A hate crime....

[Jiro]

Baseball is played with a ball.....it is a sport

Football is played with a ball....it is a sport

Are they the same (ask George Carlin )

"hate crime laws" do nothing to insure equal justice racially or otherwise. Getting hit with a bat is getting hit with a bat and the criminals should serve equal (and long) sentences. "Hate crime laws" do nothing to make the sentences equal.

So what about the past when racism was high? why is it that white people were able to get away with it and black people can't?

 

[TXgolfer]

That is exactly where your logic leads. Premeditation and motive are not to be considered as a factor in determining the seriousness of the act. Appears you have talked yourself into a corner.

Nah, that is your logic

In the real world "accidental shootings" are not charged as a crime at all unless negligence is involved and even then it is not tried as murder with the death penalty involved. We are talking about equal sentences for equal crimes. Apparently you had trouble understanding the "assuming all other factors are the same" part

 

[jillio]

Jillio, there are Federal drug laws and State drug laws. In the cities that were suffering from the epidemic(like Philly) our legislators pushed for harsher sentences for crack dealers by hoping to deter them.

We all know what the unintended consequences of laws meaning to deter behavior are...

More minorities wound up in prison for what was meant to protect the communities in the first place. Even though it was essentially the same drug!

You are a bit confused regarding the social construction of drug laws. Why would we need more protection from crack cocaine users than from powder cocaine users? Misperceptions of the general public regarding the use and abuse of the substance and of the substance itself.

 

[kokonut]

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?

It's an attempt to play the thought police of what that person was supposedly thinking that led to that crime.

You're charged of crime.....you get the slammer.

But! The same criminal act you're charged of a hate crime...you get the slammer and more time.

Same violence. Same suffering. Different charges.

Again, playing the thought police becomes increasingly problematic. That's' not a solution by calling it a hate crime but creates a slippery slope problem down the road when it starts to apply to other things not of criminal in nature but could be called a new kind of "hate crime."

 

[DaveM]

So all large cities needed Democratic mayors to provide the impetus for the laws that exist today, in regards to crack cocaine? Or is it just Philadelphia?

No. It's just a fact that the poorest cities in America have elected only Democrats for decades. Philly hasn't had a Republican since 1952. Detroit, not since 1961. Camden, Newark, Baltimore, etc.... All the same.

BTW, I'm not mocking Democrats. I'm simply pointing out that it was big government types with their "well meaning" legislation that did this.

 

[TXgolfer]

So what about the past when racism was high? why is it that white people were able to get away with it and black people can't?

Again, has nothing to do with "hate crime laws".

 

[jillio]

Nah, that is your logic

In the real world "accidental shootings" are not charged as a crime at all unless negligence is involved and even then it is not tried as murder with the death penalty involved. We are talking about equal sentences for equal crimes. Apparently you had trouble understanding the "assuming all other factors are the same" part

There is still a dead body. You seem to think that the results of the crime are all that matters. Dead body is a dead body. Murder, pure and simple.

Person beaten is a person beaten. Assault.

 

[jillio]

Again, has nothing to do with "hate crime laws".

You didn't REALLY say this, did you?

I guess you are not going to address the questions posed to you in post#347. It's okay. I knew you wouldn't.

 

[jillio]

No. It's just a fact that the poorest cities in America have elected only Democrats for decades. Philly hasn't had a Republican since 1952. Detroit, not since 1961. Camden, Newark, Baltimore, etc.... All the same.

BTW, I'm not mocking Democrats. I'm simply pointing out that it was big government types with their "well meaning" legislation that did this.

Please elaborate.

 

[saywhatkid]

Wow, DD and other statisticians, check this one out.


If we say that crime is equal and happens to everyone equally (ie, 50% good 50% bad random figure) then it would say that the percentage of people in jail should reflect or be equal to the population, right?

Well, I combined both the census and the BoP stats and apparently it's not so. Are blacks, indians, and spanish people really more violent than white and asian folks? If they aren't, then why are there more in jail?

Blacks:        38,929,319 (12.6% of USA population)
...in jail:    82,595    (37.9% of jail population)
Percentage of black population in jail: 0.212%

[B]Hispanics:    50,477,594 (16.3% of USA population)[/B]
[B]...in jail:    43,839 (34.3% of jail population*)[/B]
[B]Percentage of spanish popluation in jail: 0.086%*[/B]
 
Whites:        196,817,552 (63.7% of USA population)
...in jail:    31,058 (24.3% of jail population)
Percentage of white population in jail: 0.015%
 
[B]Native Indians:    2,932,248 (0.9% of USA population)[/B]
[B]...in jail:    4,035    (1.9% of jail population)[/B]
[B]Percentage of indian population in jail: 0.137%[/B]
 
Asians:        14,674,252 (4.8% of USA population)
...in jail:    3,641    (1.7% of jail population)
Percentage of asian population in jail: 0.024%

* likely includes hispanics that are detained whose native citizenships are from mexico or south america, etc, so have to be careful of what to assume from that data.

