A hate crime.... - Page 10

**TXgolfer** · 11-15-2011, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

So lesser sentences for violent crime is the answer?

How does that correct disproportionate inequities?

Talk about a lack of understanding

jillio · 11-15-2011, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

but it didn't. that's why prisons are filled with minorities.

Exactly. Those lesser sentences are applied to the dominant society. It does not correct the inequities in sentencing or in application of the law.

**TXgolfer** · 11-15-2011, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

but it didn't. that's why prisons are filled with minorities. and that's why many white people get away with it in the past.

I disagree

jillio · 11-15-2011, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Heck, they might even beat you for wearing a SF Giants' jersey if they hate the Giants. Ask Brian Stow

You know, it is really annoying the way you sit behind the anonymity of your computer screen and try to minimize the importance of some of the social issues we discuss. You are a shining example of what acceptance without question of white male priviledge does to someone's ability to empathize and to think.

jillio · 11-15-2011, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

I disagree

On what basis?

**Jiro** · 11-15-2011, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

I disagree

that's ok.

apparently Supreme Court and legislators disagree with you as well.

**saywhatkid** · 11-15-2011, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

I wouldn't count on that. Or knowing the minister too well, either.

I'm not talking about bra sizes, or being pedophiles, or members of a hate group. I am talking about attendance. Attendance is a pretty strong indicator of how important church is to the person. If you go once a year, you most likely are not following the doctrine as closely as someone that attends every week.

Anyhow, gotta bow out of the religious end of this discussion, before the Thread Locking Hand of Mod comes swooping from the sky.

jillio · 11-15-2011, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

We are all sinners. They aren't singled out. One hundred percent of earth's population, past, present, and future are included. I'm included.

If anything, that's being inclusive, not exclusive.

That doesn't have a thing to do with application of the law. Nor of the influence of specific preachings that are decidedly exlusive and judgmental on the indivudual.

jillio · 11-15-2011, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

I'm not talking about bra sizes, or being pedophiles, or members of a hate group. I am talking about attendance. Attendance is a pretty strong indicator of how important church is to the person. If you go once a year, you most likely are not following the doctrine as closely as someone that attends every week.

Anyhow, gotta bow out of the religious end of this discussion, before the Thread Locking Hand of Mod comes swooping from the sky.

Yeah? Small church around here, maybe 125 or less members, been in existence with the same minister since his father opened the church when he was a boy, married 45 years, 4 adult children, pastor at the local hospital, there every Wed and twice on Sunday.

Just discovered to have been having an affair with a 14 year old member of the congregation with the 14 year old's mother's approval. I have many more details, but cannot disclose due to confidentiality.

Don't assume because someone parks their butt in a pew they are above doubt.

kokonut · 11-15-2011, 02:25 PM

A hate crime charge in court can create doubts on favoring that hate was a factor (e.g. hate blacks, gays, deaf people, etc) and reason for the crime only because the other person was different. A person is charged with beating up a person who happens to be gay. It wasn't about the person's orientation but something else that precipitated an attack on that individual. It turns into a thought police process. It create doubts for the wrong reasons. And it also creates a slippery slope problem when lesser crimes would be attached as a hate crime. And could de-evolve into a practice when the action itself isn't a crime (writing a book, for example) where the author would be charged with a new charge insisting what he wrote is a hate crime. It's the whole double jeopardy thing - getting charged twice for the same crime.

**saywhatkid** · 11-15-2011, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Yeah? Small church around here, maybe 125 or less members, been in existence with the same minister since his father opened the church when he was a boy, married 45 years, 4 adult children, pastor at the local hospital, there every Wed and twice on Sunday.

Just discovered to have been having an affair with a 14 year old member of the congregation with the 14 year old's mother's approval. I have many more details, but cannot disclose due to confidentiality.

Don't assume because someone parks their butt in a pew they are above doubt.

That is exactly why I park my butt in a pew every week. I am not without doubt. I do bad stuff every single day. Being religious does not provide a shield of perfection. It provides incentive to want to be a better person.

Out.

DeafCaroline · 11-15-2011, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

A hate crime charge in court can create doubts on favoring that hate was a factor (e.g. hate blacks, gays, deaf people, etc) and reason for the crime only because the other person was different. A person is charged with beating up a person who happens to be gay. It wasn't about the person's orientation but something else that precipitated an attack on that individual. It turns into a thought police process. It create doubts for the wrong reasons. And it also creates a slippery slope problem when lesser crimes would be attached as a hate crime. And could de-evolve into a practice when the action itself isn't a crime (writing a book, for example) where the author would be charged with a new charge insisting what he wrote is a hate crime. It's the whole double jeopardy thing - getting charged twice for the same crime.

That's why there has to be burden of proof that the crime was motivated by hate. It's not so easy to convict someone of hate crime if the proof is not in the pudding.

