Hate Crimes

JDeuce · Apr 27, 2006

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/27/texas.attack.ap/index.html

SPRING, Texas (AP) -- Two white teenagers severely beat and sodomized a 16-year-old Hispanic boy who they believed had tried to kiss a 12-year-old white girl at a party, authorities said.

The attackers forced the boy out of the house party, beat him and sodomized him with a metal pipe, shouting epithets "associated with being Hispanic," said Lt. John Martin with the Harris County Sheriff's Department.

:::snip:::

This is despicable behavior. But I'm not sure I agree with "hate crime" legislation. As much as I loathe outright racism and those who have such attitudes, I don't think the thought itself should be criminal.

These guys should be charged with sexual assault, and possibly attempted murder...but what difference does it make why they did it? Motive should only be relevant as proof...not as a separate crime in and of itself. Thoughts should never be criminal. The things people do because of these thoughts are the crimes.

If this adoloescent was beat with a pipe by other Hispanics, because they didn't like his shirt or something equally innocuous...is that any less of a crime than the one these assholes did commit?

JudgeWapner · Apr 27, 2006

Valid point, JD. I guess in reality a certain motive doesn't make an actual crime any different.

xpanda · Apr 27, 2006

JDeuce said:
These guys should be charged with sexual assault, and possibly attempted murder...but what difference does it make why they did it? Motive should only be relevant as proof...not as a separate crime in and of itself. Thoughts should never be criminal. The things people do because of these thoughts are the crimes.

Exactly.

D2bets · Apr 27, 2006

But there is a difference in many areas of the law between doing something based on a t-shirt and doing something based on someone's race. You can deny a job to someone because their shirt; but not because of skin color. You can deny a loan to someone, but not for racial reasons. Same for selling your home. Are these and other special protections wrong as well?

Hate-based crimes are or can be in the nature of terrorism. If an Al Qaeda member threatens to blow up a mall because he wants death to American should that not be a greater offense than a teenager thtreatening to blow up the mall for a prank?

If they're guilty, these lowlifes should be prosecuted to the fullest extent hate crime or not. But if being a hate crime allows for an additional extenuating factor, then great.

TheRightSide · Apr 27, 2006

Hate crime is just a realy dumb thing the politicians came up with to make it look like they were doing something. Like it's worse if a white guy shoots a black guy instead of a black guy shooting a black guy. How stupid is that. Send these fuckers up the river and put them in prison. Hate crime laws are as racist as these fucking pukes.

JoeContrarian · Apr 27, 2006

Canada has hate crime legislation, which became law in 2004. (Surprise!)

hno:

D2bets · Apr 27, 2006

Query if these crimes should be prosecuted the same:
1. White man beats up another white man in a public park because he's wearing a NY Giants sweater and the attacker doesn't like the Giants and shouts "fuck the Giants" and Giants suck".
2. Arab/Muslim beats up same white man in a public park to the same extent all while shouting "Death to America", "America hates Islam" "Allah is the greatest".

Again, both attacks result in the same injuries to the person attacked. The beatings were not severe.

Should these crimes be prosecuted the same way with the same penalty?

xpanda · Apr 27, 2006

D2bets said:
Hate-based crimes are or can be in the nature of terrorism. If an Al Qaeda member threatens to blow up a mall because he wants death to American should that not be a greater offense than a teenager thtreatening to blow up the mall for a prank?

Even if the teenager wanted to blow up the mall because it allowed Japanese people to shop there (for example) both would still be given different consideration by judges and juries. Weighing evidence tends to be very subjective, and when it comes to motive, it should be, I think. Specifically outlawing hate based on race, sex, religion or what have you is at the root of this legislation; and it's neither practical nor productive, in the long run. Certainly it's antithetical to freedom - of ideas, speech, thought, etc.

JoeContrarian · Apr 27, 2006

xpanda said:
Even if the teenager wanted to blow up the mall because it allowed Japanese people to shop there (for example) both would still be given different consideration by judges and juries. Weighing evidence tends to be very subjective, and when it comes to motive, it should be, I think. Specifically outlawing hate based on race, sex, religion or what have you is at the root of this legislation; and it's neither practical nor productive, in the long run. Certainly it's antithetical to freedom - of ideas, speech, thought, etc.

Damn right it is!

D2bets · Apr 27, 2006

xpanda said:
Even if the teenager wanted to blow up the mall because it allowed Japanese people to shop there (for example) both would still be given different consideration by judges and juries. Weighing evidence tends to be very subjective, and when it comes to motive, it should be, I think. Specifically outlawing hate based on race, sex, religion or what have you is at the root of this legislation; and it's neither practical nor productive, in the long run. Certainly it's antithetical to freedom - of ideas, speech, thought, etc.

So then should we also have the freedom to deny housing, jobs and loans to people based on race, sex, religion, etc?

TheRightSide · Apr 27, 2006

Yes than the arabs should be sent packing but yes throw them both in jail. BTW nice example this law was for the liberals all the way this law was for blacks and gays. See it's laws like these that make the liberals they are doing good for the country. Like the white guy that dragged the black man with his truck. Does it make it any more of a crime since he was black? No not at all he should be killed either way why is it worse that he was a black man kill that fucker anyway. It's just another stupid law to muddle up the system.

