of differing racial or sexual makeup, it seems to be assumed it was because of "hatred," not because you simply thought the guy was an @$$hole. An if you talk trash and call someone derogatory names, it can now be bumped up to a hate crime.

Jack

 

[Rob Babcock]

It's that common abuse of the law that especially worries me. Like the case where the 5 black guys rape & kill a white guy, cut his penis off, then rape & fill his white girlfriend and light her on fire- and it's not a hate crime! But 2 guys beat a gay guy to death while calling him a 'faggot' and PRESTO!- instant hate crime.

 

[Jack Hammer]

It's that common abuse of the law that especially worries me...

Yeah I agree fully.

... But 2 guys beat a gay guy to death while calling him a 'faggot' and PRESTO!- instant hate crime.

Exactly, it should only be charged as "hate" crime if the only reason for attacking him in the first place was solely because he was gay. It's worse, the guy didn't even have to be gay in that example for the charge to be used.

Years ago, my old room mate got beat up on a bus by a group of 7 gang bangers for telling them to stop hassling some old man. A few of them called him a faggot white boy while punching and kicking him and because of that the DA wanted to make my room mate the poster boy for both gay and race based hate attacks and go to the media with it. The problem was he isn't gay and race had nothing to do with him getting his *** kicked. The DA made such a huge ordeal and pushed him so much he finally told them if they didn't back off, he either wouldn't show up in court or would go to the media and tell them the DA was crooked. After the DA threatening to bring charges several times against my room mate and him not budging, they finally gave in. This was all about politics and had nothing to do with "hate" crimes or what happened to my room mate. It's one example of a well intentioned law getting used out of context.

Jack
(oh, he was ok with them charging the guys with "hate crimes," he didn't want to be the poster boy for the DA, the gay community, public transportation, some race relation group, and a few of the Mayors offices of I forget what. They all wanted to use him because it happened on a public bus and was political gold for all them)

 

[WmAx]

Hate crime laws. Well intentioned? Let's assume they are well intentioned. Let's ignore the abuse of the law(s) and presume that they are only applied as intended.

In itself, hate crime laws make certain lines of thought a crime. Such laws can not be tolerated in a country of supposed freedom/liberty and free speech. So, it's a crime to think X thought? No. So, it's a crime to think X thought while committing a crime, as a stack-able charge? Yes.

How is this logical?

Frankly, it does not matter what the 'hate crime' offender was thinking. All that matters is what they physically do. In fact, as ironic as it may seem at first, you have to defend the offender's right to think what they want, if what you want is a country that is as the forefathers of this country intended. If one supports enforcement of thought crime, I do not see how one can truly desire a country of freedom/liberty. The two things directly conflict.

If the 'hate' is accompanied by a tangible crime, the crime itself is prosecutable. Just because someone thinks something(they have the explicit right to think what they want), does not mean they have the right to substantiate their thoughts, when such directly and physically violates another person's basic right(s), such as physical violence, for example.

So what is the real issue here?

I propose that the issue is nothing more than political bullsh*t brought about to create popular issues to gain voter support for certain politicians. It's easy to make the law seem justified, as it plays on popular emotional biases that at first glance to most people, may seem like genuinely good ideas. This is all that seems to matter to most politicians(a seemingly good new idea in order to win votes).

-Chris

 

[jonnythan]

In itself, hate crime laws make certain lines of thought a crime.

No, they don't.

Hate crime laws create stiffer penalties for certain motives of acts that were already criminal.

Frankly, it does not matter what the 'hate crime' offender was thinking. All that matters is what they physically do.

Yes, it does. The offender's state of mind and motive is often of critical importance in a case. Sometimes it can be a mitigating factor and sometimes it is an aggravating factor.

 

[WmAx]

No, they don't.

Hate crime laws create stiffer penalties for certain motives of acts that were already criminal.

Motive? Line of thought. The crime itself it not thought. Nor should this be considered for sentencing. If John hates Bob, and wants to kill him because of such, he gets sentence A. If John randomly kills Dan for fun, whom he has no feeling towards, he gets sentence B. Both are blatant examples of intentional murder, and should be subject to the same stiff penalties. If not, so killing for fun is more tolerable than killing for hate?

Yes, it does. The offender's state of mind and motive is often of critical importance in a case. Sometimes it can be a mitigating factor and sometimes it is an aggravating factor.

You are starting to encompass the procedure in trial in determining actual guilt of defined crime. That is not the issue here. The issue is changing the sentence for a defined crime based on what the offender was thinking when such crime was committed. By questioning the motive and/or thought, it would be relevant for extenuating circumstances, that may not necessarily make the crime strictly defined as intended. For example, if Jon killed Dan because Dan continuously attacked or Jon had reason to believe genuine threat to his own life from Dan, but Jon executed this when not currently under an attack, other circumstances/motives may be applicable to the sentencing, and/or actual crime statute under which Jon is prosecuted, because this may be considered self-defense, in whole or partially, and the normal strict penalties may be relaxed as a result. But this is not strictly the subject here. The subject in this thread is a defined crime ( X crime has definitely been committed, and on purpose, and not for reasons of self-defense, etc.), and the sentencing of it based purely on line of thought of the offender.

