A hate crime....

jillio said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
kokonut said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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. :hmm:

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
 
[SIZE=1]
* 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.[/SIZE]
attachment.php


US 2010 Census on Ethnicities/Race:

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • federalPrison.jpg
    federalPrison.jpg
    36 KB · Views: 23
  • Census2010.jpg
    Census2010.jpg
    84.2 KB · Views: 23
jillio said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

IMO the extra guesswork is unnecessary.
 
naisho said:
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. :hmm:

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
 
[SIZE=1]
* 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.[/SIZE]
attachment.php


US 2010 Census on Ethnicities/Race:

attachment.php
Click to expand...

Wow, looks like we need to do something about the gender bias. :hmm:
 
kokonut said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.:cool2:

Slippery slope arguments are totally ineffectual. Never has a slippery slope argument come to pass. It is simply a way to justify the unacceptable.
 
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.
 
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.
 
kokonut said:
The problem can also become a double jeopardy problem.
Hate Crimes, Thought Crimes, Double Jeopardy - By David Freddoso - The Corner - National Review Online
Click to expand...

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?
 
naisho said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
kokonut said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

so I ask you this - has this happened before?
 
Daredevel7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Back
Top