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.
Hmmm ... Hate crime laws to prevent violent bashlashes? Maybe, although I wonder if they would actually do that. Now we are straying from laws to protect disadvantaged groups, and straying toward laws to protect everyone else from communities of people who are violence-prone. I don't think this is the intent.
Hmmm ... Hate crime laws to prevent violent bashlashes? Maybe, although I wonder if they would actually do that. Now we are straying from laws to protect disadvantaged groups, and straying toward laws to protect everyone else from communities of people who are violence-prone. I don't think this is the intent.
Hate crime laws are made to protect everyone, not any disadvantaged group. If you look at the statistics, everyone is a potential victim for a hate crime. The notion that hate crime laws are intended to give extra protection to certain groups is incorrect.
And these laws are not implying any one group of people is more prone to commit violence. We're all prone to it if we feel we are in danger, and that's why we see so many of these types of situations escalate. That's why these crimes are different, and that's why they need additional attention. It's explained by a lot of different groups if you google for something like "why do we need hate crime laws?".
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.
But we've always taken thought and motivation into consideration. That's why a pre-meditated murder is thought of as worse than a "crime of passion," or an assault that wasn't intended to kill but did. The victim is just as dead in any case, but it's argued that the criminals represent three different levels of danger to society and should thus be treated differently by our justice system.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
But we've always taken thought and motivation into consideration. That's why a pre-meditated murder is thought of as worse than a "crime of passion," or an assault that wasn't intended to kill but did. The victim is just as dead in any case, but it's argued that the criminals represent three different levels of danger to society and should thus be treated differently by our justice system.
But with pre-meditation we aren't trying to devine thought or intent. We prove it based on actions leading up to the crime. So if there's pre-meditation and it can be proven then use that, rather than some nebulous notion of "hate".
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
So if we can add penalties for what we think they're thinking, why not arrest them in advance of committing crimes? That way we can spare the victim.
Before the crime is committed, there is no victim to be spared. But that's besides the point anyways, because hate crime laws aren't meant to give any single victim more justice. They're meant to protect the community as a whole as I described before.
Before the crime is committed, there is no victim to be spared. But that's besides the point anyways, because hate crime laws aren't meant to give any single victim more justice. They're meant to protect the community as a whole as I described before.
That's not what they do, they only give special stauts to a select group of victims. It says the crime is more heinious because you're gay than if you're not gay. The impact of the crime is greater if you are black than if you are caucasian. It's steeped in guilt and victimhood. It's bullshit and disciminatory.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
That's not what they do, they only give special stauts to a select group of victims. It says the crime is more heinious because you're gay than if you're not gay. The impact of the crime is greater if you are black than if you are caucasian. It's steeped in guilt and victimhood. It's bullshit and disciminatory.
There is no select group of victims. If you look at the statistics, offenders come from all groups (anti-gay, anti-hetero, anti-white, anti-black, etc.).
There is no select group of victims. If you look at the statistics, offenders come from all groups (anti-gay, anti-hetero, anti-white, anti-black, etc.).
We have hate crime laws for the same reason we make convicted child molesters register as sex offenders to let everyone in their community know they're a child molester: these kinds of crimes can potentially affect a community more than most other crimes. If you have a community where 30% of the people are little kids and you have a child molester running around, that's a huge concern. If you have 1 guy who stole a computer from someone, that's not a huge concern for the community. Everyone accepts that there will be theft, and we take precautions to prevent it. But one computer stolen isn't going to send a community into upheval like a child molester moving in or a person willing to hurt others based on race, gender, religion, etc. might.
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.
OK, cool ... But click on your second link (Canadian source). The imbalances support the point about these laws protecting certain groups. Check out how many "anti-Black" hate crimes are there, compared to all the other ethnic groups. And there are a mere 33 "anti-hetero" crimes on there. Clearly there is a huge imbalance here. Its impossible to know what the source of these imbalances is, of course. It could very well be that gay people rarely commit hate crimes against heterosexuals, and that blacks are the most frequent target of racial hate crimes. Or, it could be that these laws are differentially enforced.
OK, cool ... But click on your second link (Canadian source). The imbalances support the point about these laws protecting certain groups. Check out how many "anti-Black" hate crimes are there, compared to all the other ethnic groups. And there are a mere 33 "anti-hetero" crimes on there. Clearly there is a huge imbalance here. Its impossible to know what the source of these imbalances is, of course. It could very well be that gay people rarely commit hate crimes against heterosexuals, and that blacks are the most frequent target of racial hate crimes. Or, it could be that these laws are differentially enforced.
