Update (4/14): Have you ever been the victim of a “hate crime” but the perpetrator wasn’t charged with a hate crime? E-mail your story.
———————————————————————————————————–
Although a gang of black boys (up to 30!) beat four white girls bloody while calling them “white crackers” and shouting “black power,” the cops say it’s not a hate crime. No explanation appears in the article.
According to the New York penal code (crime occurred in New York), a hate crime is an offense “committed against persons intentionally selected ‘because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation’ of those persons.”
Beating white females and calling them “white crackers.” Sounds like a hate crime to me. Then again, who am I but a reasonable person living in the real world and not a pre-programmed politically correct grievance shopper living in a socialist utopia inside my own head?
Read about another non-hate crime where black football players knocked out a white man while he was dancing with his black wife because he’s a white man married to a black woman.
Judges in Georgia struck down this nonsense.
Remember the Hmong immigrant who killed white people in Wisconsin? Not a hate crime.
Imagine a couple of white men beating a homosexual to a bloody pulp while shouting “fag.” Wait a minute…that happened. The sordid incident was made into a made-for-TV movie! Both killers are serving life. And yes, it was called a hate crime.
Hate crime laws are designed to punish the thoughts of white, straight, Christian males. [Lest liberals think I'm calling all white males charged with hate crimes "Christians," I decided to strike it from the description.] Only blacks, homosexuals, Hispanics and Muslims (women, too, on a good day) are protected under these laws. I’m black, so I guess I qualify for the skin privilege.
My gratitude is gushing all over the place. Really.
{ 10 trackbacks }
{ 105 comments }
LaShawn, Diversity and ethnic identity are like dishware – each one shaped differently with different appearance, used in combination with one another on a daily basis. White pride, however, is the expensive china that’s locked away in a china cabinet and forbidden!
La Shawn,
I live in NYC and this is the first I am hearing of this incident. I guess the MSM doesn’t want to report this.
Emily
It may very well be a hate crime for a straight, Christian, conservative white guy to even comment on this politically correct duplicity. So I won’t.
All crime is born out of some type of hate or evil. To differentiate between them is to assign the wrong type of value to them and demeans the victim. Now the victims under the law are less of a human being than those with skin “color.”
To throw out a possibly hot question: Is this motivated by a revenge/guilt ethos designed to make whites feel the pain that minorities felt during slavery and segregation?
I truly don’t know the motivation behind declaring something a hate crime. I find it ridiculous, but I’m not in the shoes of those who argue so vociferously for it. I cannot find any logical reason to support hate crime legislation. Of course, that is probably why the trolls are going to come on here and call me racist anyways.
I liken this to the title from an earlier LB post: Senseless.
There’s a professor at Penn State doing research on this phenomenon. Part of Professor Goff’s research involves asking white people and people of color the same question about race pride and racial identification. He then manipulates the video such that white people’s statements seem to be said by people of color, and vice versa. When people are shown the white person saying the person of color’s words, viewer reaction is negative. However, the reaction to the white person’s words coming out of the person of color’s mouth is also negative. In other words, when a white person has racial pride it’s white supremacism, when a person of color does not evince appropriate race pride they’re oppressed or an Uncle Tom, but when a person of color evinces race pride it’s “cultural.” His research seems to suggest that the contradiction you observe in our hate crime laws and legislation extends to our deeper psychological understanding of good and bad versions of cultural pride, and an inability to talk about white cultural identification.
That was a hate crime.
Point to note: first prosectution of a hate crime was a Black man against a white person.
Lashawn
Thanks for addressing this. I’m glad someone has the courage to speak the truth about “hate crimes.”
Your examples illustrate the absurdity of such distinctions. Under almost identicle circumstances whites will be charged with hating and non-whites won’t. I usually ask those who propagate the myth of hate crimes if any of the following would meet the criteria:
1. White kid robs a black kid. Calls him racial slurs.
2. White kid robs a black kid.
3. Black man rapes a white woman.
4. Black man rapes a black woman.
5. White man rapes a black woman.
These things happen nearly every day in America. Where is the Hate Crime Squad? What’s the ruling?
The truth is obvious. There are no hate crimes. Those who insist on their existance are deceitful manipulators. They project their hatred of whites, America, capitalism, and men,just to name a few, on the rest of us and dare us to call them on it!
I’m white. I’m hoping someone can explain to me what “white cultural identification” is, because I have no idea.
I’m still waiting for the explanation of a “love crime”.
It’s too bad that we can’t just grow up as a culture and eliminate the stupidity of “hate crimes.” It’s just another stick used to beat an unprotected group.
If you kill someone unjustly, it’s murder. You should be prosecuted for that. But that you killed him/her unjustly AND they’re of a protected class – somehow that’s MORE murderous?
Makes me think that perhaps we aren’t really a nation of laws, but a nation of “those who hold the steering wheel, and those who sit in the back of the truck.”
It’s about somebody else started bringing attention to this contradiction. My husband is growing extremely weary of hearing me rant and rave over this very thing. It falls under my ever-growing category of “people are just plain stupid” awards.
DarkStar,
You’re right…it was a “hate crime” and those crimes deserve special punishment. My sons were attacked the same way years ago but escaped. If they had been hurt, I would have pressed for it to be classified as a hate crime. They were attacked entirely for the reason that they were white. The incident with the Hmong in Minnesota was not. He did not shoot them because they were white.
