Hate-crime allegations: four white students at San Jose State charged

[rickjump1 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/hate-crime-allegations-four-white-students-san-jose-224243879.html "Four white students at San José State University in California have been suspended and charged with misdemeanor battery and hate crimes against an African-American student who shared their dorm suite. Police say the harassment ranged from displaying a Confederate flag and white-supremacist symbols to putting a bicycle lock around his neck."

Suspended? I guess this means there's a possibility they can come back.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Well, there's that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. If they're convicted, I'm pretty sure they'll be expelled. If they're acquitted, but expelled just for being accused (as you insinuate you would prefer) then they'd be punished for something they didn't do. On the whole, I prefer to have the trial first, and punish after that if convicted. YMMV.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rickjump1 0]

Iago

***http://news.yahoo.com/hate-crime-allegations-four-white-students-san-jose-224243879.html "Four white students at San José State University in California have been suspended and charged with misdemeanor battery and hate crimes against an African-American student who shared their dorm suite. Police say the harassment ranged from displaying a Confederate flag and white-supremacist symbols to putting a bicycle lock around his neck."

Suspended? I guess this means there's a possibility they can come back.

So being a jerk is now a crime. Good to know. No kidding, but this sure pushes the envelope (it doesn't come close to the "non- hate game" of Knock Down).
These jerks no doubt will be given a lesson.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Darius11 12]

Just the word HATE CRIME is retarded?

Its either a crime or not.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[SkyDekker 1,153]

Darius11

Just the word HATE CRIME is retarded?

Its either a crime or not.

I disagree. Killing people is a crime.

Gassing a whole race because you believe them to be inferior is a whole different level.

Graffiti is a crime in most places. Spray painting swastikas on a synagogue is another thing.

Obviously there are a myriad of other options with other religions, races and ethnicities. I don't have an issue with the concept of hate crimes.

[turtlespeed 212]

SkyDekker

***Just the word HATE CRIME is retarded?

Its either a crime or not.

I disagree. Killing people is a crime.

Gassing a whole race because you believe them to be inferior is a whole different level.

Graffiti is a crime in most places. Spray painting swastikas on a synagogue is another thing.

Obviously there are a myriad of other options with other religions, races and ethnicities. I don't have an issue with the concept of hate crimes.

Whaddya know - pleasant surprise - we agree.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,153]

turtlespeed

******Just the word HATE CRIME is retarded?

Its either a crime or not.

I disagree. Killing people is a crime.

Gassing a whole race because you believe them to be inferior is a whole different level.

Graffiti is a crime in most places. Spray painting swastikas on a synagogue is another thing.

Obviously there are a myriad of other options with other religions, races and ethnicities. I don't have an issue with the concept of hate crimes.

Whaddya know - pleasant surprise - we agree.
I was wondering why there was a pig flying by my office window....

[Darius11 12]

I think all crime is hate crime.

i don't believe in having different categories for people.

Quote

Gassing a whole race because you believe them to be inferior is a whole different level.

yea that's genocide and i really don't think that has anything to do with hate crime legislation.

Quote

Graffiti is a crime in most places. Spray painting swastikas on a synagogue is another thing.

You have a point.
i can see the difference in this example.
It would be more then vandalism.

Hmmm time to rethink this one.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[turtlespeed 212]

Darius11

I think all crime is hate crime.

i don't believe in having different categories for people.

So stealing a loaf of bread is a hate crime?
Shoplifting a scarf is a hate crime?
Jay walking is a hate crime?
Women skydiving in Florida on Sunday is a hate crime?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rehmwa 2]

Darius11

Quote

Graffiti is a crime in most places. Spray painting swastikas on a synagogue is another thing.

You have a point.
i can see the difference in this example.
It would be more then vandalism.

Hmmm time to rethink this one.

I don't - graffiti is graffiti regardless of the topic - it's defacing another's property. (If the "content" incites other crimes - like assault, etc, then those are separate crimes that stand on their own and need to be addressed as they stand). How do you trial one case where the guy painted that swastika and the other case where an ignorant vandal spray painted something that 'kinda looks' like a swastika? at that point, you aren't working the crime, you are working on society by committing further injustice on the individual (first you punish them correctly for the act of defacing another's property, then you take out societal frustration upon the guy because you have no other target - one is justice, the other is a witch hunt - a lazy, political and childish witch hunt). How do you justify an increased punishment on one person for "potential" that he might incite a total stranger to commit a crime? Isn't the next crime the responsibility of the next criminal? It's so incredibly rife with unequal punishment under the law I'm amazed the concept every got any traction - but that's politics and ignorance in action.

I'm for punishing someone based on their actions, NOT on their thoughts, NOT on the actions of others. It's that simple.

Highly liberal laws punish people based on (what they, in a biased way think is) their thoughts. Highly conservative societies punish people based on (what they, in a biased way think is) their thoughts. Highly religious societies punish people based on (what they, in a biased way think is) their thoughts. If you look at it clearly - hate crime is a clear symptom of very extremist, very intolerant, societies.

