11
   

The Horror of Hate Crimes

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 11:35 am
@firefly,
You got to be kidding me not a misused of the law!!!!!

The kid did a very minor act of vandalism and it get blown up into a hate crime how silly can you get.

The law in any sane society would not had been call in and it would had been handle by the school administration.

In fact it would have made an interesting teaching moment for the students without getting some kid a criminal record.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 11:42 am
@BillRM,
Quote:

The kid did a very minor act of vandalism and it get blown up into a hate crime how silly can you get.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that the article you posted did not indicate that the student was, in fact, charged with any hate crime. So, I fail to see where you are making any point at all.

We are discussing the case in Mississippi where the crime was not at all minor--it was murder.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 11:45 am
@firefly,
Sorry but the law should not try to be a mind reader and the act should speak for itself.

Oh the amusing thing about the hate laws is that it had been used more to punish blacks then whites even those the laws was sold as a mean to protects mainly such groups as black Americans from evil whites.

If two kids get into a fight and happen to not be of the same race and one of them is unwise enough to curse the other out using a racist term it now by a hate crime even it race was not the reason for the fight.

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 11:57 am
Another example that any law will be misused is the charging of or the threatening to charge teenagers under the child porn laws for sharing sexual pictures of themselves with their sexual partners.

Laws should be written as tightly as possible to try to prevent misused and the hate crime laws by their very nature is as open as the imagination of the local prosecutor can come up with.

0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 12:07 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Sorry but the law should not try to be a mind reader and the act should speak for itself.

As it does when a swastika is painted on a synagogue. The act goes beyond simple vandalism.

You seem unacquainted with the specific state bias-related crime laws, how they are actually worded, and how they are being actually applied. As usual, your ignorance of actual laws does not deter you from making unfounded sweeping generalizations.

I'm not interested in engaging in meaningless interchanges with you.

Again, you are avoiding a focus on the Mississippi case where the crime was not at all minor and the only motivation might have racial.

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 12:08 pm
@Arella Mae,
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=8380

Blacks arrested more
for 'hate crimes'
FBI report confirms higher rate than whites for racial attacks

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 06, 2001
1:00 am Eastern


By Jon Dougherty
© 2011 WND




Although "hate-crime" legislation has been championed by minority groups in hopes it would discourage racially motivated crime, a recently released FBI crime report reveals that a higher percentage of blacks than whites are charged with race-biased "hate crimes."
The FBI's "Hate Crime Statistics" for 1999 show that 2,030 whites were arrested that year for "hate crimes" against blacks, compared to 524 blacks who were arrested and charged with a "hate crime" against whites.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, blacks make up 12.8 percent of the population -- or about 35.4 million of the country's 280 million people -- so, given the arrest rate versus population percentage, the data indicates that blacks are one-and-a-half times more likely to be arrested for a "hate crime" than whites.

The Census Bureau's November 2000 statistics listed the nation's white population at 226.8 million, or 82.2 percent of the total.

"In light of this study, it's fair to ask who poses a greater threat to the black community -- racist, violent whites or oblivious black politicians?" said Steve Dasbach, the national director for the Libertarian Party.

"Unfortunately, hate crime laws have boomeranged on blacks," Dasbach said in a recent statement. "African-Americans thought that hate crime legislation would protect them, but instead they're being used as another legal weapon to prosecute them."

Dasbach also said the FBI study indicated that another 87 blacks were arrested for hate crimes against other blacks.

"Hate crimes aren't just for KKK members anymore. They are now being applied even to same-race crimes … apparently giving racist police, prosecutors or judges another weapon to use against African-Americans," Dasbach said.

The bottom line, Dasbach said, is that crimes against a certain protected class of citizens "should not be treated more seriously than crimes against anyone else."

The Libertarian Party has advocated a complete elimination of all "hate crime" laws. "Racist criminals, whether black or white, should be punished for their crimes, but hate crime laws aren't needed to do that," said the party chief.

Officially, Congress has described a "hate crime" as one "in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."

The party's position has been echoed by other critics of "hate crimes" laws who say legislation is written in such a way that authorities often have too much arbitrary power to decide whether a crime had a racial undertone.

Many believe that "hate crime" laws, now in 45 states, have hit poor and minority communities the worst.

