Hate crimes thread

[tickledgirl]

Starting this thread to avoid derailing the thread about the lunatic who shot up a church. Follow the link to Iggy's post there for background. We now join an ongoing conversation.

And if I paint Nazis must die on the compound inhabited be Neo-nazis, have I commited a hate crime? Or if I paint I hate the KKK on KKK meeting house, have I commited a hate crime?

Not according to current law, no. Neither Nazi's nor the KKK are protected classes. Was that your question, or were you asking if I agree with the current state of affairs?

[Iggy pop]

Not according to current law, no. Neither Nazi's nor the KKK are protected classes. Was that your question, or were you asking if I agree with the current state of affairs?

Protected classes? See, there lies the problem. That is in direct violation of equal protection clause and Unconstitutional( in my opinion). I disagree with the whole idea of hate crimes and hate speech.

[maniactickler]

I dont believe in a so called hate crime. a crime is a crime to me, period.

[tickledgirl]

Just to be clear, are you saying you "disagree with the whole idea of hate crimes and hate speech" because you feel that they're unconstitutional? Or are you saying that you disagree with them and you feel they're unconstitutional.

The constitutional argument is a little on the dry side. We can throw cases and opinions at each other, but when we're done, it's still up to the SCOTUS.

So how would you answer my question to slacker? (I'll reword it here so people don't have to bounce back and forth between threads, and remove the personal references so it doesn't start to look like I'm hitting on people. ): Let's say person #1 paints "Johnny Rachel" on the garage of a Jewish family's house (where his girlfriend Rachel lives, just to keep things simple). Then person #2 paints the words "Kikes get out!" and a swastika on the same garage. Are person #1 and person #2 both guilty of the same petty vandalism?

And an off-the-top-of-my-head answer to the question you've raised, I think one difference between painting "Nazis get out" (or "Republicans get out") is that those are engaging political ideas. It's obviously an unacceptable form of engagement, but it's a form of political speech, and so more acceptable.

[jim66e]

Personally I think the entire idea of hate crimes is backwards. I think a crime (such as murder) is more horrific if the person comitting it doesn't hate the person he is murdering.

The biggest problem I have with hate crimes is that they require knowlege of a person's thoughts, which is extremely hard to come by. Yes some people leave declarations and manifestos, but all too often the system has been forced to conclude that any crime against a "protected class" is a hate crime, regardless of the actual intent behind it.

[slacker2114]

Protected classes? I think I just put that term on my list next to hate crime. Saying something like that makes it sound as if certain people are some sort of helpless endangered species. But let's not mince words: it's a PC term to refer to minority classes that need to be shielded from the evil white man, which is all bullshit. That's why neo-Nazis and the KKK are not a "protected class".

In reference to what Iggy said, logically doing what he said would be considered a hate crime in spirit. It's one person or group hating on another. But hate crime laws tend to be exclusive. While it's not unheard of, for example, for a black man to be charged with a hate crime against a white man, it's much rarer than the other way around. Sorry, but that is very hypocritical of the system. It's like saying one ethnic group is capable of hating more than another. And there again, we have another widening of the gap between races.

On a bit of a side note, and not that I want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, doesn't it seem that keeping the races divided and at each others throats would be beneficial to those in power? I read about these hate crimes and whatnot and see how it keeps us all apart. From a social standpoint, keeping us seperate would make us easier to control. Blacks hating on whites hating on Hispanics hating on Asians hating on Muslims hating on Jews ad infinitum. Keeps us from seeing it's not about race and religion, but that it's about class. Make each race a scapegoat for the other so we don't see who the real culprit is. I'd hate the thought that we were all a part of some devious social experiment. Just a thought.

[tickledgirl]

Personally I think the entire idea of hate crimes is backwards. I think a crime (such as murder) is more horrific if the person comitting it doesn't hate the person he is murdering.

The biggest problem I have with hate crimes is that they require knowlege of a person's thoughts, which is extremely hard to come by. Yes some people leave declarations and manifestos, but all too often the system has been forced to conclude that any crime against a "protected class" is a hate crime, regardless of the actual intent behind it.