"Hate crime" is just another way to try to enforce and control thought and morals beyond just responding to the actions of a person.

Assault is assault and should be punished equally. Why does it matter what's in the mind of the person that commits it? Why does it matter if the victim is one race or religion over another? The crime is the attack, not the (perceived) thought process. Anything else is pure bias and more "ism" preferencing. Down that road is a pretty crappy place that just reinforces what we want to evolve past in the first place.

The only logical responses to my position are "social engineering" type arguments. (I know, someone will note that punishing murder = 'social engineering' - that tangent is obtuse and redirecting and boring). So it come down to a person's opinion on individualism vs otherwise.

...
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]

turtlespeed

So stealing a loaf of bread is a hate crime?

Should a criminal be punished for stealing a loaf a bread from Walmart? Should he be punished extra for stealing a similar loaf from a corner quickie mart owned by a (chinese? white? black? Jewish? Poor? rich? male? female? gay? straight?) couple?

Should he be punished more or less if the thief is chinese? white? black? Jewish? Poor? rich? male? female? gay? straight?

...
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

[SkyDekker 1,153]

Quote

I'm for punishing someone based on their actions, NOT on their thoughts, NOT on the actions of others.

You do in a hate crime.

All other crimes and subsequent punishment is based on intent as well. What thought process went into it.

Difference between manslaughter and murder 1 is often the thought behind the act.

Selecting something in a store and absentmindedly walking out with it is not stealing. It is only stealing if you intended to steal it, if the thought was there.

Thought already plays a big part in criminal justice, to all of a sudden abandon that when it comes to hate crimes makes no sense to me.

[SkyDekker 1,153]

rehmwa

***So stealing a loaf of bread is a hate crime?

Should a criminal be punished for stealing a loaf a bread from Walmart? Should he be punished extra for stealing a similar loaf from a corner quickie mart owned by a (chinese? white? black? Jewish? Poor? rich? male? female? gay? straight?) couple?

Should he be punished more or less if the thief is chinese? white? black? Jewish? Poor? rich? male? female? gay? straight?

No, but then non of that is a hate crime.

[rehmwa 2]

SkyDekker

Quote

I'm for punishing someone based on their actions, NOT on their thoughts, NOT on the actions of others.

You do in a hate crime.

All other crimes and subsequent punishment is based on intent as well. What thought process went into it.

Difference between manslaughter and murder 1 is often the thought behind the act.

Selecting something in a store and absentmindedly walking out with it is not stealing. It is only stealing if you intended to steal it, if the thought was there.

Thought already plays a big part in criminal justice, to all of a sudden abandon that when it comes to hate crimes makes no sense to me.

I understand your point - but those gradations are about the intent that goes into it. This goes beyond a reasonable expectation of intent, but to the philosophy behind the intent. It even goes beyond that and prioritizes the 2nd over the 1st at times.

Your example is valid and applies to how to punish the criminal directly based on his actions. hate crime is more than that, it's taking a scapegoat and using him to make a societal statement. That's different.

...
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]

SkyDekker

***
Should a criminal be punished for stealing a loaf a bread from Walmart? Should he be punished extra for stealing a similar loaf from a corner quickie mart owned by a (chinese? white? black? Jewish? Poor? rich? male? female? gay? straight?) couple?

Should he be punished more or less if the thief is chinese? white? black? Jewish? Poor? rich? male? female? gay? straight?

No, but then non of that is a hate crime.

yes it is if there is a desire to prosecute it that way - the 'more equal' pigs in charge can define it any way they wish.

Wait until it's a hate crime to bad mouth policy from the president (Bush, or Obama). Or pick a hated Canadian politician if you wish.

...
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

[champu 1]

rehmwa

I don't - graffiti is graffiti regardless of the topic - it's defacing another's property. (If the "content" incites other crimes - like assault, etc, then those are separate crimes that stand on their own and need to be addressed as they stand). How do you trial one case where the guy painted that swastika and the other case where an ignorant vandal spray painted something that 'kinda looks' like a swastika?

...Or a person who just spray-painted anything at all... ...but he's got tattoos of swastikas and quotes from Mein Kampf all over his arms.

[SkyDekker 1,153]

rehmwa

***

Quote

I'm for punishing someone based on their actions, NOT on their thoughts, NOT on the actions of others.

You do in a hate crime.

All other crimes and subsequent punishment is based on intent as well. What thought process went into it.

Difference between manslaughter and murder 1 is often the thought behind the act.

Selecting something in a store and absentmindedly walking out with it is not stealing. It is only stealing if you intended to steal it, if the thought was there.

Thought already plays a big part in criminal justice, to all of a sudden abandon that when it comes to hate crimes makes no sense to me.

I understand your point - but those gradations are about the intent that goes into it. This goes beyond a reasonable expectation of intent, but to the philosophy behind the intent. It even goes beyond that and prioritizes the 2nd over the 1st at times.

