Hte Crime legeslation- Equal treatment or Special Treatment?

[sweetnpetite]

Some arguments against hate crime legeslation are:

!. It's special treatment not equal treatment for minorities

2. It punishes thought instead of action; it's the 'thought police' and goes agains the First Amendment. I'ts un-Constitutional.

These arguments are pretty convincing and I alsmost fell for them. Still, I knew inside that it wasn't right, but not being able to articuate why I felt that way I found myself struggling with these points, wondering if maybe the conservative talk show hosts and prolific authors and speakers weren't right after all. Should hate crime legeslation be abolished as unconstitutional?

Then it dawned on me. Hate crime *is* different from other crimes. Does it matter if some guy killed another because he is gay or for some other non-hate motivated reason?

I submit that it does. The purpose of beating or killing a gay person or whoever because you don't like the group they belong to is not just to beat that person but to intimidate all others in the group. ONe would think that during this "war on terrorism" conservatives would be the strongest proponents of hate crime legeslation, because that's what a hate crime is- domestic terrorism.

IN fact, environmental groups and animal rights groups are quickly labled 'domestic terrorist groups' and threatened with the full force of the FBI and the millitary. Apparently burning SUV's is terrorism, burning crosses and people is not. Which makes me think that this isn't about terrorism but capitalism (the great golden calf of the republican party.)

I would like to see the 'War on Terror' get really serious. It's time to stop protecting hate groups and even individuals who act alone because they are sympathetic to the goals of these groups. (the DC sniper apparently has no affiliation but is still being considered a terrorist) I don't care if these groups are Christian groups claiming "God Hates Fags" or two thugs raping a woman and calling her a dyke. If terrorism and intimidation is not to be tollerated, then it needs to be accross the board.

Hate crime legeslation is Consititional and it is neccessary. I think the Republican's and the Conservatives should get behind it and stop claiming that it persecutes them for being White. That is just not the case. It *prosecutes* terrorists for being terrrorists.

And that's my two cents

 

[ComfortablyCold]

Hate crimes are different only in their motivation. Bob killed Sue because she was black. What is the difference if he killed Sue because she was black or because she was his girlfriend and sleeping with his best friend? It is still murder. It is still a crime of emotion either way.

All crimes should be handled similarly and be brought back to their roots. Murder is murder by any other name. Where I start getting concerned is when people Darwin fish / Jesus fish get harassed because they are voicing their opinion. The US is a country founded on voices, and they should be heard. If a group wants to protest animal testing, go for it. However, they should not be surprised if they destroy private property and are charged with a crime because of it.

Taken one step further with Terrorism, the same should be kept in mind. If a country despises the United States, that's their right. If they feel we have soiled their holy land, that is also their right. It is not their right, however, to murder people because of those beliefs. Those who committed this act should be punished - whether they were Americans assisting in the crime, or foreigners commiting it.

Just my two cents -=)

-CC

 

[ffreak]

The category of Hate Crime is intended to bring a heavier penalty against a person or group of persons who target their victims on the basis of a publicly outspoken prejudice.

Therefore, if the KKK kills a person because of the color of their skin or their ancestry (brief aside: why is that only the Nazi's and the KKK think that Jews are not white?) then such a killing by definition, being a hate crime, is pre-meditated. They did think on it and they did plan to kill - if not the specific incident, they planned to kill, given the opportunity and the intended 'type' of victim. John Doe kills Jane Doe because she took his seat, in an angry psychotic episode, and it's manslaughter. John Doe kills Jane Jackson Leibowitz because she's a black jew who took his seat, and it's a hate crime - no parole in three years.

The case of the boys in Texas who dragged another boy to his death at the end of a rope down the highway - yeah, that's a hate crime. Not just because the victim was a professed homosexual, but because they thought that excused their behavior.

The worst hate crimes are being committed by our own government by twisting the language to suit their purposes. We are holding people without access to lawyers because we have 'declared war' on terrorism. The Geneva Convention says that a country that captures combatants in war not only can hold those captives without due process, but that they can hold them until the end of hostilities. Our government is using this language to hold people because they have dark skin, or because they or their ancestors come from a country that is predominantly of a non-Christian religion, or because they happen to know someone who knows someone who may be a terrorist. We have no accountability of the actions taken against them during their captivity under the title of National Security. There are people who have been held (and then released, the only reason this has hit the news at all) without confirming any evidence (folks born in this country who have Mexican ancestry, accused of 'looking' like they were Arab). And the worst part of this is we are holding people because we are 'at war' with a concept - not a nation, not even a host of nations.