I don't believe hate crimes are dealt with differently because they're more horrific. It's because there's an additional motive behind the crime: To terrorize a specific group of people. Rape and murder are obviously horrifically bad. Rape and murder as tools of ethnic cleansing (finally) got Radovan Karadzic hauled before the ICC.

The original crime may be horrific, or it may not (as in the examples I gave). Inflicting terror and using it as a tool is a second crime that needs to be addressed.

[maniactickler]

Just to be clear, are you saying you "disagree with the whole idea of hate crimes and hate speech" because you feel that they're unconstitutional? Or are you saying that you disagree with them and you feel they're unconstitutional.

The constitutional argument is a little on the dry side. We can throw cases and opinions at each other, but when we're done, it's still up to the SCOTUS.

So how would you answer my question to slacker? (I'll reword it here so people don't have to bounce back and forth between threads, and remove the personal references so it doesn't start to look like I'm hitting on people. ): Let's say person #1 paints "Johnny Rachel" on the garage of a Jewish family's house (where his girlfriend Rachel lives, just to keep things simple). Then person #2 paints the words "Kikes get out!" and a swastika on the same garage. Are person #1 and person #2 both guilty of the same petty vandalism?

And an off-the-top-of-my-head answer to the question you've raised, I think one difference between painting "Nazis get out" (or "Republicans get out") is that those are engaging political ideas. It's obviously an unacceptable form of engagement, but it's a form of political speech, and so more acceptable.

They should both be punished equally for vandalism.

[kucheeku]

Please, let's be serious. The vast majority of hate crimes are against people of color and gays--go to the Southern Poverty Law Center for the documentation. All other groups are far behind.

This is not to say that violence against 'majority groups' is okay. It's not.

The difference is that there is a systematic and continuous media machine and constant religious rhetoric that bashes minorities in this country. They get lots of air time and lots of stations. Hell, they even have a network called Fox News.

One of the reasons why hate crimes legislation was introduced in the first place was because serious cases of such crimes were either ignored or treated trivially by authorities. I can, for example, point you to cases in some American cities from years past where anti-gay violence was treated jovially by police. Hate crimes legislation helps to rectify that situation and it's one of the positive results from such laws. Now, when you hear that an incident is being treated as a hate crime, you know it's being taken seriously by authorities. This is a result of passing such legislation and of minority organizations working with police departments over many years. That's a positive thing.

[Iggy pop]

Just to be clear, are you saying you "disagree with the whole idea of hate crimes and hate speech" because you feel that they're unconstitutional? Or are you saying that you disagree with them and you feel they're unconstitutional.

The constitutional argument is a little on the dry side. We can throw cases and opinions at each other, but when we're done, it's still up to the SCOTUS.

I will answer this by saying I believe in equal proctection under the law. Protected classes is a clear violation of this law. Because this means you have un protected classes and not everyone is protected equally. I cannot believe in equality and in hate crime laws with protected classes.

So how would you answer my question to slacker? (I'll reword it here so people don't have to bounce back and forth between threads, and remove the personal references so it doesn't start to look like I'm hitting on people. ): Let's say person #1 paints "Johnny Rachel" on the garage of a Jewish family's house (where his girlfriend Rachel lives, just to keep things simple). Then person #2 paints the words "Kikes get out!" and a swastika on the same garage. Are person #1 and person #2 both guilty of the same petty vandalism?

And an off-the-top-of-my-head answer to the question you've raised, I think one difference between painting "Nazis get out" (or "Republicans get out") is that those are engaging political ideas. It's obviously an unacceptable form of engagement, but it's a form of political speech, and so more acceptable.

I don't see a diffence between Nazis or Republicans get out and Kikes get out. Unlike the first example with the girlfriend, both could be viewed as threats.

I certainly do not want to see what we have in some European countries in which they throw people in prison for denying the holocaust. Ban Mein Kampf. I believe in freedom of speech, and hate speech, in my opinion, is part of that speech. You have to take the good with the bad sometimes. I may not like what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.

