NationStates Jolt Archive

What the hell

isnt there supposed to be an effort for equality in the world?

why do people still try to throw race into everything?

if a white man who made a racial comment was to murder a black man should the penalty be stronger then if he killed a white man?

what if it was the other way around and it was the black man that killed the white man?

there will never be equality. racism is deeper than most people think...

The rationale behind hate crime laws is the same as the distinction between the degrees of murder. A mitigating factor that gives greater drive for the person to commit the act being counter-balanced with harsher punishment as deterrence.

there will never be equality. racism is deeper than most people think...

i do agree with you there

racism was and will always be used in many different ways. groups will use it to their benefit and also use it to discriminate against the other groups

it is used as a way to create "equality". people rely too much on what happened to their great great great grandfather to support their life today

The rationale behind hate crime laws is the same as the distinction between the degrees of murder. A mitigating factor that gives greater drive for the person to commit the act being counter-balanced with harsher punishment as deterrence.

why do they have to have a "Hate Crime" title. if it was accident then it was an accident. if they did it out of spite (doesnt matter what race did the crime or was the victim) it was still done out of spite

There's a major difference than simply out of spite and how the rationale for hate crimes work, however.

Humans naturally have a setting for what's an 'inclusive' group for what they consider at the same level as them, for purposes of treatment in regards to respecting them as equals.

A true hate crime (not how they're always processed, but in theory) is a result of simply a group not being included in that inclusiveness, and by the perpetrator considered sub-human. It's a lot more deep rooted, and harder to provide adequate deterrance as balance, than simply an act of spite.

Hate Crimes are just another politically correct tool used by the Leftists to futher their agenda. If a black man kills a white man, its ok he just gets to hang out in jail with his "homies", and half the time we can even get them executed because it violates of the 100+ extra rights that they have that whites don't. I think any murder involves a certain amount of hate, there is no way you can classify random murders as "hate crimes". The only time a Hate Crime should be used is if it is a Klan, or Skinhead or Black Panther or Nation of Islam killing because those are organized Hate Groups that intentionally commit hate crime

What the hell

isnt there supposed to be an effort for equality in the world?

why do people still try to throw race into everything?

if a white man who made a racial comment was to murder a black man should the penalty be stronger then if he killed a white man?

what if it was the other way around and it was the black man that killed the white man?


What. An effort for equality? News flash: People aren't equal. Different people have different personalities, some personalities are unappealing to certain people. Some races have different cultures, some people find that they don't like a particular culture. Racism is just recognising the differences between cultures and choosing a preferred culture. This is not a bad thing. It's part of life. Racism doesn't always result in criminal behaviour.

What. An effort for equality? News flash: People aren't equal. Different people have different personalities, some personalities are unappealing to certain people. Some races have different cultures, some people find that they don't like a particular culture. Racism is just recognising the differences between cultures and choosing a preferred culture. This is not a bad thing. It's part of life. Racism doesn't always result in criminal behaviour.

a human life is human life. thats the way i see it. but i do agree with you that some people have certain traits/ personality that some may see as more apealing.

i know there will never be "equality" as in every race is treated equal or every person for that matter. i did not create this thread to say that all racist are criminals or that most people are not racist.

there is an effort for equality, the only problem is no one can seem to decide what is truely equall. everyone will try to put themselves ahead. its human nature

a human life is human life. thats the way i see it. but i do agree with you that some people have certain traits/ personality that some may see as more apealing.

i know there will never be "equality" as in every race is treated equal or every person for that matter. i did not create this thread to say that all racist are criminals or that most people are not racist.

Fair enough.

I think what these two yanks have done is atrocious. If it were up to me I'd publically execute the both of them. But I don't think it's fair to take their racism into consideration while judging them.

What the hell

isnt there supposed to be an effort for equality in the world?

why do people still try to throw race into everything?

if a white man who made a racial comment was to murder a black man should the penalty be stronger then if he killed a white man?

what if it was the other way around and it was the black man that killed the white man?

*sigh*

The two situations are treated exactly the same under US hate crime laws.

As I'll explain more below, hate crime legislation -- other than establishing data collection and research -- merely provide for additional punishment for crimes based on intent. For example, one commits a federal hate crime when one (a) commits a federal crime -- something that is already illegal like murder -- and (b) "the defendant intentionally selected any victim or any property as the object of the offense of conviction because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."

This law applies equally whether the victim is white or black. It applies the same whether the perpetrator is white or black.

