crime rates and hate crime
RavennaSeattle1911
Posts: 478
who does the most hate crime?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Nice
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Agreed. The term is politically loaded, and has no real criminal justice value.
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.
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.
haters
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.
:eek:
This is a very dangerous path you're treading. It opens the door to separating a man from his morality.
Er if he's caught admitting it?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
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.
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'm discarding all thought
I'll dry up, leaving puddles on the ground
I'm like an opening band for the sun
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
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.
I'm discarding all thought
I'll dry up, leaving puddles on the ground
I'm like an opening band for the sun
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.
................................................
What happened, exactly? Curious ... I'd be shocked if these laws actually did anything to protect the rights of a majority group.
Hate crimes ARE different, regardless of how similar you can make them look to other crimes on a case-by-case basis. These laws have nothing to do with being PC.
And to answer the original question: racists commit the most hate crimes.
http://hate-crime.website-works.com/hate-students.htm#STATS
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004885.html
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I don't know ... You raise some good points, but one could also argue that ALL crimes affect specific communities, not just individuals. If there are people being assaulted in my neighborhood for ANY reason, there's a major problem. People in the entire neighborhood are going to be concerned, not just members of one group. Let's say someone firebombs a mosque or a synagogue in my neighborhood. Maybe not everyone things like I do, but I think that would bother me a lot, and I am neither Jewish nor Muslim. Arson is bad no matter who is targeted ... The perpetrators should be hit with the book, but I'm not sure why they should get it worse due to a specific ideological motivation to commit the crime.
Exactly. And there's still that nagging problem of conjuring or determining hate's influence. In the links provided there are a number of indicators of possible hate that may have influenced the perpatrator. Pretty thin ice for building legal theories.
Since we're now linking to other material, here's an article that puts forth some additional reasons to oppose hate crimes, and highlights some of the dangers we face by embracing the notion of hate crimes:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff95.html
I agree. It's criminalizing a thought. A dispicable thought, but criminalizing a throught nonetheless.
I remember during one of the presidential debates, Kerry referenced the gay gentleman in Texas, who was tortured & killed by being dragged behind a vehicle, and then asked Bush why there wasn't any "hate crime" laws in Texas. Bush then responded that the killers were put to death. That was pretty much the end of that little discussion point.
I'm against the death penalty, but that is an example that shows that the enforced laws on the books eliminate any need for any additional "hate crime" penalties. They're merely political so that folks in office who support them can say "Look how I'm against hate crimes!"
Hate crime laws don't give special status to the victim, they give special status to the criminal.
Again, it's different if someone firebombs a Mosque as opposed to a restaurant or something. Both crimes are similar, but one is way more likely to cause a larger violent backlash from a large portion of the community (in this case it'd be the Muslim community). I know it "shouldn't be that way" but it is. That's reality.
Maybe it's different where you live, but where I live everyone basically accepts the fact that there will always be some theft, domestic violence, and random assaults. When we read about these incidents in the paper, it doesn't generate an angry lynch mob like a hate crime can. Again, that's why sex offenders are made to publically register with their town, and it's why we have hate crime laws. There are larger issues at stake when it comes to specific crimes that are a sub-type of another.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4806430.stm