And everyone…hooray for standing up for us persecuted white guys! We’ve been dumped on for at least 20 years…how much more can we take!
And pajamazon, thanks for exposing me as a deceitful manipulator…I was hoping to stay in the DM closet until later in life. You are right…I hate whites, American, capitalism and men. Can you ever forgive me?
DS-
That may be true, but it is not how it is most commonly used, hence the understanding that is not equal in its application.
LaShawn,
My cousin’s husband claims that the SBA (Small Business Administration) gives female and non-white twice as good as male non-white. A black female is better then black male for the government.
James M. Barber
LaShawn
“Hate crime laws are designed to punish the thoughts of white, straight, Christian males.”
Its meant to punish the intent of criminals. For some reason, you may have it your head that it only applies to white, straight, christian males. To be accurate however, make sure to add at the end of your definition “who are criminals commiting a crime.” Hate crime or not, the underlying activity is still a crime.
pajamazon:
” These things happen nearly every day in America. Where is the Hate Crime Squad? What�s the ruling?”
The hate crime doesn’t depend on the conduct. It depends on the intent. It depends on a victim being chosen because of their race, gender, etc… It doesn’t depend on the victim being a particular race, gender, etc..
I understand the legal concept of intent, actus, which is why I call hate crime “thought crime.” Intent to kill a man, for example, is a crime whether or not the potential victim is a homosexual (and you’re not). His sexual proclivities should not be an added factor. It doesn’t matter and it’s very dangerous to punish someone because they don’t like homosexuals, or blacks or whoever. You punish the criminal for trying to kill someone, not because he didn’t the person’s skin color. – Admin
As I recall, I don’t think that an attacker has to actually utter an epithet to be charged under a hate crime statutue, Stan. I call what the Hmong immigrant did a hate crime, but this is a court of public opinion, not of law. The state can make a case and the fact-finder may infer from the evidence that a hate crime took place.
PC run amok
“His sexual proclivities should not be an added factor.”
Its not the sexual proclivities of the victim, its the intent of the criminal. Thus a victim who is not gay but who the attacker thinks is gay, and attacks because of that perception, is still a victim of a hate crime. A gay man who attacks another gay man, because that victim is gay, is perpetrating a hate crime. Don’t focus on the conduct, on the facts of who is who. Focus on the intent.
Don’t make a conduct based argument, an argument based on who is attacking who. The argument is based on “why” someone is being attacked, not who they are.
We punish these crimes more not because its wrong to dislike people based on these factors, but because its wrong to victimize them based on these factors. Because in a sense, an attack on a person based on these factors is a more broad-based attack than a simple attack on a person. Its an attempt to intimidate an entire community.
Actus, I know state of mind is a factor in many crimes, but whether a perpetrator calls the victim “fat” or “fag” while committing the crime doesn’t make him more culpable than if he’s committing it because he doesn’t like the guy’s shoes or is hungry but broke that day and decides to steal somebody’s money. The whole thing reeks of THOUGHT CRIME. The system would never get away with punishing thoughts without the underlying act, so how can you turn what the criminal is thinking into it’s own separate crime? It’s senseless. As for why someone committed a crime, there’s the element of motive; there are plenty of good reasons to take motive into account, but prosecuting someone who hates homosexuals is dangerous in itself. The only thing government may control and punish is my behavior, not my thoughts. HATE IS NOT A CRIME NOR SHOULD IT BE!
I have no sympathy for cops engaged in this kind of crap. We saw this all too often in the Jim-Crow South in the 1960’s.
Forgive me for being rude and vulgar, but there is a answer. The State of New York steps in, identifies the cops who lacked the guts, and fires those bastards now. Then start marching up the police chain of command with a very sharp machete and doing what has to be done. A thorough purge of the New York Police Department is very much in order! If they (the negligent and corrupt cops) don’t like it, they can move to some other state or even better just get out of the country now. If they don’t, they shouldn’t be surprised if they get that dreaded knock on the door in the middle of the night.
LaShawn,
I’ve always been flummoxed with how hate crime laws immediatley trivialize the very crime they are meant to clarify. Instead of dealing with the act of let’s say, murder, they start attempting to extract “reasons” for the murder.
So now a delineation is drawn between the guy who stabs a man for his black Reeboks and a guy who stabs a man for his black skin. The very idea of hate crime laws is to say that there are stratifications of evil.
Or, more simply put, we now have “murder” and “really mean murder.”
This is exactly the reason why God is one, and Jesus was not a committee–because hate crime laws have that “committee” thing written all over them. Imagine the Ten Commandments after they’ve been cheeseclothed through an oversight consortium. We’d all be going to hell, after they finished.
By the way, I’d write this on my own blog, but I’m a smart alec over there, so I go with: “Paroled Child Molester Given 25 Years For Spamming”
God Bless,
-T
How crazy is this world becoming?
You make a good point. Lady Justice has lost her blindfold in the interest of trying to right the balance of social injustice. I don’t think we should have some of these overly punitive weights in the law.
They are rarely equally distributed, as you’ve pointed out.
Actus:
ts meant to punish the intent of criminals. For some reason, you may have it your head that it only applies to white, straight, christian males.