So, let's go back to the war on poverty. Should we hold people because they look poor? And don't forget, we should hold them until we win the war. Of course since almost 30% of the nation is below the poverty level, we'll have to use the captives in this war to build their own prisons, since there isn't enough room to hold them in all the prisons we've built. And think of all the money saved by eliminating their right to counsel, and the free labor. After we're through with building the prisons, we can have them take over the low-cost labor we've been exporting to other countries to 'save money' because we don't pay our own citizens enough to buy products made here.

Of course when the administration changes and we free all these illegally held prisoners of war, then the next administration will be blamed for the high unemployment and all the empty buildings left over - the prisons will have to be closed, heaven forbid we use them to shelter the homeless.

The birth of the problem is ignorance and those in power who want to keep the populace ignorant, complacent, cow-like, indecisive and away from the polls.

Echoing the news, how is it that we can plan a war, and plan the contractual awards necessary after a war, but not plan for handling the people's welfare or administration of a country for peaceful living. Because in an environment where we foster hate, even when the rhetoric says otherwise, we can hide under cover of what is happening while the government aids and abets insider deals that enrich a few at the cost of many.

-FF (okay, it was a nickle's worth - inflation and all that)
p.s. This is a country where we always should be able to say what we think - if it weren't for that basic right, the government could arrest people just because they say they think there's a bunch of crooks in charge - oh wait, that's what Ashcroft wants to do.

 

[Pure]

Hi SnP,

It's an interesting topic, and you make some good points. I do see problems, however, and I will use a similar kind of law to illustrate.

Laws against 'hate speech' exist in certain countries, e.g., Germany and Canada.

I realize your topic is not quite the same; you're speaking of, racially motivated murders and the attempts to set highter penalties. Bear with me, at the end I will talk of 'hate crimes.'


Regarding 'hate speech': While possibly attractive in theory, in the more recent celebrated cases, the makers of the 'speech' received lots of publicity for his cause, during his trial. In another case, a lesbian comic strip was censored since the fictitious character was--tongue in cheek-- a crusader who cut off men's penises.

Here is a similar variation of the problem: Certain campuses in North America have rules against saying things--like jokes-- in class that bring some group (ethnic, sexual orientation, etc.) into contempt. Penalties range from reprimand to expulsion for student or firing of teacher.

Lately it's been noticed that the main users of the complaint procedure are white straight males. They don't like unfavorable remarks or jokes from certain women or minority profs, and, in effect, claim to be persecuted, thereby exerting pressure on the profs.

Again, you can see that the 'fine in theory' idea has some undesirable consequences.

---
As to 'hate crimes' I see great problems defining them. What about the crimes of serial killer Eileen Wuornos? (killing men).
Further, as another poster has noted (though perhaps the conclusion differs), there is already higher penalities for premeditation, which will be the case in many 'hate crimes.'

Note also the potential for application (in unforseen ways) as above: if a hubby is killed after abusing his wife, who's unwise enough to say 'men are pigs', then a zealous male prosecutor might charge her with a hate crime, no?


J.

 

[Boxlicker101]

ComfortablyCold wrote:

Hate crimes are different only in their motivation. Bob killed Sue because she was black. What is the difference if he killed Sue because she was black or because she was his girlfriend and sleeping with his best friend? It is still murder. It is still a crime of emotion either way.

I think if a person murders a girlfriend, it would not be a hate crime; however, this scenario might be: Bob and Sue are boyfriend and girlfriend and they are both white. Sue has sex with a black man and Bob finds out and beats her or kills her. Would that be a hate crime? If Bob is a member of the Ku Klux Klan, maybe it is. If he has no history of racism, it probably is not.

I would think the prosecutor decides to prosecute as a hate crime and the jury decides on guilty of those circumstances, or not guilty. I have a problem with giving the prosecutor that much authority but the jury has the ultimate authority.

In the case of serial killer Eileen Wuornos? (killing men) that should have been considered to be a series of hate crimes but since she was sentenced to death, that is a moot point because what more could have been done to her?

