crime rates and hate crime

rebornFixer

Saturnal wrote:

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?

lalalalaaaaaaaa

reborncareerist wrote:

Where are these stats?

Saturnal wrote:

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.

http://hate-crime.website-works.com/hate-students.htm#STATS

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004885.html

..

rebornFixer

Saturnal wrote:

..

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.

ecd1973

RavennaSeattle1911 wrote:

who does the most hate crime?

Darth Vader?

No, wait...

O.J. Simpson?

No, wait...

Daffy Duck. That's my final answer.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

reborncareerist wrote:

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.

rebornFixer

Saturnal wrote:

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.

Cosmo

Are terrorist considered 'Hate Crime' perpetrators?

rebornFixer

Cosmo wrote:

Are terrorist considered 'Hate Crime' perpetrators?

One would hope ...

Cosmo

reborncareerist wrote:

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.

rebornFixer

Cosmo wrote:

...
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.

Riot_Rain

jeffbr wrote:

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?

Surely that'd be hate crime too.

jeffbr wrote:

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.

jeffbr wrote:

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

RavennaSeattle1911

Saturnal wrote:

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

Uncle Teddy

RavennaSeattle1911 wrote:

who does the most hate crime?

Liberal Democrats.

Skitch Patterson

another problem with it...

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.