Hate crime for assault on opposing team fans??

[DSE 3]

Quote

So the "because" in the above statement should not be there? That's all I was asking. Burning a cross on the lawn of a black person/family's home, in an of itself, is sufficient to constitute a "hate crime"? Correct? Simple question.

Burn a cross in a public area, it's a political statement.
Burn a cross on anyone's lawn, it's likely vandalism.
Burn a cross on a black person's lawn, yes, I would think it's classified as a hate crime.

Under current law, it *is* a hate crime.

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

Under current law, it *is* a hate crime.

As it should be. This article should hopefuly clear it up for some.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/07/scotus.cross.burning/

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

A crime is a crime. Hate crimes legislation is nothing more than the PC crowd trying to feel better about themselves.

So then murder is murder regardless of motive, situation or planning. Why are there different degrees of murder then? What youre missing is that hate crimes differ from regular crimes in that the former might be used to intimidate or cause fear to a certain group or class of people.

Murder is murder. First of second degree only means for thought and planning or not. The reason does not make is more or less heinous. I am missing nothing

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[1969912 0]

Quote

If they attack him, beat him up, call him a kike, spray paint a star of David on him, and then steal his wallet,...it's a hate crime.

Let's go back to your description of a "hate crime" against a Jewish person. The Jewish person requires two acts of racist behavior form the criminal. At some point the Jewish community might feel the the difference between their "hate crime" law and that for blacks is unfair. So what would you do? Remove one of the two requirements from the law for Jews, or add one to the law for blacks? What about similar situations for other protected groups? What about groups that are given no special protection from "hate crimes"? What about Japs? Micks like me? Gooks? Krauts? Redskins? WhiteBoys? TacoBenders? And on, and on..........


You see where I'm going with this? It could turn into a big mess. And for what? Will it deter crimes against people? I say no. Criminals don't care; they're dirtbags. It's silly.

All I have to say. This is another "religious" argument. See link if you are interested in other opinions.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8227

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

Murder is murder. First of second degree only means for thought and planning or not. The reason does not make is more or less heinous. I am missing nothing.

You're missing a HUGE point. Yes, someone is dead, but the circumstances play a significant role. I think most would agree that killing in self defense should be treated differently than premeditated murder. If murder is murder then explain the following three: justifiable homicide, criminal homicide and manslaughter. All three involve the same act, taking a human life. Yet each is treated differently under the law. Why, if murder is murder in your mind.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Murder is murder. First of second degree only means for thought and planning or not. The reason does not make is more or less heinous. I am missing nothing.

You're missing a HUGE point. Yes, someone is dead, but the circumstances play a significant role. I think most would agree that killing in self defense should be treated differently than premeditated murder. If murder is murder then explain the following three: justifiable homicide, criminal homicide and manslaughter. All three involve the same act, taking a human life. Yet each is treated differently under the law. Why, if murder is murder in your mind.

You are clouding the issues with off topic points. We are talking murder. One killing another for the purpose of ending anothers life. Not self defense or any other direction you want to take it. Hate crime deffinitions in this context is bull shit and you cant change that fact

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Casurf1978 0]

I'm not trying to cloud the issue, just stating that the circumstances in which an action, mainly criminal, is committed in plays a significant role. I agree hate crime in this instance, assault an opposing team fan, is BS. But lets say I plan and purposely pick Black owned homes and burn crosses on them with the intent to intimidate and terrorize should be treated differently that if I just go and vandolize a random homes.

[DSE 3]

Quote

[You see where I'm going with this? It could turn into a big mess. And for what? Will it deter crimes against people? I say no. Criminals don't care; they're dirtbags. It's silly.

All I have to say. This is another "religious" argument. See link if you are interested in other opinions.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8227

To the point of the linked article, and the position you present, of course it's not going to deter crime. The death penalty doesn't deter crime either, nor does life imprisonment.
And the point is?

If one kills in a crime of passion, for profit, or political statement, the victim is just as dead. Same with hate-motivated murder. This is a silly argument; by *far* the majority of hate crimes are not murder. They are crimes to intimidate, steal liberty from, cause pain for, the victims of the crime simply based on their color, religion, sexual orientation or country of origin.
Economic terrorism laws are acceptable, but laws protecting citizens from other citizens are not?
Is there an irony that the perpetrators of hate crimes are the same persons fighting the concept of hate crime?