Such laws are an attempt to help strive towards equality and are well justified:

All Americans have a stake in an effective response to violent bigotry. Hate crimes demand a priority response because of their special emotional and psychological impact on the victim and the victim's community. The damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes may effectively intimidate other members of the victim's community, leaving them feeling isolated, vulnerable and unprotected by the law. By making members of minority communities fearful, angry and suspicious of other groups -- and of the power structure that is supposed to protect them -- these incidents can damage the fabric of our society and fragment communities.

In the case of federal law, Section 280003 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 merely provided for a sentence enhancement based on a hate crime intent.

That is codified in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines as follows:

§3A1.1. Hate Crime Motivation or Vulnerable Victim

(a) If the finder of fact at trial or, in the case of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court at sentencing determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected any victim or any property as the object of the offense of conviction because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person, increase by 3 levels.

(b)(1) If the defendant knew or should have known that a victim of the offense was a vulnerable victim, increase by 2 levels.

(2) If (A) subdivision (1) applies; and (B) the offense involved a large number of vulnerable victims, increase the offense level determined under subdivision (1) by 2 additional levels.

(c) Special Instruction

(1) Subsection (a) shall not apply if an adjustment from §2H1.1(b)(1) applies.

Commentary

Application Notes:

1. Subsection (a) applies to offenses that are hate crimes. Note that special evidentiary requirements govern the application of this subsection.

Do not apply subsection (a) on the basis of gender in the case of a sexual offense. In such cases, this factor is taken into account by the offense level of the Chapter Two offense guideline. Moreover, do not apply subsection (a) if an adjustment from §2H1.1(b)(1) applies.

2. For purposes of subsection (b), "vulnerable victim" means a person (A) who is a victim of the offense of conviction and any conduct for which the defendant is accountable under §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct); and (B) who is unusually vulnerable due to age, physical or mental condition, or who is otherwise particularly susceptible to the criminal conduct.

Subsection (b) applies to offenses involving an unusually vulnerable victim in which the defendant knows or should have known of the victim’s unusual vulnerability. The adjustment would apply, for example, in a fraud case in which the defendant marketed an ineffective cancer cure or in a robbery in which the defendant selected a handicapped victim. But it would not apply in a case in which the defendant sold fraudulent securities by mail to the general public and one of the victims happened to be senile. Similarly, for example, a bank teller is not an unusually vulnerable victim solely by virtue of the teller’s position in a bank.

Do not apply subsection (b) if the factor that makes the person a vulnerable victim is incorporated in the offense guideline. For example, if the offense guideline provides an enhancement for the age of the victim, this subsection would not be applied unless the victim was unusually vulnerable for reasons unrelated to age.

3. The adjustments from subsections (a) and (b) are to be applied cumulatively. Do not, however, apply subsection (b) in a case in which subsection (a) applies unless a victim of the offense was unusually vulnerable for reasons unrelated to race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.

4. If an enhancement from subsection (b) applies and the defendant’s criminal history includes a prior sentence for an offense that involved the selection of a vulnerable victim, an upward departure may be warranted.
If you are familiar with the Sentencing Guidelines, then you know that sentencing enhancements are provided based on a very wide range of criteria -- including all sorts of things related to intent or motive.

The DoJ's National Criminal Justice Reference Service links to this site (http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp) for further explanation of hate crime legislation.

Anyway, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of hate crime legislation in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/508/476.html ) (92-515), 508 US 47 (1993). The Court explained (in part):

Traditionally, sentencing judges have considered a wide variety of factors in addition to evidence bearing on guilt in determining what sentence to impose on a convicted defendant. See Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 820-821 (1991); United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446 (1972); Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 246 (1949). The defendant's motive for committing the offense is one important factor. See 1 W. LeFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law 3.6(b), p. 324 (1986) ("Motives are most relevant when the trial judge sets the defendant's sentence, and it is not uncommon for a defendant to receive a minimum sentence because he was acting with good motives, or a rather high sentence because of his bad motives"); cf. Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 156 (1987) ("Deeply ingrained in our legal tradition is the idea that the more purposeful is the criminal conduct, the more serious is the offense, and, therefore, the more severely it ought to be punished"). Thus, in many States, the commission of a murder or other capital offense for pecuniary gain is a separate aggravating circumstance under the capital sentencing statute. See, e.g., Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 13-703(F)(5) (1989); Fla.Stat. 921.141(5)(f) (Supp. 1992); Miss.Code Ann. 99-19-101(5)(f) (Supp. 1992); N.C.Gen.Stat. 15A-2000(e)(6) (1992); Wyo.Stat. 6-2-102(h)(vi) (Supp. 1992).

... Thus, in Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 (1983) (plurality opinion), we allowed the sentencing judge to take into account the defendant's racial animus towards his victim. The evidence in that case showed that the defendant's membership in the Black Liberation Army and desire to provoke a "race war" were related to the murder of a white man for which he was convicted. See id. at 942-944. Because "the elements of racial hatred in [the] murder" were relevant to several aggravating factors, we held that the trial judge permissibly took this evidence into account in sentencing the defendant to death. Id. at 949, and n. 7.

Thus, it is nothing new to take into account the hateful motive of the crime in sentencing the defendant.

Hate Crimes are just another politically correct tool used by the Leftists to futher their agenda. If a black man kills a white man, its ok he just gets to hang out in jail with his "homies", and half the time we can even get them executed because it violates of the 100+ extra rights that they have that whites don't. I think any murder involves a certain amount of hate, there is no way you can classify random murders as "hate crimes". The only time a Hate Crime should be used is if it is a Klan, or Skinhead or Black Panther or Nation of Islam killing because those are organized Hate Groups that intentionally commit hate crime
For a person whose name is my favorite Zoid, I would've hoped you would show more intelligence than this.

Why because I think that hate crimes are essentially a racist politically correct policy that destroys the freedoms of those not of a supposedly "oppressed" minority that actually has more rights than those of the founding race of the country?

I don't see how the majority has any fewer rights than each of the minorities. I don't recall anything that says something along the lines of 'this group of people can do this, this and this, but whites can't', or 'anyone of Irish decent can open such and such, but Native Americans cannot' or any such thing.

Why because I think that hate crimes are essentially a racist politically correct policy that destroys the freedoms of those not of a supposedly "oppressed" minority that actually has more rights than those of the founding race of the country?

The use of those few words make your entire arguement null and void.

Thank you for playing.

Why because I think that hate crimes are essentially a racist politically correct policy that destroys the freedoms of those not of a supposedly "oppressed" minority that actually has more rights than those of the founding race of the country?

Utter nonsense from start to finish.

You only confirm you are either willfully ignorant or deliberately mistating things.

You definitely confirm, contrary to your assertion elsewhere, that you are a bigot.

Yes thats right because I don't follow the cookie cutter mold of thinking I'm not allowed to voice my opinion...thats a great attitude. I have been born and raised in the Deep South, and I am currently working my ass off to put myself through college (Poli Sci w00t), so sorry that my view on the rights and priveldges of the "minorities" in my area is slightly skewed. I observe so much Black to white racism a day that it is sickening to me to hear jesse jackson get on TV and bitch about how oppressed his people are. I see the "minorities" getting scholarships left and right...but oh no I'm not eligible because I'm not a single mother of African decent from a housing project, or I'm not a "troubled" inner city youth. Where's the equality in that? Why can't I get easy no work scholarships based soley on my race or where I happen to live? That my friends is racism and should be a hate crime

It has nothing to do with you not following the cookie cutter mold of thinking. Rather, it has everything to do with the fact that you do follow the mold of the willingly ignorant. Hate crimes are not nearly as heavily biased against whites as you think, and while the application is sometimes less than perfect, the idea itself is in fact quite sound.

Yes thats right because I don't follow the cookie cutter mold of thinking I'm not allowed to voice my opinion...thats a great attitude. I have been born and raised in the Deep South, and I am currently working my ass off to put myself through college (Poli Sci w00t), so sorry that my view on the rights and priveldges of the "minorities" in my area is slightly skewed. I observe so much Black to white racism a day that it is sickening to me to hear jesse jackson get on TV and bitch about how oppressed his people are. I see the "minorities" getting scholarships left and right...but oh no I'm not eligible because I'm not a single mother of African decent from a housing project, or I'm not a "troubled" inner city youth. Where's the equality in that? Why can't I get easy no work scholarships based soley on my race or where I happen to live? That my friends is racism and should be a hate crime

So whites are inferior, and need a helping hand?

Grow up. People are assholes, and it has nothing to do with 'race'.

Here is a thought. Instead of bitching about why your life sucks, actuallydo something that people will pay you for.

Wait but you just described the exact strategy that the minorities use to get government help. I am doing something with my life I am working 40 hours a week and attending college, then going on to law school. And hoepfully I will be able to over turn obscene mockerys of jutice like some of the stipulations of the "Hate Crime" laws

Wait but you just described the exact strategy that the minorities use to get government help. I am doing something with my life I am working 40 hours a week and attending college, then going on to law school. And hoepfully I will be able to over turn obscene mockerys of jutice like some of the stipulations of the "Hate Crime" laws

I take it back; actually you are law school material

(Remember, only the boring and ugly have law degrees)...

