crime rates and hate crime

RavennaSeattle1911

who does the most hate crime?

qtegirl

RavennaSeattle1911 wrote:

who does the most hate crime?

So, you started a thread, but you want us to go and do the research for you?

Nice

know1

I don't like the term hate crime. I think it should be abolished.

rebornFixer

know1 wrote:

I don't like the term hate crime. I think it should be abolished.

Agreed. The term is politically loaded, and has no real criminal justice value.

jeffbr

If it is a crime, it is a crime regardless of whether the criminal loves or hates the victim. The notion of a hate crime makes no sense.

Coming back to life

jeffbr wrote:

If it is a crime, it is a crime regardless of whether the criminal loves or hates the victim. The notion of a hate crime makes no sense.

It makes every sense. If the crime wasn't motivated by hate it wouldn't have happened.

jeffbr

Coming back to life wrote:

It makes every sense. If the crime wasn't motivated by hate it wouldn't have happened.

It makes no sense. The movitation is irrelevant. The fact the crime is committed is what is relevant.

Coming back to life

jeffbr wrote:

It makes no sense. The movitation is irrelevant. The fact the crime is committed is what is relevant.

If it's something like murder, perhaps. But what about not giving someone a job? Surely if it's on hate grounds it's a crime, and the fact it's a hate crime makes it a crime? It's not a crime in the 1st place to not give someone a job because there's someone better.

chopitdown

RavennaSeattle1911 wrote:

who does the most hate crime?

haters

Ahnimus

Chris Rock's Mom

jeffbr

Coming back to life wrote:

If it's something like murder, perhaps. But what about not giving someone a job? Surely if it's on hate grounds it's a crime, and the fact it's a hate crime makes it a crime? It's not a crime in the 1st place to not give someone a job because there's someone better.

How do we know what the motivation was? Do we have a legal system that can devine intent? If we know he wasn't hired because of skin color, then intent is, once again, irrelevant.

farfromglorified

Coming back to life wrote:

It makes every sense. If the crime wasn't motivated by hate it wouldn't have happened.

:eek:

This is a very dangerous path you're treading. It opens the door to separating a man from his morality.

Coming back to life

jeffbr wrote:

How do we know what the motivation was? Do we have a legal system that can devine intent? If we know he wasn't hired because of skin color, then intent is, once again, irrelevant.

Er if he's caught admitting it?

surferdude

RavennaSeattle1911 wrote:

who does the most hate crime?

Hate crime laws are a joke. They evoke a legislated double standard and ensures the unequal treatment of people. Canada has hate crime legislation. Basically if you are hetero and get in a fight with a gay person the hetero person is open to having a hate crime tacked on, but not the gay person. Hate crime is built on the premise that a minority faction cannot be miotivated by hate. It's a joke, political correctness run amok.

rebornFixer

surferdude wrote:

Hate crime laws are a joke. They evoke a legislated double standard and ensures the unequal treatment of people. Canada has hate crime legislation. Basically if you are hetero and get in a fight with a gay person the hetero person is open to having a hate crime tacked on, but not the gay person. Hate crime is built on the premise that a minority faction cannot be miotivated by hate. It's a joke, political correctness run amok.

Indeed ... When you think about it, how is "hate" even a provable concept? I mean, in the fight example you used, it may or may not be the case that the hetero man hates gay people. Even in cases where the fight does seem precipitated by homophobia, how can that be proved in a court of law? Its stupid ... You'd have to be able to read someone's mind, unless the gay bashing was completely overt. Assault is assault. There's no need for special categories.

Ahnimus

In Canada it all comes down to whining en masse to the government.

Coming back to life

I think this is being blown way out of all proportion. Even in PC mad England it is very hard for someone to be convicted of a hate crime. The principle is the same as any crime - no sentence for the crime without proof. A few months back some people in the police were dealt with for discriminating against whites for employment. Try writing a letter to someone saying "I'm sorry you haven't got the job because you're a man" for a job which isn't gender relevant. You wouldn't last 5 seconds.

Riot_Rain

I'm no expert in legal stuff so I've got a question for the people who are:

1. Girl beat up and laptop stolen.
2. Girl beat up for no reason.
3. Girl beat up by boyfriend.
4. Girl beat up because she was seen holding hands with a girl.

What kind of crimes are all these? And why would number 4 not be hate crime?

I'm honestly, seriously interested in your answers

Heineken Helen

reborncareerist wrote:

Assault is assault. There's no need for special categories.

Exactly! If I'm assaulted, why is my assault so much less than if a minority is assaulted. I wouldn't feel like my assailant 'loved' me... so if he doesn't love me, what's the opposite to love? Hate! ALL crimes are hate crimes.

Riot_Rain

Heineken Helen wrote:

Exactly! If I'm assaulted, why is my assault so much less than if a minority is assaulted. I wouldn't feel like my assailant 'loved' me... so if he doesn't love me, what's the opposite to love? Hate! ALL crimes are hate crimes.

The other day, my girlfriend was hit in the face by a bloke who then tried to kiss me. Thankfully, I managed to push him off me. It was obvious he only did it because we were together

Whereas I agree that all crime should be punished equally, I don't mind them being labelled differently. A different label would enable a government to be aware of how many crimes of a certain kind have happened in a certain area over a certain amount of time. This would help when trying to stop the trend. If you get my drift

But as I said in my earlier post, I'd like to see what the legal-savvy think as well.

jeffbr

Riot_Rain wrote:

I'm no expert in legal stuff so I've got a question for the people who are:

1. Girl beat up and laptop stolen.
2. Girl beat up for no reason.
3. Girl beat up by boyfriend.
4. Girl beat up because she was seen holding hands with a girl.

What kind of crimes are all these? And why would number 4 not be hate crime?

I'm honestly, seriously interested in your answers

I know each are treated differently, but in reality 2,3 & 4 should be considered assault & battery, and 1 should be assault & battery + robbery.

In reality, #3 would be considered domestic violence, and in many jurisdictions the male would be given mandatory jail time, counselling, etc... on top of the battery charge. #4 would be considered a hate time and additional punishment added to the assault charge.

The point is, assault should be punished as assault.

Spin #4 around. What if your girlfriend didn't like the hetero couple's display of affection and ran over and smacked them. She'd likely be charged with battery, but there would be no hate tag tacked on. Why?

Another spin to #4 - what if 2 women were holding hands and someone ran up and smacked one of them. The victim believes it was because she's gay. In court it comes out that she was wearing a shirt that said "Fuck Mohammed" and the person committing battery was a muslim. Who committed the hate crime? The shirt wearer or the person committing the battery? The person who committed the battery should be punished for the battery, but should the shirt wearer be punished for speech that incited violence, or for a hate crime?

Let's make sure we punish the actual crimes committed rather than trying to devine what may or may not have been the motivation by the perpetrator of the crime.