Um, no. For some reason, LaShawn may have it in her head that (1) beating people up is a crime, and (2) black boys who did this to white girls weren’t committing a hate crime even though they screamed “black power” and “white cracker” at the time. We can’t get in their minds and know if their assault really was motivated by their (accurate) perception that the white girls were, um, white, but if it wasn’t, it sure is odd how far they went out of their own way to frame themselves for one crime while actually committing another.
You have a lot of guts to post that, because most of the people who have a similar ethinicity as yours would hate you for it.
Hate crime laws are designed to punish the thoughts of white, straight, Christian males. [Lest liberals think I'm calling all white males charged with hate crimes "Christians," I decided to strike it from the description.]
Yeah, right… You wrote it first (because that’s apparently what you believe), then decided to strike it from the description and, as if striking it out in print wasn’t sufficient, you went on to quite obviously tell everyone that you struck it from the description… um, because…? Oh, I dunno LaShawn, could it be that it’s an utterly bogus premise?
I find it amusing that you guys keep coming back to my blog. It’s sort of flattering in a strange way. Just use common sense and don’t insult me, and I’ll let you stay. – Admin
So is selective enforcement and prosecution of hate crime legislation … hate crime?
As La Shawn points out, “Hate crime laws are designed to punish the thoughts of white, straight…”
Clearly there are crimes, and some are motivated by hatred, but prejudicial enforcement is, it seems to me, more an indicator of a broken system than a populace run amok. But then, that is what we have, a broken system. We do the best we can with what we have.
There is hope, those who believe in the salvation of Christ wait for deliverance. In the mean time, we try to live as salt and light.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with sending your congressmen and senators (both State and Federal) letters asking them to oppose hate crime legislation, and pointing out the bias inherent in the current system.
Funnily enough, contrary to the posited number of _zero_ hate crimes against whites, John Ashcroft’s DoJ claimed in 2003 that over 1 in 5 hate crime victims were white. That’s somewhat more than zero.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03hc.pdf
I don’t think it helps to make broad claims that run counter to the facts.
I certainly didn’t say zero (perhaps someone did) because that would indeed be untrue. But take a look at those numbers, including the number of “anti-black” crimes and “anti-white” crimes. Remember that blacks are only 13 percent of the population. – Admin
The way to fix this is to have some state hate crime law struck down for “racially selective enforcement”.
If Democrats don’t come to terms with the fact that non-whites can be racist bigots too, there will be a resurgance of REAL white racism, as opposed to the bogeyman kind they constantly shout about.
First of all, I am not part of a gang (”you guys”). Secondly, I didn’t insult you — I said that in effect your premise was bogus.
I couldn’t help remarking on the way you struck out the comment and then had to point out you’d done so. That was kind of precious.
But I commend you for letting the original comment stand. Even though I still maintain that the moderation/editing/deleting thing is still a bit weird.
“odd how far they went out of their own way to frame themselves for one crime while actually committing another.”
Thats a bit of a misunderstanding, as one crime is included in the other.
Overly eager to make your point, you completely missed mine. If you had insulted me, your comment wouldn’t show up. This is tedious. I don’t know why I’m going back and forth with teenagers. People must be laughing at me wasting time on this.
Hate crime legislation is nothing more than a pandering ploy, largely perpetrated by white liberals who are wracked with imaginary guilt and a desperate need to feel good about themselves.
But when these same liberals impotently deal with the real world of crime and punishment, we get pathetically light prison sentences, unconscionably early releases, and dead little girls like Jessica Lundsford.
RedBeard, Amen to that.
As someone stated. There is no HATE crime. There is CRIME, that’s it.
LaShawn said it best….The thoughts shouldn’t be a crime…(even if stated during the incident….You can say things under duress that you wouldn’t say otherwise…..ANGER HAPPENS IN CRIME…ANGER GOES HAND IN HAND WITH HATE…EVERYTHING VIOLENT HAS HATRED IN IT (Crimewise)….)…The ACT should be the crime.
Hate crime laws are an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.
Here is way. Hate crimes biflucate criminal acts into both the action and the underlying belief. Beliefs are no more than unarticulated thoughs. The free expression of ideas is protected by the First Amendmnent. New York’s penal code treats two indentical actions, say battery, differently based on the actor’s percieved beliefs. Different legal treatment of different beliefs, not actions, is a clear violation of the First Amendment.
Stan.
OK Maybe you’re not a deceitful manipulator. Maybe you’re a big cry-baby. You didn’t mention how you aided your sons after what sounds like an awful incident (that happens every day).
You did say that you would have “pressed” for it to have been labeled a hate crime. Are you a lawyer? What benefit do your sons gain from your pressure?
Actus
“It depends on the intent.” I remember that bang-up job they did in Florida 2000 determining intent.
I notice both you guys didn’t answer my questions so I’ll ask only one this time. If a black man rapes a white woman because he is sexually attracted to white women, should his penalty differ from that of the black man who rapes a black woman?
“Beliefs are no more than unarticulated thoughs.”
They’re very articulated when they cause violence.
pajamazon
“It depends on the intent.” I remember that bang-up job they did in Florida 2000 determining intent.
Ya. based on marks on a ballot. I think there will be more evidence here. And if there isn’t evidence to a reasonable doubt, not problems.
“If a black man rapes a white woman because he is sexually attracted to white women, should his penalty differ from that of the black man who rapes a black woman?”
