Is This A Hate Crime Or Not?
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,209
MEGAN WILLIAMS: They were torturing me. They all passed a knife around that was -- and stabbing me. I was trying to get away as they were stabbing me, and they were holding me down and stuff. And they smothered me with a bag. That morning, I had a bag wrapped around my neck and everything. They choked me. They made me eat dog poop, rat poop and human. They made me drink their urine. And each time, they braided some switches together, and they were beating me across the back. They tore my clothes off me and everything.
And then they took me up to a lake. They said that was the place they were going to cut my throat and throw me in, and I was never going to come back and see my family again. They were just telling me that they were going to kill me.
And, you know, I was -- they made me take a bath in a trash can. They wouldn’t let me use the bathroom. I had to use the bathroom outside. I had to sleep outside. And they told me if they even remotely heard me once, that they would go out there and kill me. They poured candle wax in my hair. They pulled my hair out when they were cutting it with scissors. And, you know, they were just scary.
They had me tied up. I couldn’t go anywhere. Like the time when they left, they were going to go get some beer and stuff, and when they came back they said they were going to finish me off. And before they even got back, I had already got loose. I found a knife and cut myself loose.
I heard the police coming up to the driveway. When I’d seen the police, I just -- you know, I knew it was, you know, my chance to get out. And if I didn’t, I was going to die anyway. And then, that’s when they see me coming out there, and they thought -- they said I was going to lose my leg, when they see about the stabs. And I was scared. I didn’t know what to do. All I kept saying -- I was thinking about my momma, also wanting to come home. And every time I close my eyes, all I see is that knife, the one they kept stabbing me and stabbing me. It’s just -- you know, it’s a nightmare.
This was on Democracy Now today.....Simple question here should these men and women be charged with a hate crime?
Charging them is one thing proving and convicting them would be another.
Also, if this crime was reversed (woman white, those charged black) would those charged, would they be charged with a hate crime?
Here's the full story where you can Watch/listen/Read @ Hate Crimes -- Symbolic and Violent -- on Rise Across U.S.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
But with this kind of violent crime, it shouldn't matter what the motive was.
Wether the crooks were acting on a prejudice obtained through cultural institutionalization or pure psychopathy, the punishment should be the same. If the goal of the criminal justice system was treatment, then it might matter, but it doesn't.
it gives whomever the crime was committed against elevated status.
we're all equal right?
just because someone is gay or black etc, it doesn't matter. we are all human.
if you let the punishment fit the crime, all is good.
isn't all crime like the above a "hate crime"???????
we are as a country are so worried about the reason someone would do something, fuck that.
if it's wrong, it's wrong
Hate crimes are different because they are not just directed at an individual but are meant to cause fear and intimidation in an entire group or class of people.
You don't see things like cross burnings to drive white families from neighborhoods. We are all human, but all humans don't treat each other the same.
Hate crimes cause greater individual and societal harm.
In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously found that "bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest.... The State's desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases"
DAmn I finally agree with you on something. I always hated that label "Hate Crime". All crimes are pretty much hate crimes and just because a white male attacks a black male instead of another white male the punishement shouldn't be more severe, or vice versa. The punishment should be based on the act not who the act was purpotrated by or against.
by definition they always been here.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
I hear and I understand what your saying. As I was listening this morning on DN they seem to be saying that hate/violent crimes are on the rise especially against blacks. With that the standards according to the interview they seems to be a not enough charges being given when blacks are the victim and too much when they're the accused.
They also speak of this case...
