A hate crime....

Reba said:
It is the assault that is the crime, not the emotion of hate.

Person A can hate Person B with all his heart and mind. Is that a crime? No.

Person A beats up Person B with a baseball bat. Is that a crime? Yes.

If there is no hate crimes law in place, will the beating still be a crime? Yes.

When assault is committed for any reason or no reason at all, it's still a crime.
Click to expand...

The emotion of hate precipitates the crime. One is free to hate. One is not free to stomp innocent people in the face just because they hate. Are you being purposely obtuse? Or do you truly not understand the impact of motive on criminal sentencing?
 
Reba said:
It is the assault that is the crime, not the emotion of hate.

Person A can hate Person B with all his heart and mind. Is that a crime? No.

Person A beats up Person B with a baseball bat. Is that a crime? Yes.

If there is no hate crimes law in place, will the beating still be a crime? Yes.

When assault is committed for any reason or no reason at all, it's still a crime.
Click to expand...

Maybe you would like to study Tomati's Method?
 
jillio said:
So, it is not okay to make inflammatory statements about Christians, but it is okay for Christians to make inflammatory statements regarding marginalized populations? I see.
Click to expand...
No, it's not right to make inflammatory statements about any group. In fact, at AD, I believe it's against the posting rules.
 
Reba said:
No, it's not right to make inflammatory statements about any group. In fact, at AD, I believe it's against the posting rules.
Click to expand...

Then it is a rule that is consistently broken, even by you.:cool2:

My statement was not inflammatory. It was historical fact. If you find that inflammatory, then that is not really my problem. Perhaps you should not take things so personally.
 
jillio said:
The emotion of hate precipitates the crime. One is free to hate. One is not free to stomp innocent people in the face just because they hate. Are you being purposely obtuse? Or do you truly not understand the impact of motive on criminal sentencing?
Click to expand...
No, I'm not obtuse. Are you ignorant of how courts carry out sentencing?

People convicted of crimes of violence are convicted for the violence, not the emotions.

If anything, proving hate adds another burden to the prosecution's case. Instead of just having to prove that the defendant clobbered the victim, now the prosecutor has to prove what was in the defendant's heart at the time. Of course, he has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. More opportunities for the defending lawyer to insert that doubt.
 
DeafCaroline said:
depends what you are accusing them of.

It all comes down to math. Just look at what white Americans have done in the history of America, since its founding...particularly in terms of violence towards minorities and Jews.

Most of those white Americans considered themselves Christians. We don't need to provide proof, one only needs common sense and a good education of American history to see that indeed, this is so.
Click to expand...

I note you limit yourself to America only. However, in worldwide history the black popluation of the world has been most guilty of hate crimes agains other races and religions than any other group. From the beginning of mankind.

BTW: don't ask for link/proof for this post and I won't do the same for your post #181.......fair is fair
 
jillio said:
Then it is a rule that is consistently broken, even by you.:cool2:
Click to expand...
Really? Which group have I made false accusations about?

My statement was not inflammatory. It was historical fact.
Click to expand...
In that case, you should have no problem providing numbers to back up your claim.

If you find that inflammatory, then that is not really my problem. Perhaps you should not take things so personally.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should not make unfounded remarks about a group to which I belong.
 
Reba said:
No, I'm not obtuse. Are you ignorant of how courts carry out sentencing?

People convicted of crimes of violence are convicted for the violence, not the emotions.

If anything, proving hate adds another burden to the prosecution's case. Instead of just having to prove that the defendant clobbered the victim, now the prosecutor has to prove what was in the defendant's heart at the time. Of course, he has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. More opportunities for the defending lawyer to insert that doubt.
Click to expand...

I'm sure prosecutes take into account the likelihood of conviction before attempting to charge someone with a Hate Crime. I highly doubt that hate crimes has increased the cost of prosecuting crimes, especially when you consider that hate crime laws has impacted social behavior in a positive way (we talk a lot more about hate crime now than ever before - more people are aware of how their actions relate to their bias).
 
