Until I hear of indisputable evidence against it, I’m going to say that yes, this definitely appears to be a bias crime.

The use of racial slurs certainly points in that direction.

Louisiana law, based on the Napoleonic Code, is something I’m not too familiar with, but many states will first file Murder 2 charges, available by information, before convening a grand jury to indict on Murder 1. The presence of racial animus should certainly support a charge of Murder 1. Admittedly, I don’t know much about the statute giving federal jurisdiction, as it was passed after I was hors de combat, but if that’s available, it should be followed up.

Bigotry, racism and ignorance are still alive and well. The perps probably belong to a white supremacist group or are skin head wannabes. Nobody is born with that kind of lunacy it is taught and seems to never end. If that’s not a hate crime I don’t know what else you would call it.

There is no other difinition for this type of crime.

It began with the fact that The white male was threaten because of his association with Black friends.

My Prayers go out to the family that is suffering from the loss of their child.

Racism is alive in America.

this is a hate crime pure and simple. This is SOP FOR RACIST AND THOSE WHO HIDE IN THE DARK AND SUPPORT THEM.

Of course this is a Hate Crime. Local law enforcement is often reluctant to use the excellent Federal hate crimes law. Kentucky has a State Hate Crimes Law, I don’t know about Louisiana. Their reluctance could be to keep statistics looking good, or possibly to save prosecutor’s time, but I think a lot of them just don’t agree with the concept. They might even agree with the criminals. This is a big reason to support SPLC, because they will not let things like this go.

“Nobody is born with that kind of lunacy it is taught and seems to never end.”

I think it all of that inbreeding. Bigots want everyone to
look, talk, believe, and dress the same.

So that explains the inbreeding that seems to be in that part of the country.

There are legitimate reasons to not use the hate crimes law – if you have an airtight case for murder, introducing the additional evidence of proving malice based on animus towards a particular race or whatever just muddies the water.

And while i’m not too familiar with Louisiana in most states adding a year or so for the bias enhancement doesn’t make a big difference in murder cases.

And truthfully, i’m not really a fan of specific hate crimes laws.- they often come cloaked with mandatory minimum sentences which are generally a menance to the criminal justice system and disproportionately harm minorities (see crack cocaine if you doubt this).

Generally beyond proving the crime motive is generally only relevant to sentencing. Making the crime based upon maliciousness towards a particular group a possible sentencing enhancement factor actually makes a lot more sense than having a separate hate crime.

And hate crime statutes – to the extent they might make sense – make more sense really in crimes other than murder – murder sentences tend to be draconian enough in this country to not really any sort of enhancement. But honestly making it a factor to consider within sentencing still makes more sense than having a separate hate crime statute.

Let me offer an opposing point of view. The concept of ‘hate crime’ does not do any good, and does do some harm. It should be dropped.

The concept does not help the society or justice system in deterring or punishing crimes. It does not contribute socially in helping to overcome racial, or other bigotries. It does, however, offer comfort to the bigots and racists who use the existence of hate-crime legislation to support and justify their claims of victimhood.

The problem is that hate crimes are that most heinous type of law: the thought-crime.They depend not on what a person does, but on what they think, on what are their internal social or political views.

Why create this self-inflicted wound? Why not just charge criminals with murder, assault, or other crime, then use their motives or beliefs are aggravating factors in sentencing?

Aside from helping the self-justification of reactionaries, hate-crime law does at least one other serious harm. It causes us to seek out racial antecedents to every violent crime, even if there is none. In any community with racial tensions, this is an unwelcome focus. And it plays the game of the racialists, where every crime involving persons of differing races must have a racial dimension.

This is definitely a hate crime. Segregation was the cause of the white supremacist movement (aside from slavery and outright genocide, that is).

Eight Bells, I don’t know how much they inbreed in Lousy Anna, but at least their background is more varied than most.