[1969912 0]

Quote

Is there an irony that the perpetrators of hate crimes are the same persons fighting the concept of hate crime?

Impressive. Sure wish I had your rhetorical and intellectual capacity. Done playing, but I'm sure you'll do just fine alone.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Curious, is it common for white guys to put on white hats and burn a cross in the front yard of a white man?

It it common for white guys to put on white hats and burn a cross in the front yard of a black man?

Or are you just playing to an outdated stereotype?

Please, tell us how many times that actually happened in 2006... in a country of 300 million people.

Quote

How often do black men dress up in black robes and toss Molotov cocktails into a synagogue?
Been a while since I've seen Hispanics find a homosexual man and tie him to a fence for his sexual preference.

Again, you're talking about rare isolated incidents. How many gays have been tied to fence in the last 20 years?

Quote

The majority of hate crimes in the US are perpetrated by white people

So what? The majority of people in the US are white.

Quote

Assholes are assholes, but if their actions are motivated _predominantly_ because of someone's culture, sexual preference, religion, or gender, then it becomes a hate crime, and should be punished.
I don't agree that when a Georgia Tech fan beats a Florida State fan that it should be a hate crime. If someone is beaten, raped, robbed, assaulted, or physically intimidated primarily because of the above reasons, then it should be an added charge on top of the initial charge. No lessening of the initial charge absent a hate crime makes sense.
All crimes against people of color, gender, sexual pref, or religion don't automatically become hate crimes, either.

Personally, I feel it's a fine line, and a scary one that can be misused. If for example, the Jewish kid beaten on the street for his wallet gets to claim "I was wearing my kippa, so they attacked me because I'm Jewish..." that isn't right, IMO.
If they attack him, beat him up, call him a kike, spray paint a star of David on him, and then steal his wallet,...it's a hate crime. The perpetrators obviously prepped for the crime by carrying paint, they used language indicating their attitude towards Jews. Stealing his wallet is an afterthought.
Everyone has prejudices. Being motivated to violence by those prejudices is a hate crime.

Here's one for ya...
Jewish kid walking down the street of a Jewish neighborhood on Saturday, wearing his iPod, and gets beaten by other Jewish kids for breaking the Sabbath. Is it a hate crime because he's not Jewish enough?

It is amazing how much energy is devoted to the topic of hate crimes, considering they account for one in six thousand crimes.

Someone has derogatory terms spray painted on their garage door... the media laps it up. Five houses in the same sub-division get robbed over the weekend... yaaawn.

I do think some crimes should clearly be prosecuted as hate crimes, but the amount of attention "hate crime" receives compared to overall crime is pretty insane.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Is there an irony that the perpetrators of hate crimes are the same persons fighting the concept of hate crime?

Impressive. Sure wish I had your rhetorical and intellectual capacity. Done playing, but I'm sure you'll do just fine alone.

He's not alone.

The irony is not lost on me, either: virtually all of the bitching I see and hear about hate crime legislation comes from conservative white men. Curious that they - but pretty much nobody else - seem to feel particularly threatened by it.

[Royd 0]

Hate crimes are crap.

Example, you child is beaten near to death by another of the same race or color. The attacker gets say 3 years in prison.

Your friends child is beat near to death by another of a different race or color. It is called a hate crime and the attacker gets 15 years.

Is your freinds childs health and well being worth more than yours?

Quote

A crime is a crime. Hate crimes legislation is nothing more than the PC crowd trying to feel better about themselves.

Here's how you get rid of it. You make the robbery of a convenience store a hate crime. After all, the person committing the crime hates the fact that the store owner worked hard and has money and he doesn't.

The ACLU and the NAACP would be all over that one faster than you can say "Give me your money."

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Is there an irony that the perpetrators of hate crimes are the same persons fighting the concept of hate crime?

Impressive. Sure wish I had your rhetorical and intellectual capacity. Done playing, but I'm sure you'll do just fine alone.

He's not alone.

The irony is not lost on me, either: virtually all of the bitching I see and hear about hate crime legislation comes from conservative white men. Curious that they - but pretty much nobody else - seem to feel particularly threatened by it.

