1. Post #41
    Gold Member
    LF9000's Avatar
    November 2005
    1,159 Posts
    I guess I'm against hate crime being different than a regular crime. If you think about it its basically government defining crimethink.

  2. Post #42
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    July 2005
    1,397 Posts
    I think 'justice' tends to be blind anyways.
    Justice to me is synonymous with revenge, and that shouldn't be the purpose of the punishments we give to criminals.

    Any punishment should be given to improve something. Putting someone in prison firstly prevents them from doing the same thing again in the immediate future, and the punishment of it is there to teach them not to do it again.

    When that doesn't work, or when it is done for other reasons, there's something wrong.
    So I don't think there should be some simple difference in the strictness of the punishment, but the "why" information of the crime could be used to determine how to deal with the criminal.

  3. Post #43
    TheKnights's Avatar
    June 2012
    24 Posts
    By Rachel Pendergraft

    Blacks commit 90% of the approximately 1,700,000 interracial crimes of violence that occur in the U.S. each year.

    Blacks are so much more likely than members of other races to commit crimes that police may be justified in stopping and questioning them more frequently-just as they stop men more than women and young people more often than old people.

    Whites are victims of over half – 50% of the violent crimes committed by blacks. Blacks are the victims of whites in 3% of violent crimes.

    Bureau of Justice Statistics

    Black Commentator says Liberal Media Ignores Millions of Black on White Hate Crimes!

    The above statistics gathered by the New Century Foundation out of FBI reports have been completely ignored by the Liberal media and Conservative talk radio as well. Walter Williams, a well known syndicated black columnist attended the press conference of the New Century Foundation at the Washington National Press Club to report the shocking findings. Walter Williams noted: ” Some of the study’s findings about interracial crime were surprising, so much so that I did an independent verification of the numbers.” He says his research proves the study’s information is correct. He continues to say:

    “Regardless of race, criminal violence is despicable and deserving of condemnation. But far more destructive are the official and unofficial attempts to mislead and conceal. Roughly 400 members of the major print and electronic media were invited to the press conference on ‘The Color of Crime.’ Several asked for advanced copies before they’d consider sending anyone. Only 14 reporters stayed for the briefing and only a couple reported on the study, most notably The Washington Times and C-Span. One reporter said that he’d like to write a story but he doubted he could get it by his editor. If the facts were the other way around, everybody from The New York Times and the President to the NAACP, Jesse Jackson and the Congressional Black Caucus would be shouting about and demanding that something be done... ”

    Profile of a Hate Crime

    By Brandon W.


    According to the NAACP and the ACLU, a hate crime is defined by any crime committed by a white person against a minority. According to this definition any crime committed by a minority against a white person, regardless of the viciousness of the crime, cannot be called a “hate’ crime. Although there is a much higher rate of black on white crime then there will ever be of white on black crime. I can think of two particular cases where a group of blacks attacked whites and the crimes were never reported by the media as “hate” crimes.

    One case involved my cousin, Mike. Mike was working as a window washer. He was washing the windows of a local convenience store when a group of four black juveniles, looking for money to go out partying with came to the store and demanded money from both him and the store clerk. The clerk’s husband had just taken the daily proceeds to the bank. When she told them this, two of the blacks shot her point blank with a .357. She was shot 8 times in the chest and stomach. She survived the attack but her unborn baby didn’t.

    He then demanded money from Mike. He gave them his wallet and when they only found $28 inside, the other two unload their weapons into him. He was shot 12 times through his upper body. Mike survived for 6 months after the attack. He finally died as a result of the damage the bullets did to his body and the 6-month ordeal trying and then failing to recover. The f

    The four blacks were caught later that night, but because none of them were over the age of 18, they were tried as juveniles and only spent 3 yeas in a juvenile detention center for their crime.

    Another is a case that I read about in the paper when I was stationed in Tennessee with the army. . A group of blacks kidnapped a white elderly couple one Sunday after church. They took the couple out into a remote area, had them get on their knees and then shot them both in the back of their heads, execution style. Witnesses had seen some blacks going into the home but thought nothing at the time. When the police investigated, they found that the couple had not been robbed and their car was still at the scene. The blacks were never found and the media never reported this case as a ‘hate crime.”