I think the reason for the imbalance is pretty clear. There are more anti-black and anti-gay incidents because there are more anti-black and anti-gay people out there than anti-white or anti-hetero. The reason for that is because there are simply way more non-black and hetero people out there, which increases the chance that any given hate crime is going to be committed by a non-black and/or hetero person.
It also becomes clearer when you look at the numbers for offenders, not incidents. There are more anti-black offenders than there are anti-white offenders...again because there are simply more non-black people out there than non-white people (if we're talking U.S. & Canada).
And if you take it further to look at the percentages of the different types of offenders, it becomes a little more obvious. For example, about 26% of all race offenders are anti-white, which makes sense considering the population of the U.S. is about 74% white.
I think the reason for the imbalance is pretty clear. There are more anti-black and anti-gay incidents because there are more anti-black and anti-gay people out there than anti-white or anti-hetero. The reason for that is because there are simply way more non-black and hetero people out there, which increases the chance that any given hate crime is going to be committed by a non-black and/or hetero person.
It also becomes clearer when you look at the numbers for offenders, not incidents. There are more anti-black offenders than there are anti-white offenders...again because there are simply more non-black people out there than non-white people (if we're talking U.S. & Canada).
And if you take it further to look at the percentages of the different types of offenders, it becomes a little more obvious. For example, about 26% of all race offenders are anti-white, which makes sense considering the population of the U.S. is about 74% white.
I don't think the stats actually support your first conclusion (because they only refer to prosecutions, presumably ... Not the actual number of incidents that occur), but realistically speaking, you're probably right.
Maybe I am just having a slow day (brain fried from running too many stats, incidentally), but what are you saying with that last point? That the numbers add up in a way that is consistent with the view that hate laws are applied equally well across different groups? If so, then yes, as far as I can tell you're right.
...
Then, shouldn't they be treated with harsher penalties... even if they fail to carry out their terrorist plots? I WANT them to be tried at Hate Criminals... to put their asses away forever.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Then, shouldn't they be treated with harsher penalties... even if they fail to carry out their terrorist plots? I WANT them to be tried at Hate Criminals... to put their asses away forever.
Sure, I agree. If we are going to have hate crime legislation, terrorists would be about the best target I could think of.
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?
Sure, it could be that a homosexual person mistakenly believes it was a hate crime. But that's what a court case is for. If there is no evidence, it is not hate crime. I think wearing the shirt would be wrong, I am not sure it is a hate crime. If you say "Fuck Coca Cola" I don't think they can sue you for it or that it would be hate crime against Coca Cola. It is however silly to wear a shirt that says "Fuck Mohammed" and yes, it could incite violence. So in your example, the person committing battery is in the wrong for being violent and the T-shirt wearer is silly for wearing the T-shirt.
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.
I agree. But where hate crime can be proven I think it should be identified and labelled. As for the punishment, I am no expert, but don't think it should be punished harsher than 'regular' assault.
Hope that makes sense
Like a cloud dropping rain
I'm discarding all thought
I'll dry up, leaving puddles on the ground
I'm like an opening band for the sun
I think the reason for the imbalance is pretty clear. There are more anti-black and anti-gay incidents because there are more anti-black and anti-gay people out there than anti-white or anti-hetero. The reason for that is because there are simply way more non-black and hetero people out there, which increases the chance that any given hate crime is going to be committed by a non-black and/or hetero person.
It also becomes clearer when you look at the numbers for offenders, not incidents. There are more anti-black offenders than there are anti-white offenders...again because there are simply more non-black people out there than non-white people (if we're talking U.S. & Canada).
And if you take it further to look at the percentages of the different types of offenders, it becomes a little more obvious. For example, about 26% of all race offenders are anti-white, which makes sense considering the population of the U.S. is about 74% white.
i think theres more anti white crimes done by blacks or a few years ago that was the case and for hispanics fbi lists them as white -how convenient for them
Hate Crimes too often are "said a racist thing while commiting a crime"
even if the crime isnt motivated by racial hatred...
I believe the story i heard involves "Fat Nick" in new york... He's a dimwit jackass.. however... the story is that he and his white friends came across some black guys trying to steal a car. They beat up the guys with a bat and mentioned race while taunting them..... it was classified as a hate crime.
The crime of beating them up wasnt motivated by hate... it was motivated by them trying to steal a car.... regardless of race.
Comments
Hmmm ... Hate crime laws to prevent violent bashlashes? Maybe, although I wonder if they would actually do that. Now we are straying from laws to protect disadvantaged groups, and straying toward laws to protect everyone else from communities of people who are violence-prone. I don't think this is the intent.