This is a White on White crime. Whenever our racist enemies sees a White individual, whether male or female, hanging out with non-whites. They tend to call them “race traitors”. Rendering them the most likely targets of a violent crime. Which is probably why intra-racial crime is far more common within the abhorrent white supremacy movement.

Another reason why i’m not a fan of hate crime charges is that there is a real danger that a jury will convict based upon hostility towards the defendant’s views rather than evidence of the crime. If a defendant is being charged with a hate crime and the evidence of bias includes the fact that the defendant is a Neo-Nazi with “Heil Hitler” and a swastika tatoos that is extremely prejudicial evidence against the defendant.

Again, if the defendant is a Neo-Nazi who attacked people based upon race that factor is much more properly a factor for sentencing – then the defendant has already been convicted so there is no danger that the jury will convict due to hostility towards Nazis. And once the defendant has been convicted evidence that he is a Neo-Nazi freak provides evidence of likely future dangerousness which justifies a longer sentence.

The reason why prosecutors want hate crimes legislation is that they know that the evidence of racial bias is going to make people upset and mad at the defendant. To say that the defendant is a racist and to have free reign to introduce evidence of said racism without the restrictions of causing undue prejustice because said racism in an element of the charged crime gives the prosecution a major unfair advantage. It may well rise to the level where it is a due process violation and threatens the very intergrity of a trial.

And maybe you do not care if the rights of some awful Neo-Nazis are being trampled on, but the fact is that the entire Bill of Rights has been under assault. For people who are concerned about the rights of minorities and care about racism in the criminal justice system taking steps which limit due process rights of anyone – even Neo-Nazi freaks – is a terrible idea. Precdents established limiting due process protections of the most vile defendants will also effect the rights of people charged with less serious crimes – and that is going to cause much more harm to minorities in the long run. Repeatedly the government has sought to gain extremely harmful precedents which they can use against all criminal defendants using the most vile people possible – generally pedophiles and Neo-Nazis (and even pedophile Neo-Nazis) – and they have had quite a bit of success at it.

That is not something to encourage even though pedophiles and Neo-Nazis are terrible people, it is a trend to fight. Repeatedly precedents set against the worst people possible (see death penalty cases especially involving “harmless error” if you doubt this) destroy the rights of all people harmed of crimes.

Rights are rights and we should never forget that in the zeal to enforce. Without rights we have no law, simply tyranny by judicial means.

I believe the best way to address the issues Erika raises hee is to take steps to prevent crime before it occurs. Once the crime has taken place, the harm has been done, and there is nothing the legal system can do but add more harm. When we perceive this it becomes possible to find alternative solutions to crime, such as looking at why it occurs.

So I think there is some merit to looking at why people tattoo swastikas on themselves and take on other outward expressions of hate even without going the final step which is to carry out an act of violence. Nor am I convinced making such expressions illegal would do any good since we cannot outlaw consciousness. We need primary interventions.

There are root causes to these problems. Going around scooping up the bad fruit when it falls does not extirpate the tree.

I weep in sorrow for your loss and rejoice that there are such men, and women, as your Son.

May the God of Heaven touch your family with His Peace through this and the trial(s) yet to come.

“Hate Crime” laws are a politically correct joke..Said laws create division and discord amongst the population..A person is a person and there sexual preference and race should not define them..Once you start categorizing people as “black, gay, bi-sexual” etc… other groups get left out..The day hate crime laws in this country are overturned will be a day to celebrate nationwide

* their* sorry about typo

Yes John, I am sure it would be a banner day for White Nationals, the Tea Party, and any racist who wishes to attack minorities with impunity.

aadilla, apparently you missed the point of my reply..read it again..then again die hard leftists, much like die hard wingnuts, due tend to suffer from myopia

also, you assumed that I’m a WN or a Tea Party member or racist…and we all know what happens when you assume :)

John, honey, aadila is a sweetheart and much smarter than you have ever demonstrated.