Your example is valid and applies to how to punish the criminal directly based on his actions. hate crime is more than that, it's taking a scapegoat and using him to make a societal statement. That's different.

Sorry you lost me at scapegoat.

And if the social statement is: don't hate a group a whole group of people because they are different. I am okay with that social statement.

[SkyDekker 1,153]

rehmwa

******
Should a criminal be punished for stealing a loaf a bread from Walmart? Should he be punished extra for stealing a similar loaf from a corner quickie mart owned by a (chinese? white? black? Jewish? Poor? rich? male? female? gay? straight?) couple?

Should he be punished more or less if the thief is chinese? white? black? Jewish? Poor? rich? male? female? gay? straight?

No, but then non of that is a hate crime.

yes it is if there is a desire to prosecute it that way - the 'more equal' pigs in charge can define it any way they wish.

Wait until it's a hate crime to bad mouth policy from the president (Bush, or Obama). Or pick a hated Canadian politician if you wish.

Really?

They could, but I doubt it would stand up in court.

Slippery slope argument is a nice scare tactic, but isn't that exactly why there are check and balances in the system.

For your argument to be valid, it would have to be started by politicians, carried through the legislative process, then upheld by a court, appeal courts and the Supreme Court.

[rehmwa 2]

SkyDekker

And if the social statement is: don't hate a group a whole group of people because they are different. I am okay with that social statement.

It's a good statement. That's not the question. Here's the question:

Are you willing to make that statement by having a government that deliberately unequally punishes people for the same act?

If so, which statements are ok with this and which statements are you not ok with it?

...
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]

SkyDekker

"you lost me at"
"Slippery slope argument"
"nice scare tactic"

it was fun, but I'm not going down that route, rick and ron and kallend and funjumper live down there

good stuff for a while, thanks





"it would have to be started by politicians, carried through the legislative process, then upheld by a court, appeal courts and the Supreme Court. " I am concerned about this. History shows this isn't fool proof when the goal is a major philosophical shift in politics and society. I have two parties in Washington that have no issue 'bending' the rules to get what they want. And a public majority that doesn't understand that this is not right.

...
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

[SkyDekker 1,153]

Quote

Are you willing to make that statement by having a government that deliberately unequally punishes people for the same act?

I don't see that being the case with hate crimes, so the question is a red herring.

Those who commit hate crimes (should) get punished equally.

If your question is: Are you okay with somebody spray painting swastikas on a synagogue getting a higher sentence than Banksy getting caught? Then the answer is, yes I am.

[rehmwa 2]

SkyDekker

If your question is: Are you okay with somebody spray painting swastikas on a synagogue getting a higher sentence than Banksy getting caught? Then the answer is, yes I am.

No, I'm not. (smiley face or swastika, it's a violation of the private property).

Any secondary fallout needs to be addressed directly as to those specific actions that are committed, not 'potentially' committed.

agree to disagree


Funny you chose Banksy though. In your opinion, is defacing another's property LESS of a crime because the 'artist' is making a positive (or at least a Politically Correct to certain demographics) statement?

Now you are getting into abuse of the right of free speech and that's it's acceptable to commit a crime in the pursuit of that speech. But only if you agree with the speech of the artist, but not acceptable if you don't.

Where would draw THAT line? whose property is it 'acceptable' for Banksy to deface? whose would it be 'inappropriate' to?

...
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

[SkyDekker 1,153]

Iago

***

Quote

I'm for punishing someone based on their actions, NOT on their thoughts, NOT on the actions of others.

You do in a hate crime.

All other crimes and subsequent punishment is based on intent as well. What thought process went into it.

Difference between manslaughter and murder 1 is often the thought behind the act.

Selecting something in a store and absentmindedly walking out with it is not stealing. It is only stealing if you intended to steal it, if the thought was there.

Thought already plays a big part in criminal justice, to all of a sudden abandon that when it comes to hate crimes makes no sense to me.

So if I understand correctly:

"Stick em up and give me your wallet" - robbery/assault

"Stick em up and give me your wallet faggot" - hate crime

You don't understand correctly. I doubt that has ever been upheld as a hate crime.

Now, people who go out to specifically beat up (and kill) some faggots, that would likely be a hate crime.

[SkyDekker 1,153]

Quote

Funny you chose Banksy though. In your opinion, is defacing another's property LESS of a crime because the 'artist' is making a positive (or at least a Politically Correct to certain demographics) statement?

You can see it that way. I think when graffiti is used to express hatred directed at a clearly identifyable group, it is more of a crime than simple graffiti.

Beating somebody up becayse they are Chinese is more of a crime than simple assault.

keep in mind that hate criems are generally in th realm of what otherwise would be relatively minor convictions.

Making a murder a hate crime doesn't do much if they are already going to spend the rest of tehir life in jail.

[Darius11 12]

Quote

"Stick em up and give me your wallet faggot" - hate crime

Only if the faggot is homosexual

I like the debate between thees guys, i read Sky an i am like oh i get what he is saying, i read rehmwa and i think wow he has a great point.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain