Cops See Hate Crime in Woman's Mutilation

ringil · #1 Jul 24, '12, 7:10 pm

A sad story. One doesn't have to agree with the morality of practicing homosexuality to see the need to hate crime legislation.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/justic...ime/index.html

**estesbob** · #2 Jul 24, '12, 7:24 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ringil

A sad story. One doesn't have to agree with the morality of practicing homosexuality to see the need to hate crime legislation.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/justic...ime/index.html

So if she wasn't a homosexual the crime would be less serious?

CatholicBoy1957 · #3 Jul 24, '12, 7:26 pm

CNN makes a story out of it being a hate crime and a story about lesbians, and not much about the injury to the person. This appears as some sort of opportunism to me. I see it as a sad story of someone committing a violent crime against a person. I offer my prayers for her.

CatholicBoy1957 · #4 Jul 24, '12, 7:34 pm

It's kind of like a spiff on a product or service, as an extra incentive for a salesperson to push it. Some prosecutor will get a feather in their cap to pursue it. If it was me, the prosecutor would drop the ball. Not serious. Actually, I've had it happen.

SgtSchultz · #5 Jul 24, '12, 7:55 pm

When homosexuals commit horrible acts of violence against heterosexuals, the story never gets in the news, let alone prosecuted as a "hate crime". "Hate crimes" only cover special classes of citizens who are worthy of greater protections than you or I.

BlueEyedLady · #6 Jul 24, '12, 8:16 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SgtSchultz

When homosexuals commit horrible acts of violence against heterosexuals, the story never gets in the news, let alone prosecuted as a "hate crime". "Hate crimes" only cover special classes of citizens who are worthy of greater protections than you or I.

Not true at all. In fact, the first time hate crime laws went to the supreme court (and were upheld) it was a case of two black men beating and murdering a white boy for being white.

It doesn't offer special protections for minorities (that would violate the equal protection clause) it just punishes motive. If gay people kill a straight man for being straight, it is a hate crime. If a Jew kills a Christian for being a Christian, it is a hate crime. If a Jew kills a Christian just because, it is not.

The reason for this is that hate crimes are done with the intent to send a message to an entire group, make them fearful, and terrorize them. That kind of intimidation is a crime in and of itself and needs to be dealt with.

lerapt78 · #7 Jul 24, '12, 8:47 pm

I feel terribly for the woman and hope her attackers receive harsh punishment.

That being said, I am still against hate crime legislation.

ringil · #8 Jul 24, '12, 8:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueEyedLady

Not true at all. In fact, the first time hate crime laws went to the supreme court (and were upheld) it was a case of two black men beating and murdering a white boy for being white.

It doesn't offer special protections for minorities (that would violate the equal protection clause) it just punishes motive. If gay people kill a straight man for being straight, it is a hate crime. If a Jew kills a Christian for being a Christian, it is a hate crime. If a Jew kills a Christian just because, it is not.

The reason for this is that hate crimes are done with the intent to send a message to an entire group, make them fearful, and terrorize them. That kind of intimidation is a crime in and of itself and needs to be dealt with.

Indeed.

The specific dynamics of hate crimes need to be addressed on a specific basis.

It's like the charge "distribution of illegal narcotics" vs. "conspiracy to distribute" a more serious charge.

I strongly support hate crime legislation and I see it as no less than a great achievement in the criminal justice system.

SgtSchultz · #9 Jul 24, '12, 9:15 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueEyedLady

Not true at all. In fact, the first time hate crime laws went to the supreme court (and were upheld) it was a case of two black men beating and murdering a white boy for being white. [...] (that would violate the equal protection clause) it just punishes motive. [...]

Ah, but you're only looking at it from the American context. And even within the American context, a prosecutor has to actually bring the hate crime charges. He may choose not to do so if it's not politically expedient for him.

In Britain, such "hate crime" legislation is only applied against whites, never against the on-native population.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueEyedLady

The reason for this is that hate crimes are done with the intent to send a message to an entire group, make them fearful, and terrorize them. That kind of intimidation is a crime in and of itself and needs to be dealt with.

Yes, they may have the intent of sending a message, but that message doesn't seem to be getting through, as these things still happen, as indicated in the article above.

By making the punishment and the crime more severe based on some superficial aspect of the victim, as opposed to the nature of the crime itself, it seems to diminish the gravity of other crimes. If a man did this to his wife because he thought she was cheating on him, should the crime be seen as not as important? Apparently so, as it wouldn't be a "hate crime" then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ringil

It's like the charge "distribution of illegal narcotics" vs. "conspiracy to distribute" a more serious charge.

That's not a good analogy at all. What you described refers to acts, not opinions or feelings about subjectively defined groups of people. Crimes are about acts, not feelings or thoughts.

Gordon Sims · #10 Jul 24, '12, 10:40 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SgtSchultz

In Britain, such "hate crime" legislation is only applied against whites, never against the on-native population.