Cheetah said:
I'm sure prosecutes take into account the likelihood of conviction before attempting to charge someone with a Hate Crime. I highly doubt that hate crimes has increased the cost of prosecuting crimes, especially when you consider that hate crime laws has impacted social behavior in a positive way (we talk a lot more about hate crime now than ever before - more people are aware of how their actions relate to their bias).
Click to expand...

And not only that, the court has the bear the burden of proving the crime was motivated by hate.
 
Reba said:
No, I'm not obtuse. Are you ignorant of how courts carry out sentencing?

Not in the least. Are you ignorant of the way motive impacts sentencing?

People convicted of crimes of violence are convicted for the violence, not the emotions.

In which universe?

If anything, proving hate adds another burden to the prosecution's case. Instead of just having to prove that the defendant clobbered the victim, now the prosecutor has to prove what was in the defendant's heart at the time. Of course, he has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. More opportunities for the defending lawyer to insert that doubt.
Click to expand...

In the cases of people charged with hate crimes, it is doesn't take a great deal of effort to support the charge. They have to prove motive, anyway. Motive impacts sentencing. That is why there are minimum and maximum sentencing times embedded in our criminal courts.

"Oh, my. It is hard to prove someone committed a crime based on hate. Let's not go there. I just don't have the energy to deal with that today."

What do you call the crimes committed by Skinhead organizations against innocent black citizens of this country? Doesn't take Einstein to see the hate.
 
Reba said:
Perhaps you should not make unfounded remarks about a group to which I belong.
Click to expand...

her remarks are not unfounded. Have there been more hate crimes committed against minorities and Jews than against white Christians?

Yes.

Of the hate crimes committed against minorities and jews, was the majority of the offenders white?

Yes (because they are not classified as minorities).

Do the majority of white people in America consider themselves Christians?

Yes.

1 + 1 = 2
 
DeafCaroline said:
her remarks are not unfounded. Have there been more hate crimes committed against minorities and Jews than against white Christians?

Yes.

Of the hate crimes committed against minorities and jews, was the majority of the offenders white?

Yes (because they are not classified as minorities).

Do the majority of white people in America consider themselves Christians?

Yes.

1 + 1 = 2
Click to expand...

Exactly. If you choose membership in a group with that history, then perhaps you need to be prepared to be a bit objective when history is brought into the discussion.
 
Reba said:
So how exactly does enacting a hate crime resolve that inequity?

Suppose:

1. White man beats black woman.

2. White man beats white woman.

3. Black man beats black woman.

4. Black man beats white woman.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but this is not a very good example. I mean, you might as well ask:

Suppose:

1. A person assaults another person. Is this first or second degree of assault?

2. A person kills another person. Is this murder or manslaughter?

3. A man assaulted a woman. Is this rape, another type of sexual assault or simply 1st/2nd degree of assault?

4. A person hits and kills another person by car. Is this murder or vehicular manslaughter or simply an accident?

There is a SEVERE lack of information to decide. It seems like you are assuming that a hate crime is judged based ONLY on race. This is wrong. I won't say that it has never happened before, but that is the wrong thing to do. I believe it's wrong to label something as "hate crime" based on race ONLY.

We have degrees of assault. We have degrees of murder. Heck, I think we even have different degrees of sexual assault. Why is it okay for those to have different degrees while believing that "hate crime" shouldn't exist?

Don't you think a woman would be pissed if she finds out that her perp (who savagely beat her up) got less time than another perp who only simply raped another woman? (or vice versa, not sure who would get more time)

See my point? Everyone's gonna get pissed no matter what, even if everything was equal.

Can't make 'em happy....
 
^^^^ yep, pretty tame considering other threads...
 
Since when is any assault NOT a hate crime? Do assaulters actually like their victims?
 
Back
Top