When you start out with “Hate Crime laws are a politically correct joke” don’t try to pretend that you aren’t a right winger. To try to pretend that trying to punish people who commit violent crimes out of bias is dividing people is stupid.

If you bother to read what i’ve said, i don’t like hate crime laws very much either – but i also believe that it is proper to increase sentencing based upon people who act out of malice to a group. The fact is that people are already divided – there are people whose fiancial interest depends upon dividing people based upon race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Those people are the same people who try to get people to complain about “political correctness.”

Your mock outrage marks you as being simply lame.

and i don’t have to assume, sweetie, you’ve proved that you are lame with your words :P

Erika, Dan and John. I do see the Constitutional problems with Thought Crimes, and they do indeed contradict the concept of the Blindfolded Lady holding the Scales of Justice. I think Hate Crimes Laws mean well and could be an extra deterrent if they got more publicity. Tough call. Maybe I just wish all violent crimes had harsher, possibly mandatory, sentences.

Yes, John, what happens is often it leads to the correct assumption, as in this case. :)

John,
The conversation does not occur in a vacuum of context. Define yourself as you will but your published words put you into a larger tapestry that has been defined by political and social thought, as well as recent history.

Do you understand that?

The chief use of the federal hate crimes statute is to obtain federal jurisdiction when the state refuses to prosecute or cannot be trusted to try the case fairly. In a state trial, ascertaining group-based animus is more properly a question of determining premeditation and malice aforethought, just as the accused’s belief that the decedent had hacked his bank account would be. Homicide is the act of killing a person, but the degree of homicide is determined by his state of mind in doing so, and in determining that, the kind of group-based animus that comes under the rubric of “hate” is as important as any other factor.

Regrettably, no awards ceremony this week, either; lower back-left leg muscle spasms have left me both lacking in humor and full of pills.

John,

In the interest of not excluding certain groups of people to the disadvantage of others, few sane people would argue with the virtue of defining people as “people” as opposed to belonging to certain categories based on classifiers like race, religion, gender, etc. But in using this idea as an argument against the existence of the legal category of hate crimes, you are comparing apples and oranges. Hate crime laws (to my non-expert knowledge) don’t focus on specific victimized groups to the exclusion of others; they focus on crimes committed against specific groups of people simply because they belong to those specific groups. Although some groups (such as gays & lesbians and racial minorities) are more likely to be singled out for such crimes, the group identity is really irrelevant (straight and white people. for example, can also be victims of hate crimes if the motivation for victimizing them is their membership in those groups). These attacks based on group bias are defined as belonging to separate, more serious category of crime in part because of the more egregious impact they have on victims and society.

““Hate Crime” laws are a politically correct joke..Said laws create division and discord amongst the population..A person is a person and there sexual preference and race should not define them..Once you start categorizing people as “black, gay, bi-sexual” etc… other groups get left out..The day hate crime laws in this country are overturned will be a day to celebrate nationwide”

First of all, division and discord already exists. That it is exists is one reason for hate crime laws. Some people need to learn that if they don’t like someone for their race, sexual orientation, etc, they had better not assault or kill that person, because the punishment will be stiffer in that case. This is what hate crime laws do.

John, Aadila didn’t say YOU were a WN or a Tea Party member. She siad it would be a “banner day” for them if Hate Crime laws came off the books.

And they are not about defining the victim. They are about defining the attack, the attackers, and the purpose of the attack.

And your bias is showing, too.

Meanwhile, back in Kentucky, the beating of Kevin Pennington was declared not to be a hate crime. As it was not a murder, the perps got off light.

what a tragedy them two guys should be locked up forever. I pray for the parent’s to get thru this tragedy.

So I have avoided comment so far, but alas these two guys are my cousins.

They were not raised this way. The didn’t catch a lot of breaks in life; this however is inexcusable.

I fully believe this was something that escalated out of control; their initial confrontation aside.

Either way; sucks to have murders in the family.