If he picked his victim because of race, then it sounds like a hate crime to me.
Actus.
“more evidence”……….FOR WHO? The hate crime commission? the truth patrol? the arbitrator of intent?
And you deserve credit for answering the question. But your answer is scary! A black man should receive a harsher penalty for raping a white woman than for raping a black woman! That clears things up……
Our home was completely spray painted with graffiti a few years back. It was malicious and very anti Christian. When we called the police we were told that if we were black, gay, or muslim, they could persue this but because we were white Christians the prosecutors in Detroit wouldn’t touch it. Ugh!
The paint turned out to be washable and we spent quite a few hours scrubbing our windows, siding, and vans. But because it was washable they didn’t consider it vandalism.
Spunky
Paloma if you’re still there
I’d like to find out more about the study you described.
pajamazon
“FOR WHO? The hate crime commission? the truth patrol? the arbitrator of intent?”
Well, juries. They determine intent all the time.
“A black man should receive a harsher penalty for raping a white woman than for raping a black woman! That clears things up”
It doesn’t really clear things up for you. No. Because you still are misunderstanding. If a black man believes all black women are some sort of evil, and rapes a black woman because of her race, thats a hate crime too.
Its not about the race of the attacker, or the race of the victim. Its about the intent of the attacker. Is the attacker picking a victim based on race?
Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez!
Sorry Lashawn. I could have better articulated my last comment.
actus
So. It’s a hate crime if a rapist rapes out of a projection of evil in a quasi-pseudo-socio way.
The whole concept of a ‘hate crime’ is ridiculously stupid to me. Being a black man, to me, it is immaterial if someone beats me up or defaces my property because I am black, or because they simply dislike me, the crime remains the same and I expect justice the same.
The danger with hate crimes is that it attempts to punish based upon ‘thought’ when in effect it is simply the actions of an individual which should be punish.
Wrong is wrong in terms of crime regardless of race. I say eliminate hate crime laws.
“So. It’s a hate crime if a rapist rapes out of a projection of evil in a quasi-pseudo-socio way.”
I mentioned evil because I wanted to describe a plausible race-based attack. Maybe that was too confusing. Otherwise, I don’t know how you’re getting to this. If one picks a victim based on race, then it’s a hate crime. Its not that hard.
If I want to hurt a japanese person, and I attack someone because of that, then its a hate crime. It doens’t matter if I’m japanese, or even if my victim is japanese. It just matters if I picked my victim due to my perception of their national origin.
If a black guy attacks a white guy and steals his wallet, and when questioned by the police says “I wanted his wallet b/c white people are richer,” is this a hate crime — or an “economic crime”? If not a hate crime, how come? The attacker specifically targeted a white person!
These hate crime laws are so crazy, as a white guy i’m going to protect myself by working on my tan and joining GLAD.
Actus, so if I car-jack a mercedes because I hate rich people, then it’s a hate-crime in your book?
Got it.
Still leftist pyschobabble to me because for the rich person, they’re covered and will just get another. Meanwhile the single mom is screwed when her clunker and sole source of transportation is taken away.
What don’t you understand that any deliberate crime is in of itself hate driven?
This is what happens when people are so open-minded, it all leaks out.
actus
I don’t want to beat a dead horse (too late?) But I think I understand your position. You’re saying that the only way rape can be considered a hate crime is if the rapist “wants to hurt” the victim of diferent race. Does the rapist “want to hurt?” Are only Treblinka style rapes hate crimes? Are everyday (literally) interacial rapes not hate crimes because the rapist LOVES his victims?- answer to MarkLaRoi’s question re. LOVE CRIMES!
So, as you say, if this same black criminal robbed a store because because the owners are asian he is committing a hate crime. Or does his desire have to be specific to-say-Korean?
Talk about slippery slopes! Now it’s the taxpayer’s job to provide trials and lawyers and judges to determine what type of errections are hateful and the geopolitical awareness of thugs.
Or as the Founding Fathers had in mind, let’s criminalize actions. Not words or thought.
Assumption One: Crimes are either more or less serious, depending on the thoughts and feelings of those who commit them.
Assumption Two: Government should be able to penalize citizens for how they think.
They even have their own website and prominent among the ‘hate-mongers’ is Jerry Falwell and Adolf Hitler(Jerry Falwell being listed ahead of Adolf Hitler) all of course, Right-wing-fanatics,
I didn’t see Joseph Stalins name anywhere, Stalin is credited with murdering some 27 million people in the Soviet Union and Poland, and Hungary and the Balkans or whereever he found them, but then again he and Roosevelt were great Buds) on the Monger list just Right-Wing nuts.(Religious Nuts) I wonder why that is nor did I see The Emperor of Japan listed along with his partner adolf.
So let me get this straight(no pun intended), if a straight guy murders a Homosexual that is a hate crime but if a homosexual murders a homosexual this is NOT a hate crime,,, but if the government orders/permits the murder of millions of babies this is not a hate crime either it is called CHOICE.
How convoluted can the Left become
pajamazon:
“Actus, so if I car-jack a mercedes because I hate rich people, then it’s a hate-crime in your book?”
I don’t think economic position is one of the categories. We may even already take it into account: we may be more lenient on people who are hungry, and steal bread from those that have enough to eat, rather than on those who simply steal mercedes’ cuz they bring a lot of money.