"It is demonstrable that these laws hit the poor and minorities hardest. It wasn't meant that way, but that's the way it is," said Christopher Plourd -- a criminal defense lawyer who has represented a number of clients charged with "hate crimes" -- in an Oct. 30 interview with columnist Arianna Huffington.

"In the same way that [police] don't go on white college campuses trying to enforce drug laws, but come to the 'hood, they'll use these new hate crime laws against the NAACP's own constituents," Van Jones, director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, told Huffington.

Ironically, most blacks continue to vote heavily for Democrats who have championed "hate crimes" legislation for years. According to the NAACP, about 88 percent of blacks who voted in last November's elections chose Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore and other Democratic candidates for nationwide and local races.

Prior to the Nov. 7 election, the NAACP launched a $9 million national campaign effort in support of Gore, who had been a vociferous supporter of past "hate crimes" legislation.

Some Republicans have also backed expansion of federal legislation, but last fall GOP leaders killed "hate crimes" language in the Defense Department's appropriations bill out of fear it would have jeopardized the whole measure.

Also, GOP leaders said that while current federal law was sufficient to punish criminals convicted of racially motivated crime, overall, the issue of "hate crimes" legislation seemed contrary to the Constitution's equality provisions.

"It should not be made a matter of federal law to designate one group of crimes and its victims less important than others," said John Czwartacki, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., in an October interview with the Associated Press.

The FBI said there were a total of 7,876 "bias motivation" incidents in 1999. Anti-white incidents accounted for 781 of those, while anti-black incidents numbered 2,958. Anti-Hispanic incidents accounted for 466 of 829 ethnicity/national origin-related incidents.

Of religiously based "bias events," anti-Jewish figures accounted for 1,109 of 1,411 documented incidents. Anti-Protestant incidents numbered 48, and anti-Catholic incidents accounted for 36 of the cases.

Also, the FBI said there were a total of 1,317 "sexual orientation" incidents. Of those, 915 were anti-male homosexual; 187 were anti-female homosexual; 178 were anti-homosexual in general; and 14 were anti-heterosexual. Twenty-three incidents were anti-bisexual in nature.

The bureau also said law enforcement officials recorded 9,301 "crimes against persons" offenses in 1999. California -- the nation's most populous state at over 34 million people -- recorded the most offenses with 2,295, followed by New Jersey (663), New York (602), and Massachusetts and Michigan with 492 each.

Mississippi, North Dakota, and Wyoming led the nation with the least "crimes against persons" incidents, with just 2 each, followed by Alaska and the District of Columbia (6 each), Louisiana (7), Arkansas (9) and South Dakota (14).

Crimes against persons include murder and non-negligent manslaughter (17), forcible rape (6), aggravated assault (1,120), simple assault (1,766) and intimidation crimes (3,268). There were 12 offenses listed as "other."

The FBI's study appeared in the bureau's annual "Uniform Crime Report" and included data from over 12,000 law enforcement agencies around the country.

Related column:

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 12:20 pm
@firefly,
I am sure you are not willing to go into a debate as it does not matter to you if a hundred people are punish unfairly if one person who paint a Nazis symbol on a Jewish temple can be punish under hate crime laws more severely then otherwise.

Sorry but I am more concern about Jewish and blacks and white kids being unfairly charge with hate crimes and having their lives ruin under such laws that turn a minor event into a serous crime.

Oh that evil Nazis painter more likely then not is some dumb kid who have no understanding of the holocaust and is doing it without any deep hate toward Jews but is just being a stupid kid.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 01:24 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Sorry but I am more concern about Jewish and blacks and white kids being unfairly charge with hate crimes and having their lives ruin under such laws that turn a minor event into a serous crime.

You seem quite out of touch with reality--the reality of specific laws, the wording of those laws, and how the laws are currently actually applied.

Quote:
Hate Crimes Against African Americans

Despite the election of our nation's first African-American president, African Americans remain by far the most frequent victims of hate crimes. Of the 7,624 hate crime incidents reported nationwide in 2007, the most recent year for which data is available, 34 percent (2,659) were perpetrated against African Americans, a number and percentage of incidents that has changed little over the past 10 years. According to the FBI's HCSA report, more than twice as many hate crimes were reported against African Americans as against any other group.