I'd like to refer you both to this thread:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2966742#2966742

that will keep this type of crap out of a decent and respectful discussion

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Vandalize someone's home-3 years

Vandalize someone's home by burning a cross in their front yard because they're black-3 years for the initial crime, and add a year because it was racially motivated.

I think it's nonsense -

vandalize someone's home because you hate their guts? - 3-years

vandalize a black person's home because you are a racist jerk? - 3-years

burn a cross or anything in someone's yard because you are a racist jerk? mischief, vandalism, reckless endangerment - x years, fines, etc as appropropriate. Those are legitimate crimes that can be prosecuted - no matter who does it nor who it's done to. Go after those convictions too.

Using the hate crime label is just to elicit a response, and make political points.

you can respond to the extra illegal actions as 'illegal actions' without bringing in motivation at all.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Butters 0]

Quote

Under New York law, they said, defendants can be convicted of a hate crime even if they bear no actual hatred for their victim.

The law requires only that they have singled out a person for a violent act because of some belief or stereotype about that person's ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability or sexual orientation.

You can read the rest of the article here.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

If someone is beaten, raped, robbed, assaulted, or physically intimidated primarily because of the above reasons, then it should be an added charge on top of the initial charge. No lessening of the initial charge absent a hate crime makes sense.

"no lessening of the initial charge absent a hate crime"

If punishment for the attack for one reason is LESS than the attack for the other reason, then you are definitely "lessening the charge" compared to another arbitrary reason.

If you attack me because of my color, or you attack me because you had a bad day and I was handy - why should the penalty be different? You are arguing for a lesser penalty in one case.

I don't care if someone is cranky, or if they are racist, or if they don't like your sports team. I only care if they act on it to the point of attacking another - that's where they crossed the line. In each of the three cases - they are all guilty of the same action. Differences in punishment at that point need to be assessed on a case basis to determine propensity to repeat.

There's a serious injustice to the public in general to go past that.

Hate crimes were added as a concept to address disparity in punishment that swung the other way. This is just another example of not fixing the real problem - only adding a bandaid. It's funny how many people think that temporary fixes that defy a true sense of justice (in the forms of 2 wrongs make it right) is a good thing and not just more of the same.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Royd 0]

Quote

No one is stupid enough to not see the obvious crimes that are hate-based. No one.

There's like, and then there's like, like.

There's don't like, there's disdain, and then there's hate. On an individual, one on one basis, there are too many variables.

If I take a bulldozer and plow through a black neighborhood that would be based on hate. If it's a redneck, meth lab infested neighborhood, that's a different story.

If I kick someone's ass because they are annoying, regardless of race, it shouldn't be a hate crime. Oh, wait, I HATE annoying people.

[Andy9o8 0]

Ha ha.
Clearly you just don't get it.

[DSE 3]

Quote

[
If punishment for the attack for one reason is LESS than the attack for the other reason, then you are definitely "lessening the charge" compared to another arbitrary reason.

If you attack me because of my color, or you attack me because you had a bad day and I was handy - why should the penalty be different? You are arguing for a lesser penalty in one case.
.

Not arguing for a lesser penalty in one case, but rather arguing for an added penalty in certain circumstances.
If one robs a convenience store, there is a penalty. If they use a firearm, there is a greater penalty/additional charge.
If someone is threatened or struck, or worse, there is an additional charge still yet.
Kinda like the drive-thru at McDonalds. You can get just one item, or a Happy Meal.
It's already this way, adding a hate crime to the charges *if* the motivation can be shown to be prejudicial in nature. My opinion; if it's not crystal clear that it's a bias-motivated crime, it shouldn't be charged as such.

As much as I hate to use the cliche' incidents; Would Matthew Shepherd have been hung on a fence for 2 days if he wasn't gay?
Would James Byrd have been dragged behind a truck until his body was torn in two?
These two men were specifically sought out and attacked due to color or preference. Had Byrd been any color but black, had Shepherd been straight, these crimes would not have occurred.

Quote

NCClimber re cross-burning:Please, tell us how many times that actually happened in 2006... in a country of 300 million people.

How about as recent as YESTERDAY?