“Does the rapist “want to hurt?” Are only Treblinka style rapes hate crimes? Are everyday (literally) interacial rapes not hate crimes because the rapist LOVES his victims?- answer to MarkLaRoi’s question re. LOVE CRIMES!”
I think you’re completely lost. If he picks his victim on account of race, then its a hate crime.
I really think you’ve got a very serious problem if you think rape has anything to do with love.
“So, as you say, if this same black criminal robbed a store because because the owners are asian he is committing a hate crime. Or does his desire have to be specific to-say-Korean?”
Has he picked his victim because of race or national origin? I think you can figure that one out for yourself no?
Mark:
“So let me get this straight(no pun intended), if a straight guy murders a Homosexual that is a hate crime but if a homosexual murders a homosexual this is NOT a hate crime?”
No.
Actus,
so if I assault a Latino and don’t say anything it’s assault, punishable by maybe a year, but if I assault a Latino and say ’spic’ it’s a hate crime punishable by, say 10 years? That doesn’t make sense for a couple reasons. First, it flies in the face of equal protection under the Law; it creates classes of victims for the same crime.
More importantly — although unpleasant, free speech, even vile speech, is protected. There’s a reason we don’t prosecute people for what they say (within limits of course — yelling fire in a theater, inciting violence, etc.). In cases such as the ones we’re discussing here, even speech isn’t enough to show intent. Although the kids yelled cracker, etc. at the whites, did they attack them BECAUSE they were white? Because they were invading their territory? Because they were hogging their bball court? Who knows? What if, instead of cracker, they yelled bitch? Would that mean they were attacked because they were female? You can’t tell.
“so if I assault a Latino and don’t say anything it’s assault, punishable by maybe a year, but if I assault a Latino and say ’spic’ it’s a hate crime punishable by, say 10 years?”
Did you pick a victim because of their race? And I have no idea what size the sentence enhacements are.
“Who knows? What if, instead of cracker, they yelled bitch? Would that mean they were attacked because they were female? You can’t tell.”
If you can’t tell, then the DA won’t be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury.
Actus:
Do you really think that a woman who was raped by a man with Gerswin tunes going through his head is any less severe than a woman getting raped by a man with (insert the hate crime of your choice) going through his?
Also, according to your logic above, if you attack a Norwegian Gent because you want to show your displeasure with the Japanese (your words) how is that correlated to a hate crime. If that could be called a hate crime then there is no end and anything could be considered a hate crime based on the whims of the judge and attorneys, (parking tickets, speeding, voting, etc.)
Perhaps I am reading you wrong, if so I apologize. But from what I can see, your logic loopey, absolutely nuts!
actus writes, “Well, juries. They determine intent all the time.”
That’s odd. I thought juries were supposed to decide whether or not the defendant commmitted the crime that he/she was charged with. The juries I’ve served on did exactly that.
Where are you from? They must do things differently in your world.
actus, I don’t want to beat a dead horse
Watch it Pajamazon. That could be a hate crime against necro-equine-Americans. It depends on whether you hate horses, or corpses, and if that can be proved in court. But would it matter if your hatred for an individual (not implying that you hate Actus, per se) motivated you to beat the necro-equine, would that be hate crime? Or would your hate have to be motivated based on the individual’s appearance/gender/religion, rather than thoughts or actions, to count?
I wonder…
Leave actus alone. He’s so confused he can no longer sensibly articulate his thoughts.
Speaking of thoughts, let’s say that I hate black people. (I don’t, but we’re theorizing here.) So I decide that I’m going to kill a black person, and I do. But I’ve never told anyone that I hate black people, and I deliberately commit the crime in a way that makes it look completely random.
Better yet, lets say I kill lots of black people, but I make sure to kill lots of other people as well, to cover up my “hate crimes”.
Have I committed hate crimes? By actus’ definition I have.
But how would you know? I have a constitutional right not to testify. If I refuse to tell anyone why I committed the crimes, then no one but me will ever know the reason.
Even better. Let’s say you do know that I hate black people and that’s why I killed them. How does that impact my sentence when I’m found guilty? Are you going to use two injections instead of one?
Hate crime legislation is stupid. It won’t make James Byrd’s depraved killers (John King and Shawn Berry) any more guilty or any less dead (when they’re executed – at least here in Texas we kill them.)
It’s the quintessential “feel good” legislation that does nothing but give politicians and others vast quantities of speech material with which to befuddle the masses.
Actus, that’s my point. You can’t tell someone’s motivation by what they say, yet words, and only words, are used to charge hate crimes. And if you trust juries to ingnore overzealous prosecution ….
W.MN:
“Do you really think that a woman who was raped by a man with Gerswin tunes going through his head is any less severe than a woman getting raped by a man with (insert the hate crime of your choice) going through his?”
I think that it can be more appropriate to level greater opprobrium on certain intents, because they represent greater evils. In some cases they may even represent an attempt to terrorize and intimidate a whole community.
“Also, according to your logic above, if you attack a Norwegian Gent because you want to show your displeasure with the Japanese (your words) how is that correlated to a hate crime.”
Did I pick my victim because of how I perceived his race or national origin?
antimedia:
“I thought juries were supposed to decide whether or not the defendant commmitted the crime that he/she was charged with. The juries I’ve served on did exactly that.”