From lynching, to burning crosses and churches, to murdering a man by chaining him to a truck and dragging him down a road for three miles, anti-black violence has been and still remains the prototypical hate crime, intended not only to injure and kill individuals but to terrorize an entire group of people. Hate crimes against African Americans have an especially negative impact upon society for the history they recall and perpetuate, potentially intimidating not only African Americans, but other minority, ethnic, and religious groups.
http://www.civilrights.org/publications/hatecrimes/african-americans.html


So, do you think that white kid in Mississippi would be unfairly charged with a hate crime, if the only reason he randomly assaulted and killed that black man was because of the color of the man's skin? Is that your idea of turning "a minor event into a serous crime"?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 01:42 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
So, do you think that white kid in Mississippi would be unfairly charged with a hate crime


Well times are changing however with that aside I am sure that a black kid could end up being charge unfairly with a hate crime in Mississippi.

An somehow I am as unhappy with anyone being unfairly charge with a hate crime black/white/green and given that our prisons are already full with young black men I see no point increasing that number by such laws.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 01:54 pm
@BillRM,
As usual, you construct a straw man--in this instance, alleging that people are being unfairly charged with hate crimes--with absolutely no evidence to back up your contention that bias laws are being misapplied given how they are worded.

And you are repeatedly failing to address the specific murder in Mississippi, and whether that case could legitimately be considered a hate crime if the only motive behind the act was to kill a black man, any black man.

In short, you seem only to be talking to yourself. Enjoy yourself.Laughing


BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 01:58 pm
@firefly,
Second note you do not need a hate crime law to place anyone away who drag a man by the neck behind a pick up truck away for life.

Hate crime laws added punishments are only meaningful in far less serous crimes.

As far as black churches burnings there was a wave of such in the south not that long ago that everyone was sure was driven by the KKK reborn however when it was look into it turn out that they when driven by other factors such as a minster looking for a insurance payout or a member of the church being unhappy and so on.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 02:01 pm
@firefly,
Sorry we cross post as I already address that a murder of that type the added punishments under hate crime laws is meaningless.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 02:16 pm
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/fanning_imaginary_flames_a_look_back_at_the_great_church_fire_propaganda_campaign.html



Fanning Imaginary Flames: A Look Back At The Great Church Fire Propaganda Campaign
By Scott Swett
Fifteen summers ago, America's news media informed us that black churches throughout the South were being torched by white racists. The purported wave of arsons dominated the airwaves and generated thousands of newspaper articles. Pundits, politicians and preachers decried the terrorism and the hate it represented.

In fact, it never happened.

Here is the little-known story of how an obscure radical group teamed up with a leftist national church organization, an unprincipled President and a legion of compliant news outlets to create a media firestorm -- one based entirely on lies.

The activists

In late March of 1996, The Center for Democratic Renewal (CDR) and the National Council of Churches (NCC) held a joint press conference to report a huge increase in the number of arsons committed against black churches. In media interviews, the Rev. Mac Charles Jones, a CDR board member, blamed "a well-organized white-supremacist movement" for what he called "domestic terrorism." The CDR stated in a preliminary report that the number of such arsons had increased each year since 1990, and claimed that all suspects arrested were white.

Though the media typically described the CDR as an independent group that monitors hate crimes, the organization was in fact a propaganda outlet for the radical left. The group's stated mission was to work "with progressive activists and organizations to build a movement to counter right-wing rhetoric and public policy initiatives." For years the CDR had emitted a stream of statements, reports and interviews claiming that racial terror by whites against blacks was on the rise.

In 1989 the Washington Post covered a CDR report that violence by white hate groups had increased in an article titled "Bombings Called Latest of Racial Crimes." In 1994, CDR Program Research Director Loretta J. Ross argued in "State of the White Supremacist" that "white supremacy is an ideology that manipulates U.S. politics and affects all relations in American society." Ross's paper also referred to an "increase in violent hate crimes across the nation."

Given the CDR's dishonest track record and hard ideological edge, one might have expected the media to respond to its latest round of accusations with a grain of salt and some fact checking. With very few exceptions, this was not to be the case.