Right here in Detroit we had the 1st charge racial imtimidation filed against a black woman. Holly shit did that ever cause a stir. All the race baitors showed up and said how can you charge a black woman with that. Like the law was only meant to be against white people. Give me a break.

xpanda · Apr 27, 2006

D2bets said:
Query if these crimes should be prosecuted the same:
1. White man beats up another white man in a public park because he's wearing a NY Giants sweater and the attacker doesn't like the Giants and shouts "fuck the Giants" and Giants suck".
2. Arab/Muslim beats up same white man in a public park to the same extent all while shouting "Death to America", "America hates Islam" "Allah is the greatest".

Again, both attacks result in the same injuries to the person attacked. The beatings were not severe.

Should these crimes be prosecuted the same way with the same penalty?

Yes, they should be prosecuted the same.

JudgeWapner · Apr 27, 2006

I think a lot of it has to do with the nature of a hate crime. We can understand when two guys get in an arguement in a bar, and one guy pulls a gun and shoots the other. We don't understand when a man is walking down the street and is shot from a car simply because of his skin color. Laws like this probably gives us a feeling of empowerment, when in fact they make very little difference.

levistep · Apr 27, 2006

D2bets said:
Query if these crimes should be prosecuted the same:
1. White man beats up another white man in a public park because he's wearing a NY Giants sweater and the attacker doesn't like the Giants and shouts "fuck the Giants" and Giants suck".
2. Arab/Muslim beats up same white man in a public park to the same extent all while shouting "Death to America", "America hates Islam" "Allah is the greatest".

Again, both attacks result in the same injuries to the person attacked. The beatings were not severe.

Should these crimes be prosecuted the same way with the same penalty?

I don't see what the difference is.

xpanda · Apr 27, 2006

D2bets said:
So then should we also have the freedom to deny housing, jobs and loans to people based on race, sex, religion, etc?

Yes.

I remember when Employment Equity (our Affirmative Action) first came to Ontario (early 90s) and the first thing I thought was: great, now I won't know if my boss is a sexist prick.

Hiring me because I'm female is as much an insult as not hiring me because I'm female. And I would always rather not work for a sexist ass. Being ambitious, how many hours and long days would I put in before I realised this guy was never going to promote me because of my sex? In fact, won't he be more inclined to dislike me because he was forced to hire me?

I think this kind of legislation was based on good principles, and certainly there's no question that racism and sexism are better suited to neanderthals and social retards, but I see no long-term gain in forcing people to think differently about minorities. Let those business who don't discriminate have a greater labour market/client base to choose from. In the end, they'll be the ones who win.

D2bets · Apr 27, 2006

xpanda said:
Yes.

I remember when Employment Equity (our Affirmative Action) first came to Ontario (early 90s) and the first thing I thought was: great, now I won't know if my boss is a sexist prick.

Hiring me because I'm female is as much an insult as not hiring me because I'm female. And I would always rather not work for a sexist ass. Being ambitious, how many hours and long days would I put in before I realised this guy was never going to promote me because of my sex? In fact, won't he be more inclined to dislike me because he was forced to hire me?

I think this kind of legislation was based on good principles, and certainly there's no question that racism and sexism are better suited to neanderthals and social retards, but I see no long-term gain in forcing people to think differently about minorities. Let those business who don't discriminate have a greater labour market/client base to choose from. In the end, they'll be the ones who win.

Well most people, I think, believe that the civil rights anti-discrimination laws are a good thing.

TheRightSide · Apr 27, 2006

OMG X I think you are comming over to THERIGHTSIDE
:thumbsup2:

arty:

baseballfan+ · Apr 27, 2006

Discrimination laws and hate crimes in this country are a joke. If a white man beats up a black man it can be charged as a hate crime. However ive never seen a case of a white man getting beat up/ murdered and it called a hate crime. Reverse Discrimination? You make the call.

JudgeWapner · Apr 27, 2006

BBF, the guys that beat Reginald Denny should have been charged with a hate crime. Don't know if the law existed then. Maybe we will see it with the case in Vegas. Let's see.

xpanda · Apr 27, 2006

D2bets said:
Well most people, I think, believe that the civil rights anti-discrimination laws are a good thing.

Don't confuse civil rights with anti-discrimination. Anti-discrimination laws, by their very nature, are anti-civil rights.

Civil rights and feminist leaders were right to seek an end to gov't legislation that prevented them from full access to all rights and freedoms granted the rest of society (white males, basically.) I'm not 100% on American civil rights laws, but here in Canada women weren't even considered persons until 1957. As a result, we couldn't hold office, couldn't own property, had no legal status with our husbands, etc. The abolition of laws that interfered with or prevented us from realising our full civil rights were necessary. But forcing landlords, businesses, etc. to treat us a 'certain way' is an infringement on their civil rights.

(Besides, I don't need any help getting a job, loan, or apartment. I would very much like to NOT be treated like a child by my government.)