Intent is an element of most crimes. And if it does nothing, then what’s the worry?
Actus,
You’ve done a wonderful job of explaining your position in spite of the wretched hyperbole used by some of the other folk. I admire your patience and ability to keep your focus. I am not familiar enough with the actual legislation to say too much. I do agree that it’s necessary but it appears that some changes might need to be made. Perhaps you could answer a question or two…Exactly when was the legislation enacted and was it white-on-black crime that instigated it? Where might I read the actual legislation itself?
“Exactly when was the legislation enacted and was it white-on-black crime that instigated it? Where might I read the actual legislation itself?”
I don’t know the specifics on this particular legislation. I also don’t know much about the history, or even the current data, on disparate impact of hate crimes and the laws that cover them.
Working backwards using hate crime logic, would I get a reduced prison term if I smile at the liquor store clerk while I’m robbing him?
Ted “Unabomber” K blew people up because he hated their careers, and wanted to intimidate their comunities (scientist, scholars, others) into abandoning the industrialization of the world….
Would that make his terrorist attacks also hate crimes?
Or only if a victim was of a certain gender/race/sexuality?
Actus is in the unenviable position of defending a stupid law. Whether it makes sense in light of human nature and constitutional constraints is inmaterial. Sort of like what defense attorneys must do — do their utmost to get their obviously guilty clients off.
Actus, if I’m ever in your jury pool, just go ahead and strike me out. Even tho I would do my utmost to be impartial, I just don’t want to have to endure months, at reduced pay, listening to you spin justice on her head.
SCSIwuzzy:
“Or only if a victim was of a certain gender/race/sexuality?”
Only if the victim was picked because of its perceived “gender/race/sexuality.”
Actus writes, “antimedia:
“I thought juries were supposed to decide whether or not the defendant commmitted the crime that he/she was charged with. The juries I�ve served on did exactly that.â€
Intent is an element of most crimes. And if it does nothing, then what’s the worry?”
Being an element of a crime and being something a jury is supposed to consider is two different things. As a juror, you are charged with determining the facts of the case, not the intent of the defendant.
Frequently juries do consider intent, because attorneys strive hard to get them to, but that is not the jury’s job. They are the triers of the facts only.
Intent may be considered in the punishment phase, and there it is appropriate. But throwing intent into the fact portion of the trial only serves to muddy the waters.
I’m amazed, however, that you can argue the merits of legislation that you are ignorant of.
For a good summary of the history of hate crime legislation including arguments pro and con, go to About.com. For hate crime statistics, go to The Office of Justice Programs. Then you can argue intelligently on the topic. Or, if you hate plowing through the raw data, you can find a summary here.
Bottom line? Every hate crime requires the concurrent commission of an underlying criminal offense. IOW, first you commit a crime. Then we determine if it was a hate crime as well.
If some people in this country have their way, that will change. Eventually you will be exposed to criminal liability merely for speaking what others decide is “hate speech”. It’s already happening on our college campuses and has been for some time.
“Only if the victim was picked because of its perceived “gender/race/sexuality.””
How does that not demean the victims of similar crimes where they were picked indiscriminantly? It violates two principles of our Constitution, which is the freedom of ideas and equal protection under the law.
My initial question has gone unanswered, and I would like anyone who has a theory to answer:
Is this motivated by a revenge/guilt ethos designed to make whites feel the pain that minorities felt during slavery and segregation?
I also have a second:
Is it motivated by some guilt ridden longing to make social justice instead of exercising criminal justice?
No matter which way you look at it, it violates the concepts of equal protection, freedom of ideas and their expression, and it demeans other victims of crime.
I’m not a fan of hate crime laws, but it’s not out of the ordinary to have the same crime possibly charged in different ways: first degree murder vs. second degree murder vs. manslaughter, all based on perceived thoughts.
Pre-medidated, out of anger or in the commission of a crime, or recklessness.
Having written that, in Anne Arundel County, MD, a few months ago, a Black male teenager, was beat up and killed by white male teenagers. People who saw the fight said the white teenagers had an argument with the Black male teenager because he was with a white girl.
The Anne Arundel police looked into the crime and didn’t charge any teenagers with murder, of any category, or even assult. The NAACP spoke out as well as the family and friends of the family. The feds stepped in and investigated. The Anne Arundel police then arrested the white teens and have charged them with murder and assult.
No hate crime was charged.
In Rockville, MD, about 6 years ago, two white men were going around hitting people, all Black, with baseball bats as they drove by the people who were walking. Hate crimes were never charged.
DS-
I’m glad you brought that up. That is what those crime designations (first degree, second, manslaughter, etc.)are for. They are the arbiters of the seriousness and the intent of the crimes. That is what the law was written for.
We don’t need additional legislation, the apparatus to punish already exists. We must simply work within the existing framework.
All the more to prove that “hate crime” legislation has an altogether different motive behind it than to punish crimes. Perhaps it is to emotionally soothe those that cry that justice is not enough?
“Being an element of a crime and being something a jury is supposed to consider is two different things. As a juror, you are charged with determining the facts of the case, not the intent of the defendant.”
Elements of the crime have to be proved to jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Intent is one of those. It is a fact question that juries resolve. When there is homocide, juries are asked to determine between murder (roughly, the death was intentional) and manslaughter (roughly, it was not, it was an accident due to negligence).