    Both of these cases were extremely vicious crimes committed against whites, by blacks. Yet neither one of them were considered to be “hate” crimes. Even though it is apparent that these crimes were motivated by their hatred for whites.

    Where were Jesse Jackson and his Coalition when these crimes were committed? Are white victims just not as important as black vitas to Jesse Jackson? Evidently not. They will call me a bigot for even asking racial questions, but the victims will never be able to ask questions or speak to their loved ones again and I call that a very hateful thing!

  4. Post #44
    Dennab
    October 2010
    1,436 Posts
    By Rachel Pendergraft

    Blacks commit 90% of the approximately 1,700,000 interracial crimes of violence that occur in the U.S. each year.

    Blacks are so much more likely than members of other races to commit crimes that police may be justified in stopping and questioning them more frequently-just as they stop men more than women and young people more often than old people.

    Whites are victims of over half – 50% of the violent crimes committed by blacks. Blacks are the victims of whites in 3% of violent crimes.

    Bureau of Justice Statistics

    Black Commentator says Liberal Media Ignores Millions of Black on White Hate Crimes!

    The above statistics gathered by the New Century Foundation out of FBI reports have been completely ignored by the Liberal media and Conservative talk radio as well. Walter Williams, a well known syndicated black columnist attended the press conference of the New Century Foundation at the Washington National Press Club to report the shocking findings. Walter Williams noted: ” Some of the study’s findings about interracial crime were surprising, so much so that I did an independent verification of the numbers.” He says his research proves the study’s information is correct. He continues to say:

    “Regardless of race, criminal violence is despicable and deserving of condemnation. But far more destructive are the official and unofficial attempts to mislead and conceal. Roughly 400 members of the major print and electronic media were invited to the press conference on ‘The Color of Crime.’ Several asked for advanced copies before they’d consider sending anyone. Only 14 reporters stayed for the briefing and only a couple reported on the study, most notably The Washington Times and C-Span. One reporter said that he’d like to write a story but he doubted he could get it by his editor. If the facts were the other way around, everybody from The New York Times and the President to the NAACP, Jesse Jackson and the Congressional Black Caucus would be shouting about and demanding that something be done... ”

    Profile of a Hate Crime

    By Brandon W.


    According to the NAACP and the ACLU, a hate crime is defined by any crime committed by a white person against a minority. According to this definition any crime committed by a minority against a white person, regardless of the viciousness of the crime, cannot be called a “hate’ crime. Although there is a much higher rate of black on white crime then there will ever be of white on black crime. I can think of two particular cases where a group of blacks attacked whites and the crimes were never reported by the media as “hate” crimes.

    One case involved my cousin, Mike. Mike was working as a window washer. He was washing the windows of a local convenience store when a group of four black juveniles, looking for money to go out partying with came to the store and demanded money from both him and the store clerk. The clerk’s husband had just taken the daily proceeds to the bank. When she told them this, two of the blacks shot her point blank with a .357. She was shot 8 times in the chest and stomach. She survived the attack but her unborn baby didn’t.

    He then demanded money from Mike. He gave them his wallet and when they only found $28 inside, the other two unload their weapons into him. He was shot 12 times through his upper body. Mike survived for 6 months after the attack. He finally died as a result of the damage the bullets did to his body and the 6-month ordeal trying and then failing to recover. The f

    The four blacks were caught later that night, but because none of them were over the age of 18, they were tried as juveniles and only spent 3 yeas in a juvenile detention center for their crime.

    Another is a case that I read about in the paper when I was stationed in Tennessee with the army. . A group of blacks kidnapped a white elderly couple one Sunday after church. They took the couple out into a remote area, had them get on their knees and then shot them both in the back of their heads, execution style. Witnesses had seen some blacks going into the home but thought nothing at the time. When the police investigated, they found that the couple had not been robbed and their car was still at the scene. The blacks were never found and the media never reported this case as a ‘hate crime.”

    Both of these cases were extremely vicious crimes committed against whites, by blacks. Yet neither one of them were considered to be “hate” crimes. Even though it is apparent that these crimes were motivated by their hatred for whites.

    Where were Jesse Jackson and his Coalition when these crimes were committed? Are white victims just not as important as black vitas to Jesse Jackson? Evidently not. They will call me a bigot for even asking racial questions, but the victims will never be able to ask questions or speak to their loved ones again and I call that a very hateful thing!
    I'm still reading through this but would you care to provide the source you pinched this from?