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
But you're looking at just the crime itself, not the repercussions. When hate crimes are commited, the chances for retaliatory crimes are greater. Look at the LA riots after the Rodney King beating. You don't think that society can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people?
shit we agree on all kinds of stuff!!!!!!!
i just doesn't come out looking that way...hehehehehe
this is true. if you murder someone it is murder. if you murder based on prejudice, it is a murder and a threat against all people of the prejudiced group. criminal intimidation if you will. it also increases the likelihood of recidivism. a murder of passion is unlikely to be repeated. a murder becos you think group X doesn't deserve to live indicates a higher likelihood of recidivism. thus, such murderers pose a greater threat to society and should be punished more greatly. it has nothing to do with the victim getting privileged status. it has to do with the murderer's motive, mens rea, culpability, and likelihood of further crime.
but the riots were bullshit...the rod man was a guilty bitch. they should have beat the crap out of him.
just the way this shit twist though.
wow, you just stated the case against radical islam
absolutely. if an islamic man in america kills some guy for being a white male christian, he should absolutely be convicted under a hate crime statute. that is how i view hate crimes... they are similar to terrorism. the goal is the criminal act (murder or bombing), but it is also to make a point and serve as some sort of warning of further violence against the hated group.
I am also speaking as a minority and I don't feel that any group of people should be treated any differently. By basing the punishment on the act instead of the skin color of the perpetrator or the victim you take race out of the equation. Also the label of "Hate Crime' is not used equally. It is a hate crime when a group of white males attacks a black male or a homosexual. If you where to reverse the senerio and have a group of blacks attack a white male the label is seldom used which only helps to create more racial tension.
If a hate crime is to send fear to a certain group, wouldn't a home invasion for the sole purpose of a financial score be considered a hate crime then? Doesn't it send fear to the other people in that neighborhood?
I believe in civil rights and equality, but I hate the term "hate crime"
we sit around and wonder exactly why our marriage should feel threatened by gay marriage
It doesn't matter so much what the intent was, but the intent as infered by the victim "group".
Again, the problem is society, it always is.
If you believe in civil rights and equality then you really should be against the term "hate crime". All hate crimes do is perpetuate inequality. If I drag, beat and hang a white man then I get one punishment but if I do the same thing to a black man... that is somehow different. I don't get it.
The New York State Legislature wrote the following when it enacted the Hate Crimes Act of 2000:
Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes. In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore, our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravity of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their recurrence. Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity."
you lost me when you said "new york"
That's just savage.
On a serious note, I don't know what has to happen to a person to make then get off on this type of activity.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Maybe the perpetrators thought of this woman to be less than human.
Peace, Stay Human everybody.
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Awww man, but I really wanted to polymorph into a molten magma dude.
Say What!
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
But how do you decide what type of prejudice counts for hate crimes? If you murder somone because he has big ears and you hate people with big ears is that a hate crime? If you burn down somone's house because he is rich and you hate the rich is that a hate crime? If you are racist and you kill a really tanned white guy because you thought he was black was that a hate crime?
I'm picking on your use of the adjective "human"
1: of, relating to, or characteristic of humans
2: consisting of humans
3 a: having human form or attributes b: susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature <such an inconsistency is very human — P. E. More>
: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens: man; broadly : hominid
In pre-modern and non-scientific understandings of nature, human nature is understood with reference to final and formal causes. Such understandings imply the existence of a divine interest in human nature, and/or the existence of an ideal, "idea," or "form" of a human which exists independently of individual humans.
According to the accepted modern scientific understanding, human nature is the range of human behavior that is believed to be normal and/or invariant over long periods of time and across very different cultural contexts.
The existence of an invariable human nature is a subject of much historical debate, particularly in modern times. Most famously, Darwin gave a widely accepted scientific argument that humans and other animal species have no truly fixed nature. Before him, the malleability of man had been asserted by Jean Jacques Rousseau.