“How does that not demean the victims of similar crimes where they were picked indiscriminantly? ”
Because those crimes are punished the way we regularly punish crimes. If you think those punishments are demeaning to victims, up them. The basic idea behind hate crimes is that this method of picking victims is particularly odious to society.
All crime is odious to society. We already have an existing framework for the punishment of crime. There is no need to politicize crime, which is what we have done. Justice that does not serve everyone truly serves no one.
To me, “hate crime” legislation serves the same wrong minded purpose as affirmative action and gay marraige.
The basic idea behind hate crimes is that this method of picking victims is particularly odious to society.
So… sending bombs to college professors and researchers whose work may have benefited the military industrial complex… picking a victim on this criteria is where on the odious scale?
So Actus, you’re admitting that the judicial system, historically, offered a way to discern the seriousness of similar crimes based upon intent. That rather destroys the raison d’etre of the additional, unnecessary and hopelessly subjective layer of legal mush known as hate crime laws.
“picking a victim on this criteria is where on the odious scale?”
Capital punishment, or in his case, bargained down to life w/o parole.
” There is no need to politicize crime, which is what we have done. Justice that does not serve everyone truly serves no one.”
This justice serves everyone, black or white, we can all be targetted because of our race or sexuality.
That might be true in theory, Actus, but we all well know the genuine application of the “hate crime” law. Hate crime laws do not serve everyone.
When an angry African-American parent tried to harm our head coach and his “white b— wife” after a game, hate crime was nowhere in sight. This assault and our being called racist epithets because of our skin color constituted a “hate crime” but would never, ever be considered so by an elected District Attorney. The parent was charged with assault.
Hate crime laws are designed for certain groups, born out of the lobbying by certain groups. Until it is evenly applied, you will never, ever convince me that it is justice for everyone in real world application. The mere talk of even application would stir protests from every minority interest group in the country. Hate crime is not about even application. It is a tool for “get even” justice, a tool to placate minority interest groups who hold politicians to the fire. When you get down to it is no different than affirmative action. It is race/sexual orientation/sometimes gender preferences.
It’s great to talk about ideals and how it “should” be and what it’s “supposed” to be. That’s just some high-minded talk that really doesn’t fly out on the street.
“That might be true in theory, Actus, but we all well know the genuine application of the “hate crime†law. Hate crime laws do not serve everyone.”
I’d like to see some numbers. I’ve heard of anecdotes, such as this one that LB gave us. I’m sure these stats are kept.
“This assault and our being called racist epithets because of our skin color constituted a “hate crime†but would never, ever be considered so by an elected District Attorney”
The definition of hate crime i’ve been working from is not for when someone uses racist slurs during a crime, but for when someone picks a victim because of a race.
So depending on the facts, such as if a fight started for some reaosn, and then in the middle racist words were used out of the anger that existed for other reasons, its not a hate crime. At least I think it shouldn’t be.
Chris Roberts said it perfectly. And, I see, actus (or anyone else, for that matter) wasn’t inclined to answer my previous question about a black guy targeting a white “b/c he thinks white people are richer” — is that an “economic” crime or a “hate” crime. The target was selected, after all, for his race.
“So Actus, you’re admitting that the judicial system, historically, offered a way to discern the seriousness of similar crimes based upon intent.”
Certainly. Hate crime laws provide a statutory basis and regularity to that. Instead of a jury or judge idiosyncratically doing things, we do them with more regularity and proof of elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
” The target was selected, after all, for his race.”
That answers the question doesn’t it? If the statue is about selecting targets based on race, there you have it. If the statute is about bias motivation, it may not quite fit your facts however.
But I’ve (and many others) read/seen numerous anecdotes that didn’t label such a “hate” crime b/c authorities said the motive was economics!
So there is NO “that answers the question, doesn’t it”. There is NO “there you have it”.
Hate crimes are selectively applied, and they do NOT apply to minority groups nearly to the same degree as the majority.
“But I’ve (and many others) read/seen numerous anecdotes that didn’t label such a “hate†crime b/c authorities said the motive was economics!”
Maybe I’ve been working from a different definition than those authorities. Maybe they look at bias motivation instead of “because of their race.” In your hypothetical, it wouldn’t be bias motivation, but it would be “because of their race.”
La Shawn points out that according to the NY code, a hate crime is one “committed against persons intentionally selected ‘because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation’ of those persons.â€
I just can’t help wondering if the code would be applicable to a male of any color/nationality raping a woman of any color/nationality. Because, well, isn’t a female rape victim targeted specifically, and for no other reason than because she is – umm – female?
Maybe we should start calling ALL rapes “hate rapes.”
In your hypothetical, it wouldn’t be bias motivation, but it would be “because of their race.â€
Yeesh. And the difference is ….?
Actus
The laws are almost all on the books, You and someone else mentioned Arundel Maryland where the authorities did NOT do their job and arrest the white kids who murdered the Black teenager.
Is this not all about enforcing the Law equally regardless of color, sexual orientation, status in the community and ,I cant think of anymore,.but as it is written ,equal justice under the law.
I don’t see how calling a murder, rape, assault (or whatever) + hate crime lessens or makes more severe the primary crime already commited, in the case of murder an innocent life was taken.