We could make a case for Native Americans as well. Even with those detained for citizenship issues, Hispanics are barely over half as likely to be in jail as Native Americans.

 

[jillio]

It's an attempt to play the thought police of what that person was supposedly thinking that led to that crime.

You're charged of crime.....you get the slammer.

But! The same criminal act you're charged of a hate crime...you get the slammer and more time.

Same violence. Same suffering. Different charges.

Again, playing the thought police becomes increasingly problematic. That's' not a solution by calling it a hate crime but creates a slippery slope problem down the road when it starts to apply to other things not of criminal in nature but could be called a new kind of "hate crime."

Here we go with the Orwellian paranoia again.

Hate crimes are not prosecuted based on a guess of what someone was thinking.:roll:

 

[DaveM]

You are a bit confused regarding the social construction of drug laws. Why would we need more protection from crack cocaine users than from powder cocaine users? Misperceptions of the general public regarding the use and abuse of the substance and of the substance itself.

I agree with you, Jillion. We shouldn't have had longer sentences for crack dealers/users in the first place.

It happened because people were trying to pass legislation at the time that they thought would "protect" poor communities.

Remember all the hype with the so called crack baby epidemic? Mayors literally panicked.

 

[jillio]

We could make a case for Native Americans as well. Even with those detained for citizenship issues, Hispanics are barely over half as likely to be in jail as Native Americans.

Exactly.

 

[saywhatkid]

No. It's just a fact that the poorest cities in America have elected only Democrats for decades. Philly hasn't had a Republican since 1952. Detroit, not since 1961. Camden, Newark, Baltimore, etc.... All the same.

BTW, I'm not mocking Democrats. I'm simply pointing out that it was big government types with their "well meaning" legislation that did this.

Given your mention of Democrats, it is obviously an important part of your post. I note that a lot of those cities are east coast, except for Detroit. I would also venture that they were all predominantly black at the time of the crack binge.

 

[Jiro]

Jillio, there are Federal drug laws and State drug laws. In the cities that were suffering from the epidemic(like Philly) our legislators pushed for harsher sentences for crack dealers by hoping to deter them.

We all know what the unintended consequences of laws meaning to deter behavior are...

More minorities wound up in prison for what was meant to protect the communities in the first place. Even though it was essentially the same drug!

so why this madness?

For the past three decades, those arrested for crack offenses -- mostly young, African American men -- faced far harsher penalties than the white and Hispanic suspects most often caught with powder cocaine. A person found holding 500 grams of powder cocaine would face a five-year mandatory minimum; crack offenders would have to be in possession of a mere 5 grams to face the same obligatory sentence. Crack offenders faced a 10-year mandatory minimum for carrying 10 grams of the drug; the same penalty would not kick in for a powder-cocaine suspect unless caught with 1,000 grams.

10 years mandatory for 10 grams of crack and 1,000 grams of powder-cocaine... 1,000 grams is enough to distribute to dozens of people and 10 grams of crack is enough for distribute to probably less than 7 people. does it make any sense to you?

let's not kid ourselves in here... the communities wanted to get rid of low-class minorities while overlooking cocaine sniffers in power

 

[Jiro]

It's an attempt to play the thought police of what that person was supposedly thinking that led to that crime.

You're charged of crime.....you get the slammer.

But! The same criminal act you're charged of a hate crime...you get the slammer and more time.

Same violence. Same suffering. Different charges.

Again, playing the thought police becomes increasingly problematic. That's' not a solution by calling it a hate crime but creates a slippery slope problem down the road when it starts to apply to other things not of criminal in nature but could be called a new kind of "hate crime."

so.... has it happened before?

 

[naisho]

We could make a case for Native Americans as well. Even with those detained for citizenship issues, Hispanics are barely over half as likely to be in jail as Native Americans.

Did you notice one major point from the data?
There are more white people than anyone else in the USA, by far, and they're the least of all categories to be in jail. That is really, really weird to see this -- (well, not really) but it does prove a point: whites are the most least likely to be in jail despite the largest amount of people.

 

[DeafCaroline]

Here we go with the Orwellian paranoia again.

Hate crimes are not prosecuted based on a guess of what someone was thinking.:roll:

You run someone over - you could be charged for manslaughter. You run over someone intentionally because they're gay or black or a woman or developmentally challenged, you would be charged for murder.

You're not being tried twice, but your sentencing would be more severe.

 

[jillio]

Given your mention of Democrats, it is obviously an important part of your post. I note that a lot of those cities are east coast, except for Detroit. I would also venture that they were all predominantly black at the time of the crack binge.

See there. I knew that open mind would win out!:P

 

[DeafCaroline]

so.... has it happened before?

Yeah, I asked him that question too.