The church council

The Los Angeles Times reported in December of 1995 that the head of the National Council of Churches, concerned with the increasing influence of the religious right and seeking to expand the organization's political operations, had held a meeting with the leaders of six church denominations in Washington D.C. "to map out a counterattack." Around the same time, the NCC hired CDR's Mac Charles Jones as part of an increased emphasis on "racial justice in public life." It was Jones who suggested focusing on the topic of black church fires.

Some NCC churches were already working with the CDR. In July of 1995, the Methodist Church held a conference on "Christian Ministry in the Midst of Hate and Violence" featuring "State of the White Supremacist" author Loretta Ross. A Methodist report noted that Ross "drew parallels between the political agendas of hate groups and far right politics" and proposed strategies including "leadership development, research, cultivation of the media, and the building of networks that can respond immediately to care for victims and launch educational efforts."

The President

In early June of 1996, President Bill Clinton met with two black ministers at the request of NCC general secretary Joan Campbell. On June 8, he denounced the church fires in a radio address and proposed a new federal task force to investigate them. Clinton spoke with emotion about his own "vivid and painful memories of black churches being burned in my own state when I was a child." The President charged that "racial hostility is the driving force" behind the fires, and pledged to place the full power of the federal government behind the investigation.

A burst of presidential activity followed. On June 14, Clinton invited Southern governors to a White House summit on the church fires. The next day, the FBI and BATF assigned 200 federal agents to the new task force. On June 17, the President appointed James Witt, head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to head a multi-agency effort focused on prevention. On July 11, Clinton told delegates to the NAACP's annual convention that America must stop "the fires of hatred and bigotry." On July 13, Clinton signed into law the Church Fire Prevention Act of 1996, which added church arsons to the more than 3,000 types of federal crime already on the books. On August 7, the President signed a spending bill that included $12 million to combat fires at churches with black congregations. Clinton toured the ruins of burned-out black churches on two occasions, including August 19, his 50th birthday. On August 29, while accepting his party's nomination for a second term, Clinton again referred to the fires, and condemned the painting of swastikas on the doors of Special Forces troops at Fort Bragg, North Carolina as another example of widespread anti-black hatred.

A media firestorm

Media coverage exploded after the President's radio speech. By July 8, over 2,200 newspaper articles had been printed on the topic. Magazines and news stations reported on a new campaign of terror rivaling the wave of segregationist church burnings and bombings in the South during the 1950's and early 1960's. The black-owned Los Angeles Sentinel ran an article typifying the tone of the coverage, titled "Madmen Setting Fires Of Hatred In South." USA Today ran huge articles on three consecutive days. In pulpits across the country, ministers raised their voices against racial terrorism and took up collections to rebuild the burned churches.

The media reported the claim that black church fires had dramatically increased as though it were a proven fact. Many news organizations also asked if conservative politics had created a "climate of intolerance." The Rev. C.T. Vivian, CDR's chairman, offered a helpful suggestion: "There's only a slippery slope between conservative religious persons and those that are really doing the burning."

Other voices

On July 8, writing in the Wall Street Journal, Michael Fumento analyzed the CDR report state by state, and found that it "regularly ignored fires set by blacks and those that occurred in the early part of the decade, and labeled fires as arson that were not -- all in an apparent effort to make black church torchings appear to be escalating." Fumento also reviewed statistics published in USA Today showing a sharp rise in black church arsons starting in 1994. He pointed out that two of the Southern states USA Today listed hadn't started reporting data until 1993, and a third hadn't until 1995. Naturally, he said, when they did, the numbers went up. When the late-reporting states were eliminated, the USA Today statistics showed no increase from 1990 to 1995 (numbers for 1996 are skewed by copycat crimes that followed the massive publicity). For 1995, USA Today had reported 45 arsons against white churches in the states surveyed in the South, and 27 against black churches, compared to a 4:1 ratio of whites to blacks in the region. Fumento noted that Southern black churches tend to be smaller than white churches, and are therefore proportionally more numerous. They are also more likely to be located in economically depressed areas, older, and made of wood -- all factors in arson.The day after President Clinton's radio address, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and others reported that no church burnings had occurred in Arkansas during Mr. Clinton's childhood, the president's "vivid and painful" memories notwithstanding.