Ahhh yes but I will be rich. To get back on topic, the Hate Crime legislation is applied to recklessly in todays society. Cases need to be scrutinized very carefully before being considered a hate crime. Because of the stiffer penalties carried by the Hate Crime stipulation it is unfair to immediatly slap in on a crime with out complete analysis of what actually occured

Yes thats right because I don't follow the cookie cutter mold of thinking I'm not allowed to voice my opinion...thats a great attitude. I have been born and raised in the Deep South, and I am currently working my ass off to put myself through college (Poli Sci w00t), so sorry that my view on the rights and priveldges of the "minorities" in my area is slightly skewed. I observe so much Black to white racism a day that it is sickening to me to hear jesse jackson get on TV and bitch about how oppressed his people are. I see the "minorities" getting scholarships left and right...but oh no I'm not eligible because I'm not a single mother of African decent from a housing project, or I'm not a "troubled" inner city youth. Where's the equality in that? Why can't I get easy no work scholarships based soley on my race or where I happen to live? That my friends is racism and should be a hate crime

No one said you weren't allowed to voice your opinion. You were merely informed that your opinion is wrong.

Your view on the relative rights and privileges of blacks and whites in this country is more than slightly skewed. It is ass-backwards.

I'm sorry if you have been unable to qualify for any scholarships, but it is not solely because of your race.

Its actually probably because I haven't applied for many because I would rather pay my tuition in cash so I don't have an obligation to anyone. But an opinion can't be wrong...thats why its an opinion. But yeah sure my thinking is back assward....I live in Louisiana which happens to have been destroyed by Democrats and their PC crap. As soon as I finish college I am going to Law School out of state and never coming back. The Education system in this state is horrible, the business climate is terrible, theres nothing redeeming about this place other than the cooking

Ahhh yes but I will be rich. To get back on topic, the Hate Crime legislation is applied to recklessly in todays society. Cases need to be scrutinized very carefully before being considered a hate crime. Because of the stiffer penalties carried by the Hate Crime stipulation it is unfair to immediatly slap in on a crime with out complete analysis of what actually occured

No you won't. Ask Cat. A lot of lawyers are barely making a living.

Be a plumber, there is a national shortage of that.

It all depends on where you go, you can succed as long as you avoid areas that are over saturated with lawyers

It all depends on where you go, you can succed as long as you avoid areas that are over saturated with lawyers

It also depends on what type of lawyer you are. The evilness is directly proportional to the amount of money you earn. Corporate lawyers earn a lot of money.

It all depends on where you go, you can succed as long as you avoid areas that are over saturated with lawyers

No it doesn't.

The areas with the most lawyers tend to have the highest pay for lawyers.


I'm really trying to help you here.

It also depends on what type of lawyer you are. The evilness is directly proportional to the amount of money you earn. Corporate lawyers earn a lot of money.

Werdz.

It also depends on what type of lawyer you are. The evilness is directly proportional to the amount of money you earn. Corporate lawyers earn a lot of money.
Yeah I want to do corporate law, which means I just need to find a good firm to get in with inorder to advance.....I don't think I could ever bring myself to chase ambulances. I had a long convesation with my neighbor (who is Parish Judge) and he said that striking out on your own right out of law school in a city over populated with lawyers is almost a sure way to fail, but if you go somewhere where lawyers are in demand you can do well on your own. But if you want to go into Corporate or Tax law its best to get in with an established firm

Hate crime laws increase punishment based on a persons thoughts rather than actions. I disagree with legislating morality despite the fact that I also disagree with racism, sexism, and homophobia amongst other things.

When a black person is murdered, it's a hate crime. When black people murder, it's manslaughter.

Hate crime laws increase punishment based on a persons thoughts rather than actions. I disagree with legislating morality despite the fact that I also disagree with racism, sexism, and homophobia amongst other things.

So should accidental manslaughter be punished equally as murder, and more heavily than attempted murder?

The whole point of punishment is deterrence, though, right? The lesser the power of the motive (in the case of accidental manslaughter, simply negligence), the less deterrence is needed to be effective.

Manslaughter is not a crime of the same caliber as Murder. You can't look at them the same thats why there is distinction between the two. However there are cases where Hate Crimes were in fact simple murders and the DA was able to get the Hate Crime tacked on to increase their chances of reelection or some other political move. But there are legitimate cases of Hate crimes that need to be treated as such

Why because I think that hate crimes are essentially a racist politically correct policy that destroys the freedoms of those not of a supposedly "oppressed" minority that actually has more rights than those of the founding race of the country?