Since the mid-19th century, the concept of human nature has been called into question by thinkers such as Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Sartre, a number of structuralists and postmodernists. The concept has also been challenged by views such as behaviorism, determinism, and the chemical model within modern psychiatry and psychology, which have tended to emphasize the idea that human beings might conceivably be explained as "matter in motion" in a way that is similar to the rest of nature. Recently the biologist E. O. Wilson formulated a scientific definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature
And then it goes into Tabula Rasa, Genetics vs Environment, Determinism vs Free-Will and a whole huge philosophical debate over what human nature actually is, mostly in opinion, very little in fact.
no, no, and yes. the first one is no becos ear size is subjective. there is no group identity among people with big ears. there is more a group identity perhaps among the ultra-rich, but it's incoherent and very subjective again. what one person considers rich another may consider middle class and another royalty. but there is nothing subjective about racial identity or religious identity. if someone says "im gonna kill all big-eared people" some people will say "my ears aren't that big" even if they meet the right criteria. now, if someone says "i'm gonna kill all the niggers" black people aren't going to say "shit, i'm not that black!" there's no escaping the group identification. your example about a super tan white guy is pretty ridiculous, but in that case then yes, i would rule it a hate crime becos it was still a murder and still an attempt to send the same message to blacks. odds are it would be a tough conviction to secure (unless the dude's defense counsel was a fucking idiot), but by definition it is still a hate crime.
But why should it be up to a jury to decide what was going on in someone's head when they committed a crime? What if someone kills a black guy because he stole his wife, but before it happens he spouts off some racial slurs. Either way it was murder why should a jury have to decide what the guy was thinking. Even your idea of race is subjective. If someone says I am going to kill all black people, someone could easily say "I am only part black". As far as group identity what if someone kills an alcoholic in AA, there is definitely a group identity among those people. Everyone belongs to some group or another so to really be fair you would have to look at every case and decide if the person on trial hated the victims group.
In many cases motive is pretty clear, and, what others here have pointed out, that many just aren't getting, is its all about said motive. A white guy beating or killing a Black guy does not constitute a hate crime UNLESS the only motivaion for the crime was the victims race. For example, if i'm in a bar and a guy who happens to be black spits in my Sam Adams and calls my wife a bitch, and i beat the shit out of him for it, it would not be considered a hate crime as it was motivated by his provocation not his race, and i would have done the same to a white guy (this is all purely hypothetical of course, i do not condone or engage in barfighting). On the other hand, if i walk into a bar, spot a Black guy and, completely unprovoked by him, say "stay out of my bar n*****," and beat him senseless, then That would be without question, a hate crime and should be, in my opinion, punished more severly. Another example might be Jeffrey Dahmer. The vast majority of his victims were Black (or at least non-white), and i may be wrong, but i don't think they were labled "hate crimes" because his motive for killing hem had really nothing to do with a hatred for non-whites. That was just his sick fetish or sexual preference.
Furthermore, and someone please correct me if i'm wrong, i don't think hate crime legislation is as much of a factor in serious crimes such as double first degree murder as it is in, say, aggravated assault or domestic terrorism (cross burnings etc.), as the penalty for the former is already pretty fucking stiff. Jeffrey Dahmer was pretty much fucked anyway. Tacking "hate crime" onto his charges would have made no real difference.
Crimes motivated by hatred based solely, on race, religion, or sexual orientation SHOULD carry stiffer penalties. Painting swastikas on the house of a jewish family is much more heinous than your standard vandalism. It carries a much heavier connotation and if we are to create a society, as some have stated, where everyone is human and equal (face it, that simply isn't the society we have), we ned to treat these types of crimes in such a manner. The motivation behind swastkas spray painted on someone's home is very clear, and, finally, in situations where it may not be as clear, YES it is a jury's job to decide. Its what juries do.
Did they rape her? That might be an indication to show tendency towards hatred by means of being disgusted or repulsed.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
My problem is how do you decide which groups get the protection under hate crime legislation? Sure black people and other visible minorities might be obvious choices, but what about white people of different ethnic backgrounds, what about fat people or skinny people, stupid people, people with disabilities? What about people that are fans of a specific sports team or drunks or drug addicts? What about university students? The problem is that you can classify pretty much anyone into a variety of different categories and there are always going to be people who hate other groups of people for whatever reason. And since everyone is supposed to have equal protection under the law how is it fair that some groups are going to be better protected by having people who attack them get harsher punishment?