On August 2, CDR Board President Joann Watson responded to Michael Fumento's article, insisting that "80 black churches were burned between January 1990 and May 1996." Watson ignored Fumento's numerous and specific claims that the CDR had falsified its data, concluding with, "We think that epidemic or not, even one church torched because of racial hatred is one too many."

On August 14, the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) wrote a public letter accusing the NCC of fabricating "a great church-fire hoax." The IRD said that the NCC "has exaggerated the church burning phenomenon so as to promote its radical agenda and to smear conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, as racist." NCC general secretary Joan Campbell replied that since "roughly the same number" of white and black churches had been burned, racism was evident.

On August 27, James K. Glassman charged in a Washington Post editorial that President Clinton had "obscured the scandal of the FBI files by promoting the phony tale of a wave of racist church burnings."

In mid-September, the Army officially confirmed that the Fort Bragg swastikas that President Clinton had denounced as racist at the Democratic National Convention had in fact been painted by a black soldier. Television and newspaper accounts had reported that the primary suspect was black as early as June.

Following the money

Clinton's June 8 radio address was a bonanza for the NCC/CDR fund-raising effort. The NCC immediately flew 38 pastors to Washington and held a news conference to distribute an updated version of the CDR report. Eight charitable foundations, including the Ford Foundation, pledged contributions in 24 hours.

In mid-June, the National Council of Churches ran full-page ads in the New York Times, the Washington Post and numerous other papers soliciting contributions for its new "Burned Churches Fund." Readers were invited to "stand up against racism and help rebuild the burned churches." The Washington Times noted that the spokesman and administrator for the fund was Don Rojas, former Director of Communications for the People's Revolutionary Government of Grenada.

I called the Burned Churches Fund hotline in July to request a breakdown of how the money would be used, and was told, "we're just set up to take donations." The woman I spoke to was unable to provide contact information for the fund's managers, but assured me that "all the money is going directly to the churches."

On August 9, in an article titled "Burning Need," the Wall Street Journal reported that just a year before, the NCC had been "struggling to raise money to fund ambitious programs designed to combat racism." In the past year the NCC had submitted "at least three 'racial justice' proposals seeking $1.9 million in funding from nonprofit groups including the Ford Foundation. Ford and the others turned the proposals down." Now, the paper reported, the NCC "has managed to raise nearly $9 million in a major fund drive, and contributions continue to pour in at about $100,000 a day." The article noted that "by couching the burnings as a 'national disaster' orchestrated by 'organized white-supremacist groups' and by buying provocative full-page advertisements in four major newspapers, the NCC has raised more money more quickly than it has for any previous cause."

The total value of funds, materials, and insurance available to rebuild the churches at the time of the Wall Street Journal article exceeded $18 million, not including the value of services and labor pledged by the United Way, Promise Keepers, Habitat for Humanity, unions, students, and others. The NCC itself estimated that for about $8.5 million each of the 43 churches on its list could be rebuilt and upgraded with improvements such as day-care centers and recreation rooms.

The Wall Street Journal reported that at least $3.5 million of the excess funds would be "earmarked for what Mac Charles Jones, a NCC official calls 'program advocacy' -- seminars and other forums that will not only address racism but matters of 'economic justice' and 'interlocking oppressions from gender to homophobia.'" Other sources had previously indicated that large sums of money would also be given directly to the CDR and other leftist groups. The article went on to question whether it was appropriate for the NCC to divert funds collected from donors who thought they were helping to rebuild burned churches.

Cooling down

New church fires made headlines across the country during June and July, and the recently dispatched army of federal agents began to arrest suspects. One was a 13-year old white girl who claimed to be a Satanist. Another was a black man who had hoped to generate business for his brother's construction company. As it gradually became clear that no widespread conspiracy connected the fires, the intensity of the media coverage began to lessen, and the tone became a shade more moderate. Some later reports even suggested that those who burned churches appeared to have a variety of motives. In mid-August, two former Klansmen were convicted of two 1995 arsons. This revelation made the national news for two or three days, but by September the media firestorm was essentially over.

On September 20, federal officials reported that 44 individuals had been charged with setting fire to black churches in the South, of whom 16 were themselves black. Only a few of the 28 white suspects were believed to have been racially motivated. Nearly half of all the suspects were under the age of 18.