***naisho*** · 11-15-2011, 02:32 PM

Very interesting.
I am just researching the numbers and statistics about race from some of the arguments in the debate. I'll just leave this here for the sake of debate.

http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp - Federal Bureau of Prisons: Quick Facts

Code:

Last Updated: Saturday, 29 October 2011
Total population:                218,081
Total sentenced population:        199,039
Inmates in BOP facilities:        181,847
Inmates in privately-managed secure facilities*:    22,888
Inmates in other contract facilities^:            13,346
 

* Includes inmates housed in privately-managed secure facilities under contract with the BOP or with a state or local government that has an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the BOP.
^ Includes inmates housed in community corrections centers, home confinement, jail/short-term detention, contract juveniles, and long-term boarders.

US 2010 Census on Ethnicities/Race:

**TXgolfer** · 11-15-2011, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

You know, it is really annoying the way you sit behind the anonymity of your computer screen and try to minimize the importance of some of the social issues we discuss. You are a shining example of what acceptance without question of white male priviledge does to someone's ability to empathize and to think.

I could make it personal, but I won't since AD forbids it.

IMO the extra guesswork is unnecessary.

kokonut · 11-15-2011, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeafCaroline

That's why there has to be burden of proof that the crime was motivated by hate. It's not so easy to convict someone of hate crime if the proof is not in the pudding.

The problem can also become a double jeopardy problem.
Hate Crimes, Thought Crimes, Double Jeopardy - By David Freddoso - The Corner - National Review Online

**Jiro** · 11-15-2011, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

The problem can also become a double jeopardy problem.
Hate Crimes, Thought Crimes, Double Jeopardy - By David Freddoso - The Corner - National Review Online

can you explain to me in your own words how this can be a double jeopardy? has it ever happened?

**TXgolfer** · 11-15-2011, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naisho

Very interesting.
I am just researching the numbers and statistics about race from some of the arguments in the debate. I'll just leave this here for the sake of debate.

http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp - Federal Bureau of Prisons: Quick Facts

Code:

Last Updated: Saturday, 29 October 2011
Total population:                218,081
Total sentenced population:        199,039
Inmates in BOP facilities:        181,847
Inmates in privately-managed secure facilities*:    22,888
Inmates in other contract facilities^:            13,346
 

* Includes inmates housed in privately-managed secure facilities under contract with the BOP or with a state or local government that has an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the BOP.
^ Includes inmates housed in community corrections centers, home confinement, jail/short-term detention, contract juveniles, and long-term boarders.

US 2010 Census on Ethnicities/Race:

Wow, looks like we need to do something about the gender bias.

**Cheetah** · 11-15-2011, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

I would love to see stats on that.

You asked for stats, its not easy to read for the stats I wanted, but there is a lot of gold nuggets in this web site and I think it supports my position: Hate Crimes.

**Cheetah** · 11-15-2011, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Wow, looks like we need to do something about the gender bias.

You want to send more women to jail???? Seriously???

jillio · 11-15-2011, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

A hate crime charge in court can create doubts on favoring that hate was a factor (e.g. hate blacks, gays, deaf people, etc) and reason for the crime only because the other person was different. A person is charged with beating up a person who happens to be gay. It wasn't about the person's orientation but something else that precipitated an attack on that individual. It turns into a thought police process. It create doubts for the wrong reasons. And it also creates a slippery slope problem when lesser crimes would be attached as a hate crime. And could de-evolve into a practice when the action itself isn't a crime (writing a book, for example) where the author would be charged with a new charge insisting what he wrote is a hate crime. It's the whole double jeopardy thing - getting charged twice for the same crime.

Says the white priviledged male. Wait until someone bashes you in the head for running around saying "Twinkle, twinkle, twinkle." You'll change your mind.

Slippery slope arguments are totally ineffectual. Never has a slippery slope argument come to pass. It is simply a way to justify the unacceptable.

***naisho*** · 11-15-2011, 02:44 PM

BTW, on fig1 in ethnicities/races in prison, it should be sorted like this to see the real discrepancy. There are more spanish people in jail than whites, despite whites being the majority population in the US.

Code:

White:         24.3%
Hispanic:     34.3%
Black:         37.9%
Native Indian:     1.9%
Asian:         1.7%
TOTAL:        100.1%

Not sure how this last .1 comes out, but it does from calculation based on Federal Bureau of Prison's numbers.

jillio · 11-15-2011, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

can you explain to me in your own words how this can be a double jeopardy? has it ever happened?

It can't be.

**Daredevel7** · 11-15-2011, 02:45 PM

A question: Do you have a problem with idea of hate crime itself? Or do you have a problem with the ACCURACY of one being a "hate crime"? (i.e. some people tend to see Race 1 beating up a Race 2 as an automatic hate crime)

I'm wondering if people just reject the idea of hate crime or they see that the way hate crime being DETERMINED is too loosely defined, so it's better to not have it at all.

DeafCaroline · 11-15-2011, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

The problem can also become a double jeopardy problem.
Hate Crimes, Thought Crimes, Double Jeopardy - By David Freddoso - The Corner - National Review Online

Hate crimes is specific. It addresses violence motivated by hate. How can one be convicted of a hate crime if they were acquitted of the crime? it doesn't make sense.

Has there been a case where this had actually happened? Or is this all rhetorical "what if?"

The article is all "what if".

Secondly, if a person shot a gun and killed someone, they deserve to be punished and if they say they shot and killed someone because of that person's religion or sexual orientation or skin colour, they receive additional charges. You oppose this?

**TXgolfer** · 11-15-2011, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheetah

You asked for stats, its not easy to read for the stats I wanted, but there is a lot of gold nuggets in this web site and I think it supports my position: Hate Crimes.

Nothing here supports your statement.

**Daredevel7** · 11-15-2011, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naisho

BTW, on fig1 in ethnicities/races in prison, it should be sorted like this to see the real discrepancy. There are more spanish people in jail than whites, despite whites being the majority population in the US.

Code:

White:         24.3%
Hispanic:     34.3%
Black:         37.9%
Native Indian:     1.9%
Asian:         1.7%
TOTAL:        100.1%

Not sure how this last .1 comes out, but it does from calculation based on Federal Bureau of Prison's numbers.

It actually happens when you have data from Excel (or whatever program) and you reduce the significant digits, then you C&P these numbers with the reduced significant numbers to another spreadsheet, then add those up.

That's one way.

jillio · 11-15-2011, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

The problem can also become a double jeopardy problem.
Hate Crimes, Thought Crimes, Double Jeopardy - By David Freddoso - The Corner - National Review Online

Double jeopardy has virtually nothing to do with hate crimes. People are charged with more than one crime all the time. That does not create double jeopardy. That is just silly.

**Jiro** · 11-15-2011, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

A hate crime charge in court can create doubts on favoring that hate was a factor (e.g. hate blacks, gays, deaf people, etc) and reason for the crime only because the other person was different. A person is charged with beating up a person who happens to be gay. It wasn't about the person's orientation but something else that precipitated an attack on that individual. It turns into a thought police process. It create doubts for the wrong reasons. And it also creates a slippery slope problem when lesser crimes would be attached as a hate crime. And could de-evolve into a practice when the action itself isn't a crime (writing a book, for example) where the author would be charged with a new charge insisting what he wrote is a hate crime. It's the whole double jeopardy thing - getting charged twice for the same crime.

oh there it is. you've explained it already.

so I ask you this - has this happened before?

jillio · 11-15-2011, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Nothing here supports your statement.

Everything here supports it.

**Cheetah** · 11-15-2011, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

A question: Do you have a problem with idea of hate crime itself? Or do you have a problem with the ACCURACY of one being a "hate crime"? (i.e. some people tend to see Race 1 beating up a Race 2 as an automatic hate crime)

I'm wondering if people just reject the idea of hate crime or they see that the way hate crime being DETERMINED is too loosely defined, so it's better to not have it at all.

I think that's a fair argument. It might be that the criteria for qualifying as a hate crime needs to be tightened a up a bit. Meaning there needs to be more fact before a crime can be labeled as a hate crime and additional penalties added to a crime. That is assuming of course that our current method is too liberal. I don't know yet that it is.

11-15-2011, 02:25 PM	#280 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	A hate crime charge in court can create doubts on favoring that hate was a factor (e.g. hate blacks, gays, deaf people, etc) and reason for the crime only because the other person was different. A person is charged with beating up a person who happens to be gay. It wasn't about the person's orientation but something else that precipitated an attack on that individual. It turns into a thought police process. It create doubts for the wrong reasons. And it also creates a slippery slope problem when lesser crimes would be attached as a hate crime. And could de-evolve into a practice when the action itself isn't a crime (writing a book, for example) where the author would be charged with a new charge insisting what he wrote is a hate crime. It's the whole double jeopardy thing - getting charged twice for the same crime. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

11-15-2011, 02:44 PM	#291 (permalink)
*naisho* Forum Disorders M.D.,Ph.D Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 127.0.0.1 Posts: 6,161	BTW, on fig1 in ethnicities/races in prison, it should be sorted like this to see the real discrepancy. There are more spanish people in jail than whites, despite whites being the majority population in the US. Code: White: 24.3% Hispanic: 34.3% Black: 37.9% Native Indian: 1.9% Asian: 1.7% TOTAL: 100.1% Not sure how this last .1 comes out, but it does from calculation based on Federal Bureau of Prison's numbers. jillio likes this.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

11-15-2011, 02:45 PM	#293 (permalink)
Daredevel7 Adrenaline Junky Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 4,341	A question: Do you have a problem with idea of hate crime itself? Or do you have a problem with the ACCURACY of one being a "hate crime"? (i.e. some people tend to see Race 1 beating up a Race 2 as an automatic hate crime) I'm wondering if people just reject the idea of hate crime or they see that the way hate crime being DETERMINED is too loosely defined, so it's better to not have it at all.