It happens several times a year. According to the FBI, roughly 100 times per year in the US.
It also happened recently where a man made a "victim" of himself, burning a cross in his own yard claiming it was racists doing the deed. Despicable, as it costs credibility to those that would otherwise be taken seriously.

The statistics are very clear; even if they're discounted by 25% (abitrary number pulled out of thin air) it's still incredibly high at around 11,000 incidents per year, with the vasst majority being committed against people of color. Then religion, sexual orientation follow.

Small sampling:
2004
Bias motivated crimes against persons
Category: Simple Assault
Committed by white; 1078
Committed by black; 376

Bias motivated crimes against persons
Category: Intimidation
Committed by white; 1412
Committed by black; 272

Bias motivated crimes against Property
Category: Destruction/Damage/Vandalism
Committed by white; 398
Committed by black; 64

Bias-motivated/hate crimes happen. Daily. Maybe not in your world. Maybe you're open and accepting that in your world, you can't believe that others would commit these crimes based on hatred for race, creed, color, sexual orientation. Not believing it doesn't make it less so.

1969912--Perhaps you're not aware that the Irish attempted to get hate crime legislation passed at the turn of the century in NYC? Or that the Irish Parliament recently passed a hate crimes bill?

This isn't a new story, nor is it an American story. it's just a sad story.

[okalb 79]

Quote

virtually all of the bitching I see and hear about hate crime legislation comes from conservative white men. Curious that they - but pretty much nobody else - seem to feel particularly threatened by it.

I was the one who started the anti-hate crime discussion in this thread. I am a white male that is as far from conservative as you can get. I am a Bush hating left wing pinko liberal and I think hate crimes are a stupid waste of time and money. If the penalty for crimes are not harsh enough to be a deterrent, fix that. I don't need the government deciding that I should be punished further because of what I was thinking at the time I committed a crime. The last thing we need is laws based on what people are thinking. That is the first step in a very slippery slope.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

NCClimber re cross-burning:Please, tell us how many times that actually happened in 2006... in a country of 300 million people.

It happens several times a year. According to the FBI, roughly 100 times per year in the US.
It also happened recently where a man made a "victim" of himself, burning a cross in his own yard claiming it was racists doing the deed. Despicable, as it costs credibility to those that would otherwise be taken seriously.

100 times per year? Got a link.

Assuming you're right, how does this figure fit into the 13 MILLION crimes (based on 2005 numbers) committed each year?

Quote

The statistics are very clear; even if they're discounted by 25% (abitrary number pulled out of thin air) it's still incredibly high at around 11,000 incidents per year,

Is 11,000 another arbitrary number pulled out of thin air?

Quote

with the vast majority being committed against people of color.

Another arbitrary estimate?

[DSE 3]

hatewatch
FBI websiteds (read the UCR's/Uniform Crime Reports)
google "HateCrime"
Fo find your own, as anything I would point to will simply be poo-poo'd.

Quote

Assuming you're right, how does this figure fit into the 13 MILLION crimes (based on 2005 numbers) committed each year?

Does it truly matter what the percentage of hate crimes is vs non-hate crimes???

Sex crimes against children are barely rate compared to sex crimes against adults. What's your point?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

hatewatch
FBI websiteds (read the UCR's/Uniform Crime Reports)
google "HateCrime"
Fo find your own, as anything I would point to will simply be poo-poo'd.

Bullshit.

The FBI's UCR claim's 11,000 hate crimes/year?
Bullshit!

According to the FBI's UCR, the vast majority of hate crimes are against people of color?
Bullshit!

Quote

Sex crimes against children are barely rate compared to sex crimes against adults.

What a complete load of uninformed BULLSHIT!!!

Get it right.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

virtually all of the bitching I see and hear about hate crime legislation comes from conservative white men. Curious that they - but pretty much nobody else - seem to feel particularly threatened by it.

I was the one who started the anti-hate crime discussion in this thread. I am a white male that is as far from conservative as you can get. I am a Bush hating left wing pinko liberal and I think hate crimes are a stupid waste of time and money. If the penalty for crimes are not harsh enough to be a deterrent, fix that. I don't need the government deciding that I should be punished further because of what I was thinking at the time I committed a crime. The last thing we need is laws based on what people are thinking. That is the first step in a very slippery slope.