Conclusions

Before the propaganda campaign, the number of racially motivated church arsons in the South, a region with a population of over 90 million, was probably less than 10 per year. By comparison, more than 620 buildings were burned and more than 50 people were killed in Los Angeles during the 1992 Rodney King riots. Afterwards, many on the political left avoided placing any blame on the rioters. The Rev. Jesse Jackson went so far as to suggest that America "must invest in hope, or pay the price of despair." In contrast, the supposed church arson outbreak was condemned without qualifications or excuses across the political spectrum.

Viewed fifteen years later, the church fires campaign was a great success for its leftist creators. The CDR and NCC raked in huge financial rewards, effectively slandered white Southerners and conservatives, and duped the media into repeating their "white supremacist" fantasies. President Clinton benefitted as well.

And their disinformation is largely remembered today as if it was a real event.

In closing, let us consider the leaders of the National Council of Churches -- ostensibly a Christian organization -- and their eager willingness to bear false witness for political and financial gain. If Jesus had been invited to attend the NCC/CDR planning sessions, he might well have excused himself to get a whip.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 02:29 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
As usual, you construct a straw man--in this instance, alleging that people are being unfairly charged with hate crimes--with absolutely no evidence to back up your contention that bias laws are being misapplied given how they are worded.


Would you care for me to post examples of the hate crimes laws being misused against blacks and whites as before when I done similar postings you had always claims that individual cases was meaningless.

Have you change your position?



0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 03:53 pm
http://www.skeptictank.org/gen1/gen00502.htm


ON ALMOST EVERY NIGHT OF HIS LIFE, MORGAN MANDULEY HAS BEEN a normal boy of 15. But on July 5, he may also have been a mean and stupid kid. Manduley and seven other boys, ages 14 to 17, all from comfortable San Diego homes, are accused of robbing and beating a group of elderly Latino farm workers during a "wilding" in which police say they vowed to attack some "beaners." If the charges are true, Manduley and his buds wanted some kicks with no risks, so they picked on old men who couldn't fight back and couldn't call for help. That suggests a motive closer to cowardice than racial animus, yet all eight were arrested and face charges for their cruel and senseless act that include hate crimes because the victims were Latino. Manduley faces a maximum sentence of 13 years.

To lock away Manduley's white companions with the "hates Latinos" label might well force them to seek haven with a white hate group. Where Manduley would turn for protection, however, is a riddle because he is Latino. Think about that for a moment. Not only does the hate crime charge mean prosecutors are pressing another "self-loathing" prosecution, but they are also asking us to accept a mental high-wire act that raises such questions as: If the seven white kids hate Latinos, why were they hanging out with Manduley? If you hate some Latinos but not others, can you be accused of hating an entire race? Perhaps they hate Latinos but run with Manduley because he's into self-loathing?

The distinctions and contradictions numb the mind. Ponder them long enough and inevitably you will arrive at a single central question: What is hate? There is no agreed-upon definition; there is no psychiatric definition at all. Historically, our criminal justice system has avoided asking prosecutors and jurors to define hate as a motive. The issue is whether or not the defendant broke the law, not why. "Traditionally, motive was used as an investigative tool or to aid the judge in passing sentence," says Steve Carroll, head public defender of San Diego County. "Now it becomes part of the crime. This is turning the system upside down."

Jurors are asked to weigh types and degrees of hate, in effect, to read minds. Perhaps that is the biggest flaw in these well-meaning statutes. They ask for judgments in such vague realms that they are open to abuse by authorities, and to gaping inconsistencies. For example, we have long been told that rape is not an act of sex, but of power and of hatred toward women. Why then is rape almost never prosecuted as a hate crime? Here is prosecutor Arranaga's answer: "We have not prosecuted a rape as a hate crime because we would have to prove that the victim's gender was a substantial motivation. We have cases of rape where men have raped men, men have raped women, and women have engaged in sexual misconduct, which is motivated by the gender of the victim, but is a more exploitative crime of violence and dominating control. And we can't prove that all rapes are gender based."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 07:10 pm
@firefly,
He made bond? Are you kidding me? They have him on film commiting the murder and he's out on bond? I am speechless.
0 Replies
 
manored
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Aug, 2011 02:11 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

Quote:

Do you think a person who kills someone because of the color of their skin should be arrested for longer than a person who kills someone because its a easy way to make money?