Hate crime laws are made to protect everyone, not any disadvantaged group. If you look at the statistics, everyone is a potential victim for a hate crime. The notion that hate crime laws are intended to give extra protection to certain groups is incorrect.
And these laws are not implying any one group of people is more prone to commit violence. We're all prone to it if we feel we are in danger, and that's why we see so many of these types of situations escalate. That's why these crimes are different, and that's why they need additional attention. It's explained by a lot of different groups if you google for something like "why do we need hate crime laws?".
http://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/serving_ottawa/support_units/hate_crimes_unit.cfm
But with pre-meditation we aren't trying to devine thought or intent. We prove it based on actions leading up to the crime. So if there's pre-meditation and it can be proven then use that, rather than some nebulous notion of "hate".
Before the crime is committed, there is no victim to be spared. But that's besides the point anyways, because hate crime laws aren't meant to give any single victim more justice. They're meant to protect the community as a whole as I described before.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
There is no select group of victims. If you look at the statistics, offenders come from all groups (anti-gay, anti-hetero, anti-white, anti-black, etc.).
Where are these stats?
..
OK, cool ... But click on your second link (Canadian source). The imbalances support the point about these laws protecting certain groups. Check out how many "anti-Black" hate crimes are there, compared to all the other ethnic groups. And there are a mere 33 "anti-hetero" crimes on there. Clearly there is a huge imbalance here. Its impossible to know what the source of these imbalances is, of course. It could very well be that gay people rarely commit hate crimes against heterosexuals, and that blacks are the most frequent target of racial hate crimes. Or, it could be that these laws are differentially enforced.
Darth Vader?
No, wait...
O.J. Simpson?
No, wait...
Daffy Duck. That's my final answer.
-- Willy Wonka
I think the reason for the imbalance is pretty clear. There are more anti-black and anti-gay incidents because there are more anti-black and anti-gay people out there than anti-white or anti-hetero. The reason for that is because there are simply way more non-black and hetero people out there, which increases the chance that any given hate crime is going to be committed by a non-black and/or hetero person.
It also becomes clearer when you look at the numbers for offenders, not incidents. There are more anti-black offenders than there are anti-white offenders...again because there are simply more non-black people out there than non-white people (if we're talking U.S. & Canada).
And if you take it further to look at the percentages of the different types of offenders, it becomes a little more obvious. For example, about 26% of all race offenders are anti-white, which makes sense considering the population of the U.S. is about 74% white.
I don't think the stats actually support your first conclusion (because they only refer to prosecutions, presumably ... Not the actual number of incidents that occur), but realistically speaking, you're probably right.
Maybe I am just having a slow day (brain fried from running too many stats, incidentally), but what are you saying with that last point? That the numbers add up in a way that is consistent with the view that hate laws are applied equally well across different groups? If so, then yes, as far as I can tell you're right.
Hail, Hail!!!
One would hope ...
Then, shouldn't they be treated with harsher penalties... even if they fail to carry out their terrorist plots? I WANT them to be tried at Hate Criminals... to put their asses away forever.
Hail, Hail!!!
Sure, I agree. If we are going to have hate crime legislation, terrorists would be about the best target I could think of.
Surely that'd be hate crime too.
Sure, it could be that a homosexual person mistakenly believes it was a hate crime. But that's what a court case is for. If there is no evidence, it is not hate crime. I think wearing the shirt would be wrong, I am not sure it is a hate crime. If you say "Fuck Coca Cola" I don't think they can sue you for it or that it would be hate crime against Coca Cola. It is however silly to wear a shirt that says "Fuck Mohammed" and yes, it could incite violence. So in your example, the person committing battery is in the wrong for being violent and the T-shirt wearer is silly for wearing the T-shirt.
I agree. But where hate crime can be proven I think it should be identified and labelled. As for the punishment, I am no expert, but don't think it should be punished harsher than 'regular' assault.
Hope that makes sense
I'm discarding all thought
I'll dry up, leaving puddles on the ground
I'm like an opening band for the sun
i think theres more anti white crimes done by blacks or a few years ago that was the case and for hispanics fbi lists them as white -how convenient for them
http://groups.msn.com/PearlJamNirvana/messages.msnw
Hate Crimes too often are "said a racist thing while commiting a crime"
even if the crime isnt motivated by racial hatred...
I believe the story i heard involves "Fat Nick" in new york... He's a dimwit jackass.. however... the story is that he and his white friends came across some black guys trying to steal a car. They beat up the guys with a bat and mentioned race while taunting them..... it was classified as a hate crime.
The crime of beating them up wasnt motivated by hate... it was motivated by them trying to steal a car.... regardless of race.