By the way, Pure, hate crimes are not necessariy murders. Forcible rape by a stranger should probably be considerede to be a hate crime because it is motivated by hatred of women.

Pure said:

Here is a similar variation of the problem: Certain campuses in North America have rules against saying things--like jokes-- in class that bring some group (ethnic, sexual orientation, etc.) into contempt. Penalties range from reprimand to expulsion for student or firing of teacher.

Lately it's been noticed that the main users of the complaint procedure are white straight males. They don't like unfavorable remarks or jokes from certain women or minority profs, and, in effect, claim to be persecuted, thereby exerting pressure on the profs.

Again, you can see that the 'fine in theory' idea has some undesirable consequences.

First, I don't think that anybody should be punished for expressing an opinion, even a hateful one. Second, these rules were probably put into place to punish people who said non-PC things and they were mostly aimed at straight white males. Now that the rules are being enforced evenly and fairly, people like Pure are complaining. Personally, I don't see any difference betwen a white person saying "nigger" and a black person saying "honky". I don't like either one but I think both are or should be protcted free speech unless they are an attempt at intimidation.

Anyhow, that's my dime's worth.

 

[pop_54]

Hmmmmm

Murder is murder, robbing someone of the rest of their life for whatever reason is a vile crime and should be punished accordingly regardless of motive, end of story!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Seattle Zack]

The purpose of beating or killing a [black] person or whoever because you don't like the group they belong to is not just to beat that person but to intimidate all others in the group.

If that's the definition of a hate crime, then let's look at the workings of the US Justice system itself.

Since 1977, over 80% of death row defendants have been executed for killing white victims, even though African-Americans make up about 50% percent of all homicide victims.

In a 1990 report, the U.S. General Accounting Office found "a pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging, sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty." The study concluded that a defendant was several times more likely to be sentenced to death if the murder victim was white. This confirms the findings of many other studies that, holding all other factors constant, the single most reliable predictor of whether someone will be sentenced to death is the race of the victim.

A study of the city of Philadelphia found that, even after making allowances for case differences, the odds of receiving a death sentence in Philadelphia are nearly four times higher if the defendant is African-American.

In May 2002, Maryland Governor Glendening imposed a moratorium on executions in his state because of concerns regarding the issue of racial bias in Maryland's death penalty system. In Maryland, 67% of the people on death row are African-American, the highest percentage of any state death row. 81% of the state's homicide victims were African American, yet 84% of death sentences resulted from cases involving white victims.

A review of the federal death penalty by the Justice Department revealed that 80% of the cases submitted by federal prosecutors for death penalty review in the past five years have involved racial minorities as defendants. In more than half of those cases, the defendant was African-American.

"…racial discrimination pervades the U.S. death penalty at every stage of the process…. There is only one way to eradicate ethnic bias, and the echoes of racism, from death penalty procedures in the United States-and this is by eradicating the death penalty itself." --Killing with Prejudice: Race and the Death Penalty in the USA, Amnesty International, May 1999

The death penalty is, in fact, the greatest hate crime of all.

 

[snooper]

(brief aside: why is that only the Nazi's and the KKK think that Jews are not white?)

A person with four white grandparents is white, with four black grandparents is black; that much I understand.
Perhaps you can explain to me why one black grandparent out of four makes a person black, but one white grandparent out of four does not make them white?

 

[Pure]

Seattle Zach said,

//The death penalty is, in fact, the greatest hate crime of all.//

Very good points, Zach. Good data also. The local paper here has been publishing stats on such things as, when stopped by a cop, your chance of being taken in for questioning; the likelihood of being charged, etc. The Black person is in for it all the way along.

SweetnP said,

Does it matter if some guy killed another because he is gay or for some other non-hate motivated reason?


I submit that it does. The purpose of beating or killing a gay person or whoever because you don't like the group they belong to is not just to beat that person but to intimidate all others in the group.

Question: How do you determine the 'purpose'? Is that the same as 'intent.' Consider the following a killer might say. Which are evidence of 'purpose' of intimdating others?

"He pissed me off, the gay SOB so I killed him."
"He was gay and made a pass at me so I killed him."
"He was gay, and got in my face, so I killed him."
"I wanted to kill a gay person, any person, and he came along."
"I wanted to kill him so the other fags would 'get the message.'"