See, the FOUNDING RACE deal is where you fucked up, man. I think you've got valid points about the way mediocrity and failure are rewarded, but you've got to purge that FOUNDING RACE shit from your perception, because it's really fucked up. You make it sound like the European rejects were the only ones willing to get 'er done, while all those OTHER douchebags just sat on their asses waiting to be enlightened.

That's just FUCKED UP. I'm sure all of the other "races" that lived on our soil when this country was "founded" would have gladly participated in the process, but they were a little busy dying of smallpox or getting knocked up by their owners.

Oh, and if you weren't wasting your time on internet forums, some more of that Gov't Green might make it your way. I'm not sure how far along on this Law School track you are, but LOGIC and COGNITON are gonna be pretty important later on, so you should get some rest.

I actually didn't mean to say race I don't really don't know what I was going for, I'm flipping back and forth between this and writing a Paper about Native American Culture as expressed in The Last of the Mohicans...and I don't really care about Uncle Sam's green I make enough on my own, it would just be nice to get easy money. The only reason that I surf internet forums is because I have raging insomnia

Manslaughter is not a crime of the same caliber as Murder. You can't look at them the same thats why there is distinction between the two. However there are cases where Hate Crimes were in fact simple murders and the DA was able to get the Hate Crime tacked on to increase their chances of reelection or some other political move. But there are legitimate cases of Hate crimes that need to be treated as such

Your beef with hate crimes is the application of them, then, and that's fair enough. I'm simply arguing for them as the ideal application of them.

As long as people use the law for political gains there will never be an ideal application. Politics screws alot of things up. If the laws were followed to a t then I think they would be a great way to get nut jobs of all races off the streets, but unfortunately people use them to futher their own agendas and not to help the victim get justice, which is the purpose of the Justice system in the first place

So should accidental manslaughter be punished equally as murder, and more heavily than attempted murder?

The whole point of punishment is deterrence, though, right? The lesser the power of the motive (in the case of accidental manslaughter, simply negligence), the less deterrence is needed to be effective.

That is why there is degrees of homicide. Hate crime laws are seperate.
There is a) intentional homicide, b) homicide resulting from an attempt to injur, but not an attempt to murder, c) homicide due to negligence/recklessness, d) homicide perfomed by an accomplice, d) unintentional homicide (manslaughter), e) and various legal forms of homicide such as self-defence or against enemy combatants.

Any of those may be performed by a person that additionally doesn't like the victim due to race, creed, ethnicity, sexual preference, disability, colour, or sex. And no, I don't think disliking the person for those special reasons should be more punishable than disliking them because say they stole from the suspect or slept with his or her spouse.

My thing is where do we draw the line with hate crimes? I mean if I shoot some guy lets say he's white, because he raped my wife would that be considered a hate crime? I mean I hate rapists so does that qualify? Or is it a crime based solely on Race, Creed, Sexual Preferance etc

When a black person is murdered, it's a hate crime. When black people murder, it's manslaughter.Got any sources to back that up?

yeah I'm sure he could probably dredge you up some assinine article from stormfront to back that

^
Here, here.
I tend to ignore remarks that are obviously uninformed opinions whether I agree or not.

EDIT: (It's obvious because it's catch-all)

That is why there is degrees of homicide. Hate crime laws are seperate.
There is a) intentional homicide, b) homicide resulting from an attempt to injur, but not an attempt to murder, c) homicide due to negligence/recklessness, d) homicide perfomed by an accomplice, d) unintentional homicide (manslaughter), e) and various legal forms of homicide such as self-defence or against enemy combatants.

Any of those may be performed by a person that additionally doesn't like the victim due to race, creed, ethnicity, sexual preference, disability, colour, or sex. And no, I don't think disliking the person for those special reasons should be more punishable than disliking them because say they stole from the suspect or slept with his or her spouse.

So the first part of that simply contradicted what you said earlier... perfect.

The latter part of that I've already explained. People have a tendency to have an inclusive group of what they consider equally human. Under ideal hate crime application, not only are they a greater future threat by viewing an entire group of people as sub-human, but also that added deterrence is there because it's a matter of motive as are the degrees. Basically, it amounts to an extent of premeditation of the crime. There's a difference between going on a random shooting spree because you just snapped, and going to the same place and just aiming for, say, Hispanics. The latter means you've more likely thought it through, evidences yourself as a greater threat in the future because you knew what you were doing, and shows that there's simply a random group of people that haven't wronged you that you view as sub-human and are able to commit such a crime against without a significant moral backlash.