[slacker2114]

Please, let's be serious. The vast majority of hate crimes are against people of color and gays--go to the Southern Poverty Law Center for the documentation. All other groups are far behind.

This is not to say that violence against 'majority groups' is okay. It's not.

The difference is that there is a systematic and continuous media machine and constant religious rhetoric that bashes minorities in this country. They get lots of air time and lots of stations. Hell, they even have a network called Fox News.

One of the reasons why hate crimes legislation was introduced in the first place was because serious cases of such crimes were either ignored or treated trivially by authorities. I can, for example, point you to cases in some American cities from years past where anti-gay violence was treated jovially by police. Hate crimes legislation helps to rectify that situation and it's one of the positive results from such laws. Now, when you hear that an incident is being treated as a hate crime, you know it's being taken seriously by authorities. This is a result of passing such legislation and of minority organizations working with police departments over many years. That's a positive thing.

While I will not dispute the validity of your comments on the pros of hate crime law, I can't help but point out you didn't mention any of the negatives. Lucky for you, I can help with that.

As an example, let's say Mr. A, a white man, is arrested for assaulting Mr. B, a black man. Mr. A is charged for assault and has it labelled as a hate crime. Essentially, Mr. A has been charged with the same crime twice. Sorry, but aren't there laws out there to protect citizens from such things?

Also, as stated before, juries in such cases are expected to be mind readers. Was the assault racially motivated? They'd like you to believe that. Truth is, it's very possible it was two guys having a disagreement. Happens all the time. Now, because of hate crime law, a disagreement that ended in a fist fight has now become a hate crime.

Personally, I've been in fist fights. I've been in fights with whites, blacks and even a hispanic or two. NONE of them was because of their ethnicity. It was because they were being an asshole. But by this law, I'd be convicted of a hate crime. But good luck on trying to prove what I was or wasn't thinking.

And let's not kid ourselves: hate crime prosecution is more politically motivated than it is to seek justice, as with the prosecution of traditional crimes. Many would probably consider me racist for saying that, but it's the truth. And in my book, truth cannot be racist simply because....IT'S TRUE!

Please don't misunderstand me. I agree that blacks and, in more recent years, gays have been the brunt of many violent crimes. And many times, those charges were not taken seriously. That however, is not a shortcoming of the law, but of the courts and the so-called authority figures investigating and prosecuting. Making laws against individual ignorance is a ridiculous practice and is a failure from the start. But that's the human animal for you.

[Strider]

This is a tricky subject, but, generally speaking, I think the concept of hate-crime laws are a dangerous road for a society to start down.

[kucheeku]

"Personally, I've been in fist fights. I've been in fights with whites, blacks and even a hispanic or two. NONE of them was because of their ethnicity. It was because they were being an asshole. But by this law, I'd be convicted of a hate crime. But good luck on trying to prove what I was or wasn't thinking."

I agree with you, hate crimes legislation is not a free ticket to brandish it around willy nilly in certain situations that don't call for it. Intent is the key to determining a hate crime. If it's not there, it should not be brought forth. But the hate crime tag is not epoxy on a criminal case: I have read of certain cases where the hate crimes statute did not apply and was tossed, although legal counsel tried to bring it up. It can be thrown out when it's clear there's no violation involved. Proof can be determined in court, not whether a violator is thinking it, but whether his actions along with his statements during the crime support a violation.

[Andromalius]

A nation that prides equality cannot have a special crime for minority victims. These so-called "hate crimes" are normal crimes. Isn't there a level of hatred in all crimes no matter if the victim is a minority or not?

[xSamanthax]

I'm on the fence about hate crime legislation. I see both sides, and both sides do have valid points.

but here is a question (hopefully relevant).

Protected classes was brought up as unconstitutional.

But don't we already have protected classes? It is illegal to discriminate based on color, ethnicity, religion, age and gender. And sometimes orientation.

But ok to discriminate based on socio-economic status, political affiliation, weight, whether or not you smoke...or anything else not listed above.

I keep coming back to the idea that our government was formed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. I wonder if hate crime legislation is born from this idea.

All that said, I think it is impossible to make laws that depending on knowing someone's inner most thoughts. It just can't work.