Consider also, the serial rapist. Let's say he commonly says, 'women are bitches'. But, when acting, he thinks no further than the present victim: "I want to rape her."

AAMOF, of course, women hear of the crime and are intimidated, so can 'intimidation' of women, generally, be said to be his purpose?

SnP I do admire your concern for the unfairly victimized and terrorized, esp. when terrorized by the gov't. Yet these questions of 'larger intent' (to intimidate many) are very difficult unless you've got a Hitler who writes down his plans to terrify and kill those of a certain group, held to be inferior.

 

[ffreak]

A person with four white grandparents is white, with four black grandparents is black; that much I understand.
Perhaps you can explain to me why one black grandparent out of four makes a person black, but one white grandparent out of four does not make them white?

I love this site - we can discuss such a wide range in a topic. I really hope this doesn't upset you, sweetnpetite, I like what we're covering here.

Thank you for asking such a good question. This is a disparity that goes way back into pre-U.S. history.

On the surface, the treatment of a person who has any amount of African (or Native American) ancestry has been so ingrained into our culture that the 'white' society calls them black or indian. It has been so much of a blockade against people with such rich ancestry that for much of our country's history (yes even up into my generation - I'll leave that dangling on purpose) they strove to make matches that would allow their children to 'pass' as white. Many times in our history it was 'discovered' that some people who had succeeded otherwise had in fact deceived the public, their business associates, investors, etc. by claiming to be white (or simply not revealing that they were not 100% white). When this occurred, they often lost their entire fortunes.

This prejudice is not unique to 'whites' either. There is a case on record of an employee of the IRS suing because her supervisor, a 'woman of color' (as opposed to black) was discriminating. She won her case. When the slaves rose against the French on San Dominique (today known as the island of Haiti and Santo Domingo) many of the house slaves helped their masters escape to New Orleans. In gratitude, the French freed these slaves and they were given the title 'people of color'. This caused an immediate disparity in the African population. Some of the freed slaves went on to own slaves themselves. A big difference still exists within the New Orleans cultures.

Just to put my own utopian dream in, I think the golden children, those whose parents come from different cultures and (sub)races are the future of a society that makes no difference based on the color of a person's skin. Of course, that is utopian, I also believe that Seuss' point in the Sneetches is true - if everyone looks alike, people will mark themselves (with swastikas for instance) to make a difference.

Throwing one more wrench at the monkey cage; are you a Jew? I am. I'm a Jew because my ancestors came from one of the houses of Israel (not Judah by the way). If I worship one God, or not, is of no difference. If my mother was a practicing Roman Catholic, makes no difference. Simply the fact that my ancestors (specifically on my mother's side of the family) were Jews makes me a Jew. But what of the diaspora? If you read the descriptions of the sons of Jacob, it makes you wonder if the Picts, and the Norse, and the Swedes, and many others are not from the lost tribes. If so, then there's a strong argument that all Europeans have the blood of Israel in their veins. They just don't want to think that they've been 'tainted' with Jew blood.

Oh, and to demonstrate that hate is not limited to races, and the control of the press is a very real evil waiting out there to take control, take a look at this article at CNN: University loses journalism funding

-FF (I love this site - oh, I said that already - well I love the folks at this site too - such delicious topics)

 

[Boxlicker101]

ffreak said:

Oh, and to demonstrate that hate is not limited to races, and the control of the press is a very real evil waiting out there to take control, take a look at this article at CNN: University loses journalism funding

And a newspaper article was attached about the chief honcho of a university requiring that the school newspaper include a letter from her on the front page, and almost closing the paper down when they didn't do as she said.

I don't know whether or noit you are aware of it, ffreak, but all newspapers are owned by somebody, and that somebody has control, at lease indirect, over what is printed. They are not usually as heavy-handed as the administrator at Howard U., and would probably not go out and recall editions that have already been published, but they do control what the newspaper prints, especially on the front pages. If a person owns a newspaper and is opposed to the mayor of a city, the owner will see to it that only negative news about the mayor appears on the front pages, and positive news, if it appears at all, will be buried somewhere else. Freedom of the Press means that the owners or managers of newspapers are free to print what they want, within obvius limits.