There are plenty of areas in the US where the only people who have a chance of ever being charged with a hate crime are white heterosexual males. We've had some blatantly racial incidents around here that were never considered hate crimes due to the victims being white, while at the same time minor or questionable incidents have led to hate crime charges, but only for the white participants in the crimes. One that springs to mind is a fight between two groups of teens from rival high schools. There were black and white students on both sides, but the only ones charged with anything were the white students, and then with a hate crime to boot. Another incident took place at a local college. A progressively more inflammatory series of signs was posted around campus, calling out the black students and using a wide array of racial slurs. It culminated in a dummy or several dummies being hung in effigy somewhere on campus. It was covered as a clear-cut hate crime, and the media even gave out the names of several of the suspects. When it turned out that a couple black students were behind it all and had been trying to prompt retaliation against a group of white students on campus, not only was all talk of it being a hate crime dropped, but no charges were ever filed.

I believe most if not all crimes have some degree of hate as a motivation. If the hate crime label was used equitably across the board then I could almost see agreeing with having the legislation. But nearly every case I've read indicates that the primary purpose of it is to disproportionately punish one group while ignoring all others.

BlueEyedLady · #11 Jul 24, '12, 10:40 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SgtSchultz

By making the punishment and the crime more severe based on some superficial aspect of the victim, as opposed to the nature of the crime itself, it seems to diminish the gravity of other crimes. If a man did this to his wife because he thought she was cheating on him, should the crime be seen as not as important? Apparently so, as it wouldn't be a "hate crime then?

It has nothing to do with how "important" the crime or victim is. And it has everything to do with the nature of the crime itself.

A hate crime is done to A. Harm the victim and B. Terrorize other members of the same group and make them fearful. It makes it clear that "these parts are not safe for their kind". Both of those aspects need to be addressed. Whereas the man who kills his wife is only committing the first part.

OU812 · #12 Jul 24, '12, 10:53 pm

Sometimes, what constitutes as a hate crime, doesn't.

Add in the gang aspect (It's "really" gang related), throw in the financial standing of an individual (It's "really" poverty driven), lack of education (It's "really" ignorance in play), and adios, hate crime charges.

Just punish all criminals to the fullest extent of the law. A man beats a woman to a bloody pulp and the other beats a woman to a bloody pulp because of her sexual orientation, you really are going to tell me that man B deserves more than man A?

BlueEyedLady · #13 Jul 24, '12, 10:54 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon Sims

There are plenty of areas in the US where the only people who have a chance of ever being charged with a hate crime are white heterosexual males. We've had some blatantly racial incidents around here that were never considered hate crimes due to the victims being white, while at the same time minor or questionable incidents have led to hate crime charges, but only for the white participants in the crimes. One that springs to mind is a fight between two groups of teens from rival high schools. There were black and white students on both sides, but the only ones charged with anything were the white students, and then with a hate crime to boot. Another incident took place at a local college. A progressively more inflammatory series of signs was posted around campus, calling out the black students and using a wide array of racial slurs. It culminated in a dummy or several dummies being hung in effigy somewhere on campus. It was covered as a clear-cut hate crime, and the media even gave out the names of several of the suspects. When it turned out that a couple black students were behind it all and had been trying to prompt retaliation against a group of white students on campus, not only was all talk of it being a hate crime dropped, but no charges were ever filed.

I believe most if not all crimes have some degree of hate as a motivation. If the hate crime label was used equitably across the board then I could almost see agreeing with having the legislation. But nearly every case I've read indicates that the primary purpose of it is to disproportionately punish one group while ignoring all others.

Your anecdotal evidence doesn't match up with the numbers. Here's the 2010 FBI report. Only 58.6% of those charged were white, 18.4% were black, 12% were unknown, and the rest were of other races. Since whites make up roughly 72% of the population it seems that proportionally they are charged with fewer hate crimes.

Just because it doesn't make it on to the news doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pre...#disablemobile

Gordon Sims · #14 Jul 24, '12, 11:27 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueEyedLady

Your anecdotal evidence doesn't match up with the numbers. Here's the 2010 FBI report. Only 58.6% of those charged were white, 18.4% were black, 12% were unknown, and the rest were of other races. Since whites make up roughly 72% of the population it seems that proportionally they are charged with fewer hate crimes.

Just because it doesn't make it on to the news doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pre...#disablemobile

The release you cited doesn't actually state that those were the numbers charged. Those are the numbers of incidents designated as hate crimes where the race of the perpetrator was known. That doesn't indicate that anyone was actually charged for the crime or speak to any disparity of how the laws are applied and the crimes are prosecuted.

Estevao · #15 Jul 24, '12, 11:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueEyedLady

It has nothing to do with how "important" the crime or victim is. And it has everything to do with the nature of the crime itself.

A hate crime is done to A. Harm the victim and B. Terrorize other members of the same group and make them fearful. It makes it clear that "these parts are not safe for their kind".

That's a novel way to think of jurisprudence (IIRC this whole idea of "hate crimes" only became popular in the 1980s). Point B is assumes you can know that the perp understands the motive for his crime. This is entirely subjective. Plus to even introduce what the perp is thinking into the penalty for the crime is reminiscent of the thought police of "1984".

Quote:

Both of those aspects need to be addressed. Whereas the man who kills his wife is only committing the first part.

So you think it's a good idea to address racial/sexual/etc. discrimination in society by having the courts separate people into groups (gays, women, so-called minorities, etc.), and punishing the perp harsher simply because he belongs to another group? Wouldn't it be better to have every person be equal before the law?

With your reasoning I presume you support affirmative action too?