Is This A Hate Crime Or Not?

g under p

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

If there were visible corn kernels in the feces then it's definitely a hate crime.

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.

Maybe the perpetrators thought of this woman to be less than human.

Peace, Stay Human everybody.

Ahnimus

g under p wrote:

Maybe the perpetrators thought of this woman to be less than human.

Peace, Stay Human everybody.

Awww man, but I really wanted to polymorph into a molten magma dude.

g under p

Ahnimus wrote:

Awww man, but I really wanted to polymorph into a molten magma dude.

Say What!

Peace

Kel Varnsen

soulsinging wrote:

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 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?

Ahnimus

g under p wrote:

Say What!

Peace

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.

soulsinging

Kel Varnsen wrote:

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?

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.

Kel Varnsen

soulsinging wrote:

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.

cornnifer

Kel Varnsen wrote:

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

g under p wrote:

Maybe the perpetrators thought of this woman to be less than human.

Peace, Stay Human everybody.

Did they rape her? That might be an indication to show tendency towards hatred by means of being disgusted or repulsed.

Kel Varnsen

cornnifer wrote:

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.

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?

soulsinging

Kel Varnsen wrote:

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.

becos that is what juries do. the term is "mens rea." any time there is a crime committed, juries weigh the perpetrator's mental state. you cannot try someone for murder without trying to figure out their motive. there is nothing new or alarming in this concept. otherwise someone who kills someone in a car accident gets the same sentence as a serial killer, becos you have no way to tell whether or not they meant to do what they did, all you can judge is that someone died and it's the other person's fault. does that seem fair? the guy says it was an accident, but maybe he's lying? we can't guess his state of mind, only what happened. maybe he meant to wreck his car and kill someone.

juries weigh motive all the time. if the guy killed the black dude over his wife, he can testify about it and juries will see it.

race is not subjective. nobody is going to say "i'm only part black" and think they're not at risk. alcoholics, like big eared people, are self-selecting. it's not a genetic imperative placing you in a group. not yet anyway. you can stop being an alcoholic. you cannot stop being black. you can convince yourself your ears aren't that big. you cannot convince yourself you are not latin. if it were subjective, the data wouldn't be on the us census. you don't say "im feeling kinda mexican today, but becos there's a hater out there, i'll be more native american instead."

cornnifer

Kel Varnsen wrote:

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?

In all due respect, i think you make a real stretch here. Terms like "fat" or "skinny" besides being completely relative (Black is not at all relative to Ku Kluxer regardless of any degree of skin hue), are not categories that generally and historically have been discriminated against or hated. "Weightism" is not the problem racism is. If someone spraypaints the weightwatchers logo on the home of an obese person, you may have a case. Sports fanatics are an even larger stretch. If i beat the shit out of a cubs fan, not only is it not a hate crime... its completely justified.

soulsinging

Kel Varnsen wrote:

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?

you define it by groups that are not self-selecting. you can stop being a university student (an aside, that makes me think you are european becos here they're called college students. i see no need for hate crime legislation in europe. you guys simply do not understand the social dynamics and racial tensions here in the US. no offense). if you are an addict you can sober up. if you are fat you can diet and if you are skinny you can weight gain.

disabilities would count. once you are crippled or mentally retarded, you can't just stop being crippled or mentally retarded. you can't just stop being gay or black or jewish (if you want to argue that religion is chosen, religion is an integral part of your personality and a fundamental right). it's not that hard to do. if you want to come up with 100 different groups i can easily tell you why or why not they would fall under these statutes but we'd be here all day and it would solve nothing. i think you see what i'm getting at.

Kel Varnsen

cornnifer wrote:

In all due respect, i think you make a real stretch here. Terms like "fat" or "skinny" besides being completely relative (Black is not at all relative to Ku Kluxer regardless of any degree of skin hue), are not categories that generally and historically have been discriminated against or hated. "Weightism" is not the problem racism is. If someone spraypaints the weightwatchers logo on the home of an obese person, you may have a case. Sports fanatics are an even larger stretch. If i beat the shit out of a cubs fan, not only is it not a hate crime... its completely justified.

My examples might be a bit of a strech but how do you decide which catergories have been "historically discriminated against" enough to warrant an attack on them being a hate crime?

g under p

cornnifer wrote:

In all due respect, i think you make a real stretch here. Terms like "fat" or "skinny" besides being completely relative (Black is not at all relative to Ku Kluxer regardless of any degree of skin hue), are not categories that generally and historically have been discriminated against or hated. "Weightism" is not the problem racism is. If someone spraypaints the weightwatchers logo on the home of an obese person, you may have a case. Sports fanatics are an even larger stretch. If i beat the shit out of a cubs fan, not only is it not a hate crime... its completely justified.

Or do the same with a Yankee fan....lol

Peace

cornnifer

Kel Varnsen wrote:

My examples might be a bit of a strech but how do you decide which catergories have been "historically discriminated against" enough to warrant an attack on them being a hate crime?

For most, its rather ovious.
Besides, again for obvious reasons, under civil rights legislation, "fat", "skinny", "big eared" and, perhaps my favorite "stupid", do not fall under the category of "protected groups.

Kel Varnsen

soulsinging wrote:

you define it by groups that are not self-selecting. you can stop being a university student (an aside, that makes me think you are european becos here they're called college students. i see no need for hate crime legislation in europe. you guys simply do not understand the social dynamics and racial tensions here in the US. no offense). if you are an addict you can sober up. if you are fat you can diet and if you are skinny you can weight gain.

disabilities would count. once you are crippled or mentally retarded, you can't just stop being crippled or mentally retarded. you can't just stop being gay or black or jewish (if you want to argue that religion is chosen, religion is an integral part of your personality and a fundamental right). it's not that hard to do. if you want to come up with 100 different groups i can easily tell you why or why not they would fall under these statutes but we'd be here all day and it would solve nothing. i think you see what i'm getting at.

But isn't that like saying some forms of hate are more ok than others? Plus the isn't the whole idea of "if you don't want to be attacked because you are a fat, then don't be fat" kind of like saying the victim was asking for it?

Kel Varnsen

cornnifer wrote:

For most, its rather ovious.
Besides, again for obvious reasons, under civil rights legislation, "fat", "skinny", "big eared" and, perhaps my favorite "stupid", do not fall under the category of "protected groups.

Ok then what about people of different hair colours? Sure it might be a little out there for people to attack someone for their hair colour, but how is it not equal protection under the law if someone getting attacked for their hair colour gets a lesser sentence than someone attacked for their skin colour?

soulsinging

Kel Varnsen wrote:

But isn't that like saying some forms of hate are more ok than others? Plus the isn't the whole idea of "if you don't want to be attacked because you are a fat, then don't be fat" kind of like saying the victim was asking for it?

no, it isn't. you're quite the pc warrior today aren't you? it is like recognizing that some forms of hate are more damaging and pose greater threats to society, due to their focused and specific nature. it has nothing to do with saying some hate is ok. no hate is ok. but some pose greater threats to social stability. and your last sentence is ridiculous. since when did hate crime legislation mean that ONLY hate crimes get prosecuted? don't be an idiot.

know1

g under p wrote:

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

No. I do not believe in the concept of a hate crime.