-Chris

 

[jonnythan]

I'm not following you. Sentence A and sentence B are different sentences for the same crime but for different motives.

I gather that you're asking me if that's how it should be? That's how it is already.

There's a reason the penal code spells out what maximum penalties are and why juries or judges determine sentences. They don't just look up the penalty in a book. The nature of the crime, the convicted's frame of mind, and the motive are all taken into account during the sentencing phase of a trial after guilt has been determined.

 

[WmAx]

I'm not following you. Sentence A and sentence B are different sentences for the same crime but for different motives.

I gather that you're asking me if that's how it should be? That's how it is already.

Yes, I realize this is the already the way it is. But I wonder the logical reasoning in so far as my specific examples. Because in my example, all other variables are to remain constant. So, then one condition is considered worse than the other? Or one condition is considered more permissible than the other?

There's a reason the penal code spells out what maximum penalties are and why juries or judges determine sentences. They don't just look up the penalty in a book. The nature of the crime, the convicted's frame of mind, and the motive are all taken into account during the sentencing phase of a trial after guilt has been determined.

Right. Now you are considering trial procedure, where specific details are considered that may not strictly adhere to a crime by the book, or give plausible reason to re-consider the definition. (Was it really self defense? Was the offender mentally insane, thus not competent and/or aware of reality? Etc.) But this is not the subject of this thread. Here, we are discussing, that given all other variables being held constant, that sentence should be different for a criminal if their line of thought was different when committing the crime. For example above, I wanted to hear what logical reason allows for considering a lesser sentence(or harsher sentence) for 'fun' killing vs. 'hate' killing, all other variables held constant.

-Chris

 

[jonnythan]

I wanted to hear what logical reason allows for considering a lesser sentence(or harsher sentence) for 'fun' killing vs. 'hate' killing, all other variables held constant.

-Chris

One is presumably a random act, and one is perpetrated because of an ethnic stereotype.

Society considers one of these worse than the other. The harm to society is more when a human being makes it more dangerous to have a certain skin color than when a human being makes it more dangerous to be any random person.

Here's New York State's official explanation:
http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/ch107_hate_crimes_2000.htm

 

[WmAx]

One is presumably a random act, and one is perpetrated because of an ethnic stereotype.

Society considers one of these worse than the other. The harm to society is more when a human being makes it more dangerous to have a certain skin color than when a human being makes it more dangerous to be any random person.

Here's New York State's official explanation:
http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/ch107_hate_crimes_2000.htm

So, perpetually random murder is more permissible than a so-called hate crime, based on some laws in some places. Yes, I know of the laws, and claimed reasons. And I strongly disagree with them. Intentional murder, as an example, whether for hate, or for fun, all else being equal, deserves the same strict punishment. I am not specifying punishment, nor do I want to discuss that specifically (it's not the subject here, and I want to remain focused on a single point). But the penalty for both should be the same. Both are equally unacceptable.

As for the basis of hate crime laws; it comes down to thought(what person is thinking, or perspective towards others, base on his/her thoughts). I absolutely can not support anything that strives to control thought. I despise racial (or other types) of hate groups. But I would defend their right to think and/or say what they want, just as I would defend the right of myself or you or others in this country to say/think what they want.

-Chris

 

[jonnythan]

Of course both are unacceptable, that's why they're felonies.

Anyway, you're free to disagree with them. First amendment and all, government can't do anything to you for what you think.

My entire reason for even responding to you was to take issue with the line "In itself, hate crime laws make certain lines of thought a crime." This is obviously incorrect.

As for the rest of your crime laws opinions, I would assume that you are in favor of forbidding judges or juries to consider state of mind or motive in the sentencing phase of a trial. That's fine. I disagree with that. Thankfully, IMO, the justice system is on my side of that issue.

 

[WmAx]

My entire reason for even responding to you was to take issue with the line "In itself, hate crime laws make certain lines of thought a crime." This is obviously incorrect.

(1) Bob kills Andy. Bob killed Andy with weapon A in manner B in a time frame of C, at location D. Bob was thinking 'hate', as Andy is a different skin color, and his thought of 'hate' is why he killed Andy.

(2) Bob kills Andy. Bob killed Andy with weapon A in manner B in a time frame of C, at location D. Bob was thinking 'fun', because Bob finds pleasure in killing.

In many states, (2) would bring a lesser sentence than (1), as (1) qualifies for hate crime status. The difference? What the offender was thinking. So, under a specific condition, you are in fact making specific thought in itself, a punishable crime. That is only the start of it, if one is to base historical evolution of law making, where laws typically expand/evolve to cover more things/circumstances.

As for the rest of your crime laws opinions, I would assume that you are in favor of forbidding judges or juries to consider state of mind or motive in the sentencing phase of a trial. That's fine. I disagree with that. Thankfully, IMO, the justice system is on my side of that issue.

This is getting into trial procedure, which is not my intent here. I posed examples, where all else being equal, an intentional and specific defined crime was committed, the only variable being the state of thought of the offender. No extenuating circumstances. Not justifiable self defense(or debatable on the fringe of definition as self defense). Offender is sane.

-Chris