  5. Post #45
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    He's a klansman FYI

  6. Post #46
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    June 2009
    6,496 Posts
    Interesting point in the OP but then you've got people who are more or less innocent being punished the same as those who are sociopathic serial murderers.

    A woman is raped at gunpoint. When she notices her attacker has let his guard down and lowered his pistol, she throws a blind punch and runs immediately to get help. Turns out she hit him in the temple hard enough at just the right angle to kill him.

    If motivation and circumstance isn't taken into account, she's punished the same as a man who smoked bath salts and ate another man's face off after stabbing him in the neck.

    Edited:

    I guess I'm against hate crime being different than a regular crime. If you think about it its basically government defining crimethink.
    What about the degrees of murder and the separation of murder and manslaughter? Crime of passion? Mercy killing?

  7. Post #47
    Gold Member
    Luxo's Avatar
    February 2008
    4,102 Posts
    Blind justice sees all individuals as indistinguishable equals. Justice ceases to be blind when it takes race into consideration. Justice that is not blind can then only be biased. Justice that is biased, ceases to be just.

  8. Post #48
    Gold Member
    LF9000's Avatar
    November 2005
    1,159 Posts
    Blind justice sees all individuals as indistinguishable equals. Justice ceases to be blind when it takes race into consideration. Justice that is not blind can then only be biased. Justice that is biased, ceases to be just.
    If I had a more legal background, I suppose make an argument against hate crimes, as they are a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.

  9. Post #49
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    June 2009
    6,496 Posts
    Blind justice sees all individuals as indistinguishable equals. Justice ceases to be blind when it takes race into consideration. Justice that is not blind can then only be biased. Justice that is biased, ceases to be just.
    What do you think of my example, then? If circumstance isn't taken into consideration, 'justice' turns into retribution and the punishment will never fit the crime.

    I'm having a hard time deciding whether hate crimes should be a thing or not though. Thought provoking.

  10. Post #50
    Gold Member
    sgman91's Avatar
    July 2006
    3,787 Posts
    What do you think of my example, then? If circumstance isn't taken into consideration, 'justice' turns into retribution and the punishment will never fit the crime.

    I'm having a hard time deciding whether hate crimes should be a thing or not though. Thought provoking.
    Self defense?

  11. Post #51
    Deliphin11's Avatar
    August 2011
    1 Posts
    A hate crime is only defined when someone attacks/kills for the fact the other is another race/sexual orientation/sex. If its coincidentally that theyre black, no hate crime charge, just regular charges. This is fact, not just what I think it should be.

  12. Post #52
    Gold Member
    Zally13's Avatar
    July 2008
    4,975 Posts
    I'm personally a bit confused at what you would define as being worthy of a hate crime.

    Somebody earlier in the thread mentioned that there are three sorts of motives for murder, which I agree with. These should be taken into consideration when arguing a sentence. A different sentence for greed, for need, and for passion. Hate crime, of course, falls into passion. Hate crime should, in my opinion, be put into the same amount of justice as any other crime of passion.

    I believe protecting a certain amount of people more than others is wrong, so if we mean a distinction between other passion crimes and hate crimes, then no, I don't think there should be one.

  13. Post #53
    Gold Member
    wraithcat's Avatar
    December 2007
    12,644 Posts
    Should the intention/motivation of a crime affect the penalty imposed on the aggressor, such as hate crime statutes do?

    Say Person X assaults Person Y because Person Y is a different color/religion/sexual orientation than Person X. Is the assault really 'worse' because of the motivation of Person X than a regular assault would be?

    I'm seeing that a crime should be punished for what was done more than why it was done. I don't see a difference between a murder between two of the same race than a murder of someone by a different race - in the end, murder is was still done and murder is still wrong. How can we say that the murder of this case was "worse" than the murder of another case, because the former was race/religion/sexual orientation based? It seems to make non-hate crimes "better" (for an extreme lack of a better word) than ones that are hate based. If the victim was different from the transgressor, it almost seems that the victim is more important, in a sense, than that of a victim who was the same as the transgressor.