I sure do.

When the KKK lynched someone, the act was also intended to spread fear and intimidation throughout the entire black community. Bias-related crimes are based on identity factors, and they are generally directed at all members of a particular group, for purposes of intimidation. When a swastika is painted on the outside of a synagogue, that is not just an act of vandalism as would be the case if a graffiti artist spray painted his initials--it is an act of harassment of a religious/ethnic group in addition to vandalism.

Motivation for a crime, the intention of the crime, increases the potential sentence for a number of different crimes, including the killing of a human being, and there is no reason why bias should not be considered an additional aggravating factor in charging and sentencing.
Thats actually a good point... however, then a man kills a person for money, he is also creating fear, even if unintended. He is creating fear in all who would share that person's time-space location. For example, when a person goes out alone late at night and gets killed, all the locals will become afraid of doing that. At a certain level, the killer not only killed a person to rob its money, but also robbed the community of a part of their liberties.

I see laws that make distinctions between people's race/sex/religion/whatever as a dangerous thing that is likely to stirr more of the hatred it seeks to destroy. By admiting that there are different, for example, races, and by treating these races differently, the law creates feelings of injustice in the population and reinforces the notion of that the races are, indeed, different.

I think the greatest victory against racism a country can achieve is a legislation that does not make any distinction whatsoever between the races. If the law sees no difference, with time, the population itself will come to see no difference as well. Its not a quick process, and that may create the impression of that its not working, but it works. Eh, racism is fundamentally cultural. Culture never changes quickly, no matter what you do.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Aug, 2011 06:29 pm
@manored,
Quote:
I see laws that make distinctions between people's race/sex/religion/whatever as a dangerous thing that is likely to stirr more of the hatred it seeks to destroy....


But hate crime/bias-crime laws aren't making distinctions based on race/sex/religion in terms of how the laws are applied--these laws apply to everyone. They simply refer to criminal acts directed toward an individual or group because of hatred or animosity toward the entire group to which the individual belongs.

If a gay man is beaten and killed, simply because he is gay, and for no other reason, the crime could be considered a bias-related murder. How would seeing it as a bias-related crime stir up more hatred or hostility toward gay men?
Quote:
By admiting that there are different, for example, races, and by treating these races differently, the law creates feelings of injustice in the population and reinforces the notion of that the races are, indeed, different.

But there are different races, how can anyone not admit that?

And certain racial/ethnic/religious, etc. groups are more likely to be the targets of bias-related crimes. The law isn't discriminating against anyone with bias-crime laws, it is simply reinforcing civil and human rights protection for any individual or group likely to be targeted and harmed on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., but it is not really affording preferential treatment to such groups It is partially an attempt to deal with the long legacy of bias crimes which have been part of our country's history and to make sure that entire groups are not criminally harassed, harmed, or intimidated because of identity factors.

I think the sort of laws that might stir up animosity, or feelings of "injustice", toward a minority group are things like affirmative action, where preferential treatment might be given to one group over another. But I really don't see that same sort of antagonism resulting from bias-crime laws since those laws aren't excluding anyone, they protect everyone, including members of the majority groups, from being targeted for crime, harassment, or intimidation, due only to bias.

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Aug, 2011 08:22 pm
@firefly,
Bullshit you have blacks charges with hate crimes against fellow blacks and latrines charge with hate crimes against fellows Latrines and on and on.

That how crazy these laws are being apply.

Just another weapon in the prosecutes tool box having nothing to do with the intends such laws was sold to the public in the first place.

For every KKK member that such laws are apply to there are many more cases of normal criminal behaviors that have zero to do with the public understanding of what a hate crime would be.

If a black man get into a bar fight with a white person and in the middle of the fight used a racist slur you had turn a minor assault into a hate crime!!!!!

