A hate crime....

Reba said:
What if no hate is involved against a marginalized victim? Do they deserve less justice?
Click to expand...

you're confused - hate crimes only applies to crime motivated by hate.

So, if a black woman got beaten, not because she's black, then it's not a hate crime. say, she got beaten by her white boyfriend who is not bigoted, but very violent, it wouldn't be classified as a hate crime.

however, if a black woman got beaten by a white man who hates black people and chose to beat her just because she's black, then it's classified as a hate crime.
 
Reba said:
I suppose you have hard facts to back up that inflammatory accusation?
Click to expand...

Why is that so hard to believe? You can always accuse them of not being "real Christians" if that makes you feel any better . . .
 
DeafCaroline said:
you're confused - hate crimes only applies to crime motivated by hate.

So, if a black woman got beaten, not because she's black, then it's not a hate crime. say, she got beaten by her white boyfriend who is not bigoted, but very violent, it wouldn't be classified as a hate crime.

however, if a black woman got beaten by a white man who hates black people and chose to beat her just because she's black, then it's classified as a hate crime.
Click to expand...

Or being charged with a hate crime for criticizing Israel.
 
DeafCaroline said:
you're confused - hate crimes only applies to crime motivated by hate.

So, if a black woman got beaten, not because she's black, then it's not a hate crime. say, she got beaten by her white boyfriend who is not bigoted, but very violent, it wouldn't be classified as a hate crime.

however, if a black woman got beaten by a white man who hates black people and chose to beat her just because she's black, then it's classified as a hate crime.
Click to expand...

Correct. In the first example, it would fall under domestic/family violence, which is another special classification of laws that affect penalties. I don't see anyone advocating for the abolition of domestice/family violence laws because they create a protected group of women and children.
 
jillio said:
It was a rude awakening about the depravity of some people that I sincerely wish he had never had to experience. Nor his Iranian friend, either.
Click to expand...

I bet he served as a witness against his friend's attackers.
 
Beowulf said:
Or being charged with a hate crime for criticizing Israel.
Click to expand...

No one can be charged with a hate crime just for make a critical observation. Did someone actually get charged with this? if so, who? I would like to see exactly what the story was.
 
deafskeptic said:
I bet he served as a witness against his friend's attackers.
Click to expand...

Yes, he did. As did several other caring and social justice oriented people who were there. In fact, had they not been there to help the poor kid while waiting for police, he may have been killed.
 
jillio said:
You are kidding, right?:laugh2: If that were so, Black men would never have been lynched for not looking down when walking past a white woman.
Click to expand...
Unlike you, I don't find the Constitution to be a joke.

The laws have been in place. It's up to the authorities to properly enforce them. The lynchings were stopped BEFORE the hate crimes laws were enacted.

If you believe that the laws that were already in place were ignored what makes you think that hate crimes laws wouldn't be ignored? Doesn't it still boil down to enforcement?

So, a guy that gets into a fight with his friend in a bar and is charged with assault and someone who goes out "gay bashing" just for the pure fun of it should receive the same charges and the same penalties?
Click to expand...
If the same amount of damage is done, then, yes.

BTW, what was the motive for the bar fight?[/quote]

Please. Intent has always been a facet of our criminal codes.
Click to expand...
Not really. People are put on trial for their actions, not their intentions. (At least, so far; thought crimes haven't been put on the books yet.)

They are a step in the right direction. Doing nothing about the abominable situation is not.
Click to expand...
Putting hate crimes on the books, and doing nothing aren't the only two options.


That is directly measurable through intent.
Click to expand...
How do you measure "intent?" Is that quantifiable? Does one person hate 3.75 times as much as another person?


No, you can't. But you can certainly punish those that use their disgusting hatred to do harm to others.
Click to expand...
It's not necessary for hate crimes legislation in order to do that. Anyone who harms another should be punished, period.

That is what hate crimes laws are doing.
Click to expand...
That's what all laws should do. Additional laws for enforcing current laws aren't necessary.

To ingore the injustice perpetrated disproportionately on marginalized populations, and to say, "Hey, you get the same protection everyone else does" is a joke. The populations would not be marginalized in the first place if justice, opportunity, and rights were equal in this country.
Click to expand...
How do hate crimes protect marginalized populations who are victims of crimes that aren't hate based? They don't.

So-called hate crimes laws do nothing to protect marginalized victims from attack. They are feel-good panaceas that don't do much of anything productive.
 
This issue is a tad controversial for my thoughts/opinions of a resolution... It is sort of like discussing the death penalty, there are going to be some cases where it looks suiting and others where it a supposed innocent death could have been prevented if it were not for the penalty in the first place

The only thing I have in mind are to distinguish two major issues that stem from the debate.

#1, The government has rarely ever made to set the bar/standard for the public people, it is generally used to enforce and regulate what we cannot do rather than define the standard - that is usually us the people whom decide what the norms are.

#2, The reality of the issue begins between each and every one of us. Why are some of us intolerant of certain ethnicities or simply skin colors? Why do some of us dislike homosexuality?

As we are growing as purely innocent children, we are never exposed to it.
I took a photo of this at a carnival ride recently, (Click here to see it) observing the innocent equality on that kiddie ride. It reminds me and continues to show me that children do not develop these ideas by themselves, it is learned or passed to them as they grow up.

These behaviors are learned behaviors, now the question is how to address them?
 
jillio said:
My son was in high school during the period immediately following 9/11. He and an Iranian student went across the street from the school to have lunch at a Burger King. Four white youths jumped the Iranian youth and beat him senseless. Why? He "looked" like a Muslim. They were acting out of pure hatred. Were assault charges appropriate in this case? No. They were charged with a hate crime and they very well should have been.
Click to expand...
They weren't charged with assault? That's wrong.

Hate isn't a crime. Assault is a crime.

Feelings aren't a crime. Actions are a crime.

(I believe hate is a sin with its own repercussions but that's another topic.)
 
Back
Top