The way the law (hate-crime)is written it would appear that it would be applied equally, but the authorities interpret it differently and it appears on How PC the prosecutor is, whether it is prosecuted as a hate crime.
It seems to me they have merely re-defined Motive:
Where Motive A: would be reason, sound or unsound but all evidence point to the perpetrator.
Motive B: would be, this is a hate crime therefore it is more henious that motive-A, therefore they prosecute the case with more vigor than a normal motive-A crime.
“Yeesh. And the difference is ….? ”
A different result. “because of their race” will capture the non-bias reasons you’ve outlined, such as economic motive. “bias motivated” will not.
Actus,
The parent made race “the issue” in his attack and in his previous comments about me and the Head Coach (who is mixed). His motivations earlier may have been different, but his accusations towards me were clear that race was the issue.
Has anything of substance been solved via hate crimes prosecutions?
Redbeard: AFAIK, nada. Certainly nothing that couldn’t have been solved and punished with age-old laws.
“His motivations earlier may have been different, but his accusations towards me were clear that race was the issue.”
Was the attack on you motivated by bias? Is that what you mean by “the issue”? or was there another beef and then racial slurs were used, well, because they are hurtful and we try to use them just like we would try to throw punches?
A running iron is a device for changing a cattle brand and is a tool of rustlers. A cowboy was arrested and charged with rustling because he was carrying a running iron. The prosecuter said that having the tool was proof enough. The cowboy then said “You better charge me with rape, too, cause I sure have the tools.”
Now, you see why it’s dangerous to have this PC ideology on what constitutes as a “hate crime” when people think that “non-whites” (pick your PC poison) are incapable of a “hate crime”.
Sordid stuff.
As a coach, being white is the issue. Many African-American parents believe I’m unqualified because of my skin color. They state that I cannot relate to their sons because I am white.
So, Actus, based on my previous experiences in my field, and the actions of this parent, I can reasonably conclude that racial bias was an issue.
If the litmus test were the other way around, would I be held to the same high standard to determine whether or not my actions were a hate crime?
PC culture teaches us that I will not, which is where I have the problem in the first place.
“If the litmus test were the other way around, would I be held to the same high standard to determine whether or not my actions were a hate crime?”
What high standards? The question is the same: Is it a bias motivatived crime.
And there is the central problem with hate crime laws. It’s impossible to accurately determine what is in a man’s heart at the time he commits a crime. To make such a finding is so subjective as to be useless.
Hey, LaShawn, long-time-no-comment…glad to see you’re keeping up the great work.
As we who have seen the “race issue” as the divisive, sophomoric trivial pursuit that it is (as presented by the Left) continue to move forward and gain numbers and support, the Left continues to grow more desperate and hysterical. These cowardly and unjust actions on the part of police and judiciary officials, along with a complicent media, are are a prime example of this. We are seeing essentially the same thing put forward in this issue as was perpetrated against the Jews of Central Europe, especially evident when considering that the “everything-is-the-evil-whites’-fault” has become school curricula.
Oh, but a mass bloodbath could never happen in AMERICA…
The same Germany which offered highly sophisticated culture and education, ingenious, precise engineering and design, and the most advanced military organization in the world also offered concentration camps, Zyklon-B, gas chambers, and Army winter coats stuffed with camp victims’ hair as insulation.
The same China which was the birthplace of strategist/philosopher Sun-Tzu (around 500 B.C.), whose writings were mandatory reading for Russian KGB entrants, was also the birthplace of Party Chairman Mao Tse-Tung, who stated that “power comes from the barrel of a gun” and who had the great “honor” of appearing in the Guinness Book of World Records as being the perpetrator of at least 26 million murders.
Couldn’t happen in America? Yes, it could.
Let’s pursue our Lord with every fibre of our being, brothers and sisters. Whatever takes place on this earth does not nullify at all His covenant and promises to those go His Way. II Peter 1!!!!!!
God bless one and all…
“It’s impossible to accurately determine what is in a man’s heart at the time he commits a crime. To make such a finding is so subjective as to be useless.”
Juries are often asked to determine what is in people’s hearts and minds. What their intent was.
My point, Actus, is that “determining bias” is not equally applied. If I were the perpetrator, and had committed the same type of offense, you can bet almost 100% that I would have been charged with a hate crime.
I would hope that you question others in the same manner as you have me.
“My point, Actus, is that “determining bias†is not equally applied. ”
So is a lot of criminal law. And we have ways of challenging that. I agree that unequally applied laws are wrong.
Trying to apply the law equally is indeed a difficult mission. So why add another layer of complexity, particularly one as hopelessly subjective as hate crime law? Seems like that will only make the equal application of justice more difficult.
“So why add another layer of complexity, particularly one as hopelessly subjective as hate crime law”
I don’t think its hopelessly subjective.
So Actus….. does this mean you won’t be changing your mind?
i work in NYC, but (again) this is the very first time i heard/read about it, days late. if perps were white, that clown of a councilman, charles barron would have led demonstrations & MSM would dutifully report every of them. wrong victims, this time…
This is a crime regardless of the victims color and the suspects suspects should be tried convicted and sent to prison for the rest of their lives
This is astonishing. People here are actually arguing that desecrating a synagogue or spray painting racist threats on a minority family’s home is no different than scratching your girlfriend or boyfriend’s name in an alleyway is insanity.
–Cobra
Comments on this entry are closed.