A great tool for locking up members of the very minorities that the laws was intended to protect in the first place.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Aug, 2011 08:57 pm
http://solargeneral.info/jeffs-archive/hate-crimes/blacks-more-likely-to-be-arrested-for-hate-crimes/


Blacks More Likely to be Arrested for Hate Crimes
FBI study: Blacks are more likely to be arrested for hate crimes
Thanks JA Ruth


> > WASHINGTON, DC — African-Americans who thought that hate crime
> > laws would protect them against rampaging white racists are in for a
> > shock: A new FBI study reveals that blacks are proportionally one-and-
> > a-half times more likely to be arrested for hate crimes against whites
> > than vice versa.
> >
> > “This new hate crime study is Jesse Jackson’s worst nightmare,”
> > said Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party national director. “It appears
> > that he and other African-American leaders have been duped into
> > crusading for laws that have condemned a disproportionate number of
> > blacks to prison.
> >
> > “In light of this study, it’s fair to ask who poses a greater
> > threat to the black community: Racist, violent whites — or oblivious
> > black politicians?”
> >
> > The hate-crime issue was thrust back into the national
> > spotlight on Tuesday when the FBI released its “Hate Crime Statistics”
> > report for 1999, which is part of the agency’s annual Uniform Crime
> > Report.
> >
> > Law enforcement agencies nationwide reported that 2,030 whites
> > were arrested for hate crimes against blacks, while 524 African-
> > Americans were arrested for such crimes against whites.
> >
> > Adjusting for the fact that blacks make up only 13% of the
> > population, blacks were statistically one-and-a-half times more likely
> > than whites to face prosecution for hate crimes.
> >
> > “Unfortunately, hate crime laws have boomeranged on blacks,”
> > said Dasbach. “African-Americans thought that hate crime legislation
> > would protect them, but instead they’re being used as another legal
> > weapon to prosecute them.
> >
> > “And though Americans may assume that politicians who write
> > such laws are well-intended, it’s obvious that for blacks, the road to
> > prison is paved with good intentions.”
> >
> > The study also revealed that, shockingly, 87 African-Americans
> > were arrested in 1999 for hate crimes against other blacks, meaning
> > that even among same-race crimes, some minorities face heightened jail
> > terms because of hate crime laws.
> >
> > “Hate crimes aren’t just for KKK members anymore,” said
> > Dasbach. “They are now being applied even to same-race crimes –
> > apparently giving racist police, prosecutors, or judges another weapon
> > to use against African-Americans.”
> >
> > The solution to this disproportionate application of hate crime
> > laws is simple, said Dasbach: Eliminate hate crime laws.
> >
> > “Racist criminals, whether white or black, should be punished
> > for their crimes, but hate crime laws aren’t needed to do that,” he
> > said.
> >
> > “Murder is murder and assault is assault — regardless of
> > whether the criminal was motivated by racist hate, generic hate, or
> > pure greed, lust, or envy. People should be prosecuted for their
> > actions, not for their opinions.”
> >
> > Such a straightforward system of punishing criminals for their
> > crimes, not their thoughts, would make the criminal justice system more
> > fair, more simple, and more effective, said Dasbach.
> >
> > “Real crimes — like rape, murder, and robbery — don’t require
> > police to play a guessing game to determine whether they actually
> > occurred, but ‘thought crimes’ do,” he said. “For example, how is a
> > police officer supposed to determine whether a hypothetical black
> > criminal chose a robbery victim because he was rich, because he was
> > white, or because he was rich and white? And why should it make a
> > difference? People should be prosecuted for their actions, not for
> > their opinions.”
> >
> > The bottom line is that crimes against a certain protected
> > class of citizens should not be treated more seriously than crimes
> > against anyone else, said Dasbach.
> >
> > “To do so is un-American, and a violation of equal justice
> > under the law,” he said. “It also creates the ironic situation we now
> > face: Laws that were supposed to stop racism apparently have racist
> > consequences — making hate crime laws themselves a hate crime against
> > African-Americans.”
>
> > ———————————————————————–
> > The Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/
> > 2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice: 202-333-0008
> > Washington DC 20037 fax: 202-333-0072
> >

 

Related Topics

2016 moving to #1 spot - Discussion by gungasnake
Black Lives Matter - Discussion by TheCobbler
Is 'colored people' offensive? - Question by SMickey
Obama, a Joke - Discussion by coldjoint
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
The ECHR and muslims - Discussion by Arend
Atlanta Race Riot 1906 - Discussion by kobereal24
Quote of the Day - Discussion by Tabludama
The Confederacy was About Slavery - Discussion by snood
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/09/2024 at 04:24:45