    If 'justice is blind', shouldn't courts focus more on the act of the crime more than the motivation of it? I am by no means supporting bigotry in any way, but I see "hate crimes" a bit biased in themselves.
    Essentially speaking in crminal law the subjective intentions actually play a huge role, often actually going above the act itself - for instance in a lot of cases if there was an intent and preparation to commit a crime it is criminal and in other cases only the actual crime or the atempt of the crime is criminal.

    On top of that crimes can be seperated into two broad categories depending on the culpability of the perpetrator.

    Intentional crimes - the perpetrator knows what he is doing and he is aware of the consequences
    unintentional crimes - the perpetrator actually generally does not have the intention to cause the crime but in some cases still carries the culpability.

    Just from that you can see that the intent and motivation in criminal law play a huge role.

    So generally speaking - A crime itself is only criminal in the case of potential societal threat. If you can generally proove that there was no threath or no damage you don't have a crime.

    And from a certain standpoint a hate crime is more dangerous to society as a whole than a mere crime because of the potential damage.

    Someone who kills a white man because he is a white man does more damage to society than someone who kills a white man over a monetary dispute.

    The personal damage itself remains the same, but that's not all damage.


    As to blind justice - it was actually the norm in the nineteenth century or so. Where Ius positivistic tendencies tended to completely overshadow the ius naturalistic ones and essentially the whole criminal was very formulated. Proofs tended to have a specified weight and the actual intent of perpetrator had very little to do with the actual act. With time liberation doctrines emerged (castle, self defense, danger to legally protected interest etc) and with the rise in these the actual intent of the one commiting the crime ended up going into the forefront.

    Interesting point in the OP but then you've got people who are more or less innocent being punished the same as those who are sociopathic serial murderers.

    A woman is raped at gunpoint. When she notices her attacker has let his guard down and lowered his pistol, she throws a blind punch and runs immediately to get help. Turns out she hit him in the temple hard enough at just the right angle to kill him.

    If motivation and circumstance isn't taken into account, she's punished the same as a man who smoked bath salts and ate another man's face off after stabbing him in the neck.

    Edited:



    What about the degrees of murder and the separation of murder and manslaughter? Crime of passion? Mercy killing?
    To be honest, this is not exactly precise as you have two different forces at work here.

    a) the fact she acted with the intent to harm or hit him, without the intent to kill.
    --> this would lead to a crime of intentional harm with unintentional death as a result as opposed to something like intentional killing.

    b) she was in danger and acted in self defense or heavy mental stress
    --> this is a liberation reason which actually makes the crime void in the eyes of the court once it is prooven.

    The first specifies the crime itself based on intent and what was commited. The second removes culpability.

    EDIT

    As to the bathsalt man. Under most legal systems as well as blind justice system he'd actually get a worse penalty because he commited 3 crimes

    a) Murder
    b) trough self fault become a threat to society under the influence of mind altering substances
    c) putting mind altering substances which are not legit into his system by self fault

    Even in complete blind justice systems you would generally find two specific crimes, or subcrimes if you will. Murder and murder under the influence of mind altering substances from self fault. Both constitute objective actions and not subjective ones.

    If I had a more legal background, I suppose make an argument against hate crimes, as they are a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.
    Legally? No. You could attack hate crime definitions if they were strict and formalised in their definition - aka a hate crime can only be commited by a member of the majority society against a minority.

    But that's not the case (though sadly quite often the courts and media aproach it as such) a hate crime is a crime that was motivated by the community of either gender, race, belief or something else specified in the law of the victim.

  14. Post #54
    Gold Member
    TestECull's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,802 Posts
    Motive is crazy important. Someone facing a vehicular homicide charge because a defective Goodyear sent them careening into a gaggle of old ladies is not guilty of anything, except being the unlucky SOD that bought the one defective tire on that store's shelf. Someone facing vehicular homicide because they outright said "I'ma run that dumb bastard down, reverse over him, and then hit him again just to make sure he's dead", however, is a lunatic that never needs to see the light of day again. At the end of day both cases involve someone's corpse smeared into the grille of a Honda but only the latter is deserving of any punitive measures.

  15. Post #55
    Gold Member
    sgman91's Avatar
    July 2006
    3,787 Posts
    No one is arguing that having a motive doesn't matter. People are saying that different motives don't matter.

    If the crime is done on purpose than it doesn't matter why you did the crime.