A hate crime....

[Reba]

My best friend is gay and she's been in a 17 year relationship with a cop who is now the sergeant lieutenant. She loves being a cop and is damn proud of it but she admits homophobia is alive and well in the police force and has gotten very angry when some cops would make fun of gay men who got beaten then called them for help. And she admitted that when calls came from poor ghetto-ized areas, the police are far more slow to react than if the crime took place in a better more upscale area.

it would be nice if law was truly impartial and would look only at the facts but they don't and act upon those facts only.

It's all about interpretation of the law. That's how it really plays out.

So, have hate crimes laws resolved the above problems?

 

[DeafCaroline]

Reba: "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."

And if the laws are not properly enforced because of personal biases, then what?

 

[Cheetah]

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?


If the same amount of damage is done, then, yes.

BTW, what was the motive for the bar fight?


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.)


Putting hate crimes on the books, and doing nothing aren't the only two options.



How do you measure "intent?" Is that quantifiable? Does one person hate 3.75 times as much as another person?



It's not necessary for hate crimes legislation in order to do that. Anyone who harms another should be punished, period.


That's what all laws should do. Additional laws for enforcing current laws aren't necessary.


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.

So, you don't believe that hate motivated attacks are a problem? Do you believe that society is just fine the way it is and we should not worry about "hate" issues?

 

[DeafCaroline]

So, have hate crimes laws resolved the above problems?

Yes, partially. The law and order system, generally speaking, is far from perfect.

 

[deafskeptic]

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.

I'm glad that they were there to save PJ's friend. I hope he wasn't too badly hurt.

 

[Reba]

Ummm, Reba, that is a true statement. It is not against you personally. My Iraq veteran friends tell me stories.

Your Iraq veteran friends' stories prove this?

"the Christian population in this country perpetrates more hatred toward others than any other group"

I'm not doubting anyone's anecdotes but that's not the same as making such an inflammatory statement that includes an entire population.

If they've taken an actual count of all hatred towards of others, and taken an actual survey of which group each hater belonged to, and compared them, then there might be some basis. Otherwise, it's a statement pulled out of the air (or some other nether region).

 

[deafskeptic]

Yes, partially. The law and order system, generally speaking, is far from perfect.

There are times when I think it's far from being good.

 

[deafskeptic]

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?

food for thought.

 

[jillio]

Unlike you, I don't find the Constitution to be a joke.

I don't find the Constitution to be a joke either. I find the inequitable application of the Constitution to be unnacceptable, and the claim that all people of this nation are equally protected by it 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.
So, because we haven't had a black man hung from a tree since the 1960's, we don't need to address the violence currently being perpetrated by marginalized populations in this country?
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?
The law has to be there before it can be enforced.


If the same amount of damage is done, then, yes.

Unbelievable.

BTW, what was the motive for the bar fight?

Two idiots with too much alcohol in their system.


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.)

You are very wrong. If intent was not a fact of the law, we would not have differential sentencing. First degree murder and manslaughter would carry the same sentence.

Putting hate crimes on the books, and doing nothing aren't the only two options.

Then, please, tell us what your other options would be.



How do you measure "intent?" Is that quantifiable? Does one person hate 3.75 times as much as another person?

Everything does not have to be quantified to be present.



It's not necessary for hate crimes legislation in order to do that. Anyone who harms another should be punished, period.

Okay. Then the driver that has an accident and kills another human being in the process should be subject to the same punishment as someone who commits the act of first degree murder. Is that what you are saying?

That's what all laws should do. Additional laws for enforcing current laws aren't necessary.

If the current laws are being enforced disporportionately, and they are on an everyday basis, then regulation in some form is needed. For that, quite obviously, there needs to be legal repurcussions for disproportionate enforcement.

How do hate crimes protect marginalized populations who are victims of crimes that aren't hate based? They don't.

They aren't intended to. They are specific to those crimes that are committed from a position of hate.
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.[/QUOTE]

The punish the hate filled. They provide equitable justice to the victim.

 

[Beowulf]

Your Iraq veteran friends' stories prove this?

"the Christian population in this country perpetrates more hatred toward others than any other group"

I'm not doubting anyone's anecdotes but that's not the same as making such an inflammatory statement that includes an entire population.

If they've taken an actual count of all hatred towards of others, and taken an actual survey of which group each hater belonged to, and compared them, then there might be some basis. Otherwise, it's a statement pulled out of the air (or some other nether region).

Relax, Reba, nobody is accusing you of not being a true Christian. However, a good study of world history will show the fact.

 

[DeafCaroline]

OpEdNews - Article: Criminalizing Criticism of Israel

Hey, checked out the article - it's an opinion piece. Not factual. And the law he was talking about was the hate crime law. The writer is assuming that because of the hate crime laws, one can't criticize a country that happens to be made up mostly of Jewish citizens. He's distorting based on his own perceptions.

I would like to see any exact wording within the hate crime laws that says it's criminal to criticize political acts of a country.

the Israel Lobby and the hate crime laws are two different and separate issues. he's criticizing the Israel Lobby for attempting to abuse the hate crime laws.

 

[Beowulf]

Hey, checked out the article - it's an opinion piece. Not factual. And the law he was talking about was the hate crime law. The writer is assuming that because of the hate crime laws, one can't criticize a country that happens to be made up mostly of Jewish citizens. He's distorting based on his own perceptions.