Calling hate-crime legislation "thought crimes" is the common propaganda label used by the anti-hate crime lobby. But that's just a handy diversionary slogan used to demonize it, so that one can argue against the demonized label - and that's the diversion.

A hate crime is not a "thought crime"; it's an INTENT crime. "But wait!! - isn't that the same damn thing??" No. While the semantics may make the difference seem subtle, the reality is that the differecne is huge. Almost all crimes require two elements: a "criminal intent", and an affirmative act in furtherance of the criminal intent. Both elements must exist, or there's no crime.

Mere criminal intent, without some act in furtherance of the criminal intent, is not a crime. So if you and I, sitting on the couch, verbally agree "Let's rob the store" - and at that instant - before we can commit a single deed to further our design - the cops burst in and arrest us for conspiracy to commit robbery, we are not guilty, because there's even though there's a plan, there's no act; and without an act, there's no crime.

Conversely, most completed acts, even if seemingly unlawful, are not crimes unless an actual criminal intent can also be proven. Say I'm walking and take a shortcut through a vacant lot which is not fenced in, but is posted with a No Trespassing sign - but I didn't see the sign or know it was there. Am I guilty of criminal trespass? No, because I didn't know my act was prohibited, so I had no criminal intent.

A hate crime is one in which the criminality of the committed act is enhanced - and even defined - by the intent of the actor. But there are other common examples of this "intent crime" legal principle - such as "burglary". In most states, burglary is entry into a premises WITH THE INTENT OF COMMITTING A CRIME THEREIN. So if I walk, uninvited, into a total stranger's house for no reason other than to get out of the rain - and have no intent to commit any crime in the house - I may be guilty of criminal trespass, but I'm not guilty of the more serious crime of burglary. But if I walk into the house with the intent of finding something to steal or to start an arson, or to assault the occupant - even if I'm arrested before I can grab the stereo - I'm also guilty of burglary. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN THE DEFINITION OF MY CRIME AND THE SEVERITY OF MY PUNISHMENT IS MY INTENT - NOTHING ELSE.

A hate crime is like a burglary, because it is defined as much by the actor's intent as by the physical act. A hate crime is one in which the victim is targeted specifically, and principally, BECAUSE he is a member of a group protected by the law - such as race, religion, etc. As I noted in my earlier post, hate crime legislation didn't come into existence without context - the legislative intent comes from a history of violence and intimidation being used as a means to oppress not just certain persons of other races or religions, but the entire group of which he is a member. The crime is defined not just by the physical act, but by the specific intent behind the act. A hate crime law is modern society's way of expressing that as much as it finds all criminal violence to be abhorrent, violence where the primary INTENT is to target someone BECAUSE of his ethnicity is even more abhorrent, requiring special attention in order to eradicate.

And that's why a hate crime is not just a "thought crime"; it's an INTENT crime.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

hatewatch
FBI websiteds (read the UCR's/Uniform Crime Reports)
google "HateCrime"
Fo find your own, as anything I would point to will simply be poo-poo'd.

Bullshit.

The FBI's UCR claim's 11,000 hate crimes/year?
Bullshit!

According to the FBI's UCR, the vast majority of hate crimes are against people of color?
Bullshit!

Quote

Sex crimes against children are barely rate compared to sex crimes against adults.

What a complete load of uninformed BULLSHIT!!!

Get it right.

Well...the FBI usually gets it right. Hatewatch has less conservative numbers, so I went with the most conservative report I'm aware of.

for 2005. 2006 shows 10, 240 crimes. For 2007, I rounded it down to 11,000 based on the increase between 2002 and 2006.
We'll just fly with the numbers from 2005.
Bias crimes against white persons: 828 crimes/975 victims.
Bias crimes against non-whites (people of color) 3091 crimes/3756 victims
Big difference by any math.

In most comparisons, anything beyond 50% is considered the "majority," right? so how is 3756 vs 975, 1405, or 1213 not a "vast majority?"

Bias crimes against religions:
1227 crimes/1405 victims

Bias crimes against homosexuals:
1017 crimes/1213 victims

[edited to add: The Department of Justice also has a report that doesn't include the FBI numbers. Their numbers are almost identical to Hatewatch, approximating 210,000 per year.

But we're improving. At least you didn't call me a liar this time.