Hate Crime Bill/Law - Help Me Understand

[Chili Fries]

Consider this one that's going on today:

Accused Killers of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian on trial #6 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


In summary, a couple was carjacked, both the man and woman were brutally and repeatedly raped, the man was blindfolded, shot, set on fire and dumped on train track, the woman was stuffed into a garbage can alive and suffocated to death because her lungs could not take in air.

Sounds a little hateful, yes?

Well, the victims were white and the attackers are black. It's not a "hate" crime, therefore, the attackers will get less punishment if found guilty than if it WAS a "hate" crime (as the "hate" crime enhancements will not be applied). Why these attackers deserve less than the maximum punishment we can give for the underlying crime makes no sense to me, but that's how "hate" crime legislation works.

You are misunderstanding the basic definition of a hate crime. It's not a crime by one race against another, it's a crime that shows provable bias. If the crime wasn't obviously committed because of bias it's not a hate crime.

And contrary to what you are implying here many hate crimes against whites are prosecuted. In 2006, 890 of the total 7,720 hate crimes prosecuted in the US were anti-white.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/table1.html

Also, don't assume that hate crimes are murders or rapes. The vast majority are episodes of intimidation or vandalism/damage to property. In 2006 there were only 3 murders prosecuted as hate crimes and 6 rapes.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/table2.html

The whole misunderstanding of hate crimes reminds me of people who say evolutionary theory is not accepted scientific fact because it is just a theory. The word theory means something different in science than it's normal use just like the phrase hate crime means to justice professionals. Hate crimes are necessary because our country has a long history of intimidation because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and ethnicity. It's important to take steps to help continue to move past that.

 

[CyberLaw]

Thank you Chili Fries, your post summed it up nicely.

:woohoo:

 

[PoppyMcTwist]

You are misunderstanding the basic definition of a hate crime. It's not a crime by one race against another, it's a crime that shows provable bias. If the crime wasn't obviously committed because of bias it's not a hate crime.

And contrary to what you are implying here many hate crimes against whites are prosecuted. In 2006, 890 of the total 7,720 hate crimes prosecuted in the US were anti-white.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/table1.html

Also, don't assume that hate crimes are murders or rapes. The vast majority are episodes of intimidation or vandalism/damage to property. In 2006 there were only 3 murders prosecuted as hate crimes and 6 rapes.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/table2.html

The whole misunderstanding of hate crimes reminds me of people who say evolutionary theory is not accepted scientific fact because it is just a theory. The word theory means something different in science than it's normal use just like the phrase hate crime means to justice professionals. Hate crimes are necessary because our country has a long history of intimidation because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and ethnicity. It's important to take steps to help continue to move past that.

I don't think anyone on this board thinks that a hate crime is simply a crime by one race against the other. We've read the definition...we get it.
Some of us disagree with the premise that a law which is itself bias, prejudice, and arbitrary can somehow help us move beyond hate.

IMO

 

[OrdinaryLife]

I don't think anyone on this board thinks that a hate crime is simply a crime by one race against the other. We've read the definition...we get it.
Some of us disagree with the premise that a law which is itself bias, prejudice, and arbitrary can somehow help us move beyond hate.

IMO

I tried to write something several times, but was not happy with what I tried to put in words. You said it simply and clearly. For myself, this post says exactly what I failed to do. Thank you.

 

[Chili Fries]

I don't think anyone on this board thinks that a hate crime is simply a crime by one race against the other. We've read the definition...we get it.
Some of us disagree with the premise that a law which is itself bias, prejudice, and arbitrary can somehow help us move beyond hate.

IMO

We all have the right to live or inhabit where we want to live or inhabit in America. If somebody is trying to intimidate a black family into moving out of their neighborhood by spraypainting "n____r go home" (or doing the same type of thing to a white family) or attacking patrons of a gay bar because they want the gay bar out of their neighborhood then there is a transcending motivation for the crime. That needs to be addressed. Purposely spraypainting a swastika on a jewish family's house is different than average graffiti (unless it's gang graffiti, which should also be dealt with more severely). Anyway, it seems obvious to me that the intimidation factors in these crimes need to be dealt with so people can feel more comfortable about living wherever they want.

A good analogy...I watched a movie about this woman, Susan Wilson, who was videotaped secretly by her perverted neighbor. Maybe you've seen the movie, it's on Lifetime frequently. At the time the only thing they could charge the neighbor for was destruction of property and trespassing because he sneaked into their attic and drilled holes in their ceiling. Susan campaigned for video voyeur laws because the perp's motivation had to be taken into account...he wanted to see her naked. It's the same type of thing with hate crimes. The motivation of intimidation needs to be taken into account otherwise the crime isn't being fully addressed.

 

[FootballMom]

I'd like to offer an additional perspective regarding Hate Crimes vs. Crimes.... consider the difference between aggravated assault vs. assault; 1st degree murder vs. 2nd degree murder or even manslaughter. The end results are the same; a person was assaulted and someone died. The distinctions are made to define the egregiousness of the underlying circumstance(s) that led to the assault or cause of death.

It is often easier to determine a hate crime based from the mindset and habits of the perpetrator than it is to determine a premeditated murder. Hate is learned. Hate does not lie beneath the surface of a person's character or personality. It is expressed in conversation, literature, lifestyles, etc.. Someone taught that person to hate. That person has like minded family and/or friends with whom they identify. Consider how often people are shocked to learn that their friend from church, the happily married father of three, murdered his family in their sleep. "He seemed like such a nice guy"... Conversely, how often do we hear from (or even of) the "shocked" friends of a person accused of a hate crime?

Prejudice and stereotyping create an environment of intolerance to diversity in all aspects of humanity & society; racial, ethnic, religious, gender, sexual identity & orientation, physical & mental disabilities and even socio-economic & familial conditions. Watch the news, talk to children... bullying and teasing can easily and far too often escalate from verbal harassment to physical violence...

Racism, prejudice and discrimination against another for any "reason" also have a negative impact on the bully and the victim academically, emotionally and mentally. The cycle of hate continues from the school yard into adulthood... where it is often repeated & represented within their own children, neighborhoods, workplaces, government offices, etc...

Sadly, hate isn't considered "newsworthy" until it rises to a level of violence. Intolerance to diversity has infected our lives and society so dramatically that instead of focusing on teaching the acceptance of all, we are now forced to teach that crimes against basic human rights will be met with greater punishment.

Hatred won't go away on its own or because the punishment for a hate crime will be more severe than it was yesterday. It only takes one person to decide against perpetuating an act of hate for it to be a successful endeavor. At the very least two people were saved from the evil effects of hate, in addition to the people that love them.

Hate crimes are not exclusive to physical assault. Discrimination is the unlawful result of hate. As evidenced by the increase of its toxic emotional, physical & even economic effects it has on society, it is clearly not enough for discrimination to be unlawful. It is an unethical practice that goes against the very nature of basic human rights... those reasons alone should be enough for discrimination to be considered punishable as a crime against humanity.

No goodness has ever come from hating another human being.

STereOtyPes

 

[Julessleuther]

Very interesting topic; I love reading everyones responses...