Gosh…

Thanks for stepping in folks, but poor John doesn’t realize the only thing that is making him angry is his own mind…it’s not me, it’s what he manifests for himself. And that burden is like an oxcart of woe.

Even so, every once in a while people remind me that humanity has hope, so thanks!! I shouldn’t forget that ever but alas, I do.

Off topic, but Rey needs fixed. Sciatica starts in the lower back and causes very real but ghost pains down the left leg. It is caused from sitting at a desk job or a driving job. A good Chiropractor can fix it.

Actually, this sort of spread upward from tendonitis of the left Achilles tendon, following hyperextension from a fall. I stayed quiet for several days and took stuff, and seem much better today, and if I don’t start it up again by carrying tropical plants in, I should be fine. But a chiropracter would be good. Thanks, Sam.

Dan Zabetakis hate crimes are no more thought crimes than first degree murder. How is “premeditation” categorically different from “hate”? Almost all criminal prosecution involves determining the intent of the perpetrator. How are hate crimes so different?

In fact, animus towards the group the victim belongs to is as much a factor in determining premeditation or malice aforethought as any kind of personal malice. The accused’s being a Nazi would likely not be relevant and excludable under 403 if the defendant were on trial for killing the postman he caught sleeping with his wife; if the Jewish merchant down the block turned up dead, the defendant’s Nazism would indeed be relevant, unless the merchant had also been sleeping with the defendant’s wife, which would have called for assorted motions in limine, motions in opposition to motions in limine, etc., to determine whether the prejudicial effect would outweigh the probative one.

To expand some on Reynardine’s earlier comment, the federal hate crime statutes specify that the Justice Department will prosecute these cases only if one or more of the following is true: the state doesn’t have jurisdiction, the state has asked the federal government to assume jurisdiction, “the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to state charges left demonstratively unvindicated the federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence,” or “a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.”

The statute also requires the U.S. Attorney General or his designate to create guidelines “that shall establish neutral and objective criteria for determining whether a crime was committed because of the actual or perceived status of any person.” “Status” in that clause means, of course, “the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person,” or as added more recently, “the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person.”

Now one thing stands out in all this, which is that it doesn’t in any way invoke what Dan Z. wants to characterize as a “thought crime.” It isn’t the perpetrator’s thinking that’s involved, it’s the victim’s status. And as Reynardine also suggested, that’s nothing unusual in a murder trial, where the prosecution might try to prove, for instance, that the victim was killed because of his status as a drug user who owed money to the perpetrator. The Orwellian language is a red herring.

As for the alleged absence of a benefit to society, I might agree that we don’t gain much by trying to tack a hate crime charge onto a murder charge in a case of more or less impulsive, one-on-one rage. It’s unlikely that hate-crime laws will deter that sort of thing, any more than capital punishment does.

But consider the cases in which an openly self-declared racist slaughters a bunch of people in an attempt to incite a “race war,” or a case like that of James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman, who were murdered as an act of terrorism by a clique of entrenched racists who wanted to maintain oppressive control over their Mississippi territory.

I think that’s the sort of situation the federal statute envisions in the language about state charges leaving our common interest in eradicating hateful violence “demonstratively unvindicated” and prosecutions that are “in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.” Society does benefit from the pursuit of those goals, and it’s worth our while to continue pursuing them, even if it’s sometimes hard.

actually Kiwriter, I didn’t think he was.. what poor aadilla doesn’t understand is that i’m not angry..lol I like how he automatically ASSumes things.. interesting though how he paints groups w/ opposing viewpoints as being automatically homophobic and racist..Kiwi, EVERYONE has a bias in their viewpoints, just so you know..

hmmmm perhaps aadilla and Erika are the same person?
:)

Ruslan, you typed that “discord already exists” in society..i thank you for pointing out the obvious..;)

I assure you, John, that Erika and Aadila are not the same person, and only a rank amateur would think so. Also, in case you are wondering, I am exactly one person; so is