I would like to see any exact wording within the hate crime laws that says it's criminal to criticize political acts of a country.

the Israel Lobby and the hate crime laws are two different and separate issues. he's criticizing the Israel Lobby for attempting to abuse the hate crime laws.

Imagine my relief!
I just wanted to point out the broad categories hate crime laws can cover, and the naivete of believing there won't be consequences. Perhaps I need to work on my paranoia.

 

[Reba]

"the Christian population in this country perpetrates more hatred toward others than any other group"

History. More violence has been committed against others in the name of the Bible than for any other reason. The Bible has been used to sanction slavery and the inhumane treatment of slaves, to sanction and justify the oppression of women, to justify pediophilia, to sanction and justify the inhumane treatment of the GLTB population, to promote hatred of other religions, and on and on and on.

The Bible and Christian preachers has been used to support movements against slavery, against segregation, against oppression and violence, against pedophilia, and against inhumane treatment of any people. Christians in America established schools (including schools for the Deaf), hospitals, and social agencies for helping the poor.

I'm a Christian, and I've never heard any preacher in my church or churches that I've visited promote hatred of any other religions or people.

Christians are no more perfect people than any other group but a blanket statement that condemns them as a population certainly isn't accurate.

How many people here would condone a statement that "the Muslim population in this country perpetrates more hatred toward others than any other group?"

That would be equally wrong, and rightly condemned.

Just one of the reason that hate crimes and separation of Church and state are so necessary.

How lovely of you to put the church and hate crimes together in one sentence. :roll:

I suppose any violence done against a Christian person, organization, or property would not be included as a hate crime.

BTW, when the mods come on board, I hope you remember that it wasn't me who brought up the "Christian" topic.

 

[DeafCaroline]

Your Iraq veteran friends' stories prove this?

"the Christian population in this country perpetrates more hatred toward others than any other group"

I'm not doubting anyone's anecdotes but that's not the same as making such an inflammatory statement that includes an entire population.

If they've taken an actual count of all hatred towards of others, and taken an actual survey of which group each hater belonged to, and compared them, then there might be some basis. Otherwise, it's a statement pulled out of the air (or some other nether region).

Again, are you saying Christians have played no role in enacting bigoted crimes against their fellow citizens?

The majority of America is made up of white people. the majority of white Americans are Christians or so-called Christians. Now think about the history of America...

 

[Reba]

Do you have hard facts to prove her wrong?

It's up to the person making the accusation to make her case.

Just like our law system. It's up to the prosecution to make a case for guilt. It's not up to the defense to make a case of innocence.

 

[jillio]

Imagine my relief!
I just wanted to point out the broad categories hate crime laws can cover, and the naivete of believing there won't be consequences. Perhaps I need to work on my paranoia.

There are consequences to everything. But in this case, they were a bit distorted. He tried to use a "slippery slope" argument.

 

[DeafCaroline]

I suppose any violence done against a Christian person, organization, or property would not be included as a hate crime.

If a christian was beaten BECAUSE they're Christian, then yes, they would fall under hate crime laws.

Again, hate crime laws are applied to crime MOTIVATED by hatred and bigotry. The reason the hate crime laws were made in the first place were because of two guys - one was a gay college student who was severely tortured then beaten because he's gay. The other, a black man, was tied to the back of a car and dragged till he died. Both of those crimes were motivated by hatred and bigotry against their sexual orientation or skin colour.

So, having said this, if a Christian got severely tortured then killed for his religious beliefs, yes, it would be considered a hate crime.

 

[DeafCaroline]

It's up to the person making the accusation to make her case.

Just like our law system. It's up to the prosecution to make a case for guilt. It's not up to the defense to make a case of innocence.

Nice evasion.

 

[Reba]

Again, are you saying Christians have played no role in enacting bigoted crimes against their fellow citizens?

Did you not read my post? I said that I don't doubt their anecdotes. I've also many times posted that Christians are not infallible, and that individual Christians do bad things, etc. I've never said that no Christians are involved in bad actions.

The majority of America is made up of white people. the majority of white Americans are Christians or so-called Christians. Now think about the history of America...

Are you saying that the majority of Americans have been involved in doing evil in the history of America?

I'm glad that you at least called them "so-called" Christians.

 

[jillio]

"the Christian population in this country perpetrates more hatred toward others than any other group"


The Bible and Christian preachers has been used to support movements against slavery, against segregation, against oppression and violence, against pedophilia, and against inhumane treatment of any people. Christians in America established schools (including schools for the Deaf), hospitals, and social agencies for helping the poor.

I'm a Christian, and I've never heard any preacher in my church or churches that I've visited promote hatred of any other religions or people.

Christians are no more perfect people than any other group but a blanket statement that condemns them as a population certainly isn't accurate.

How many people here would condone a statement that "the Muslim population in this country perpetrates more hatred toward others than any other group?"

That would be equally wrong, and rightly condemned.


How lovely of you to put the church and hate crimes together in one sentence. :roll:

I suppose any violence done against a Christian person, organization, or property would not be included as a hate crime.

BTW, when the mods come on board, I hope you remember that it wasn't me who brought up the "Christian" topic.

Perhaps then, your experience is limited and your focus a bit narrow. I offered the title of a documentary in another thread, but you stated that you "don't rent movies." I think it can safely be assumed that you are therefore, refusing to take a look at any information outside of what you already choose to believe. It is really a shame, too, because the documentary had several Biblical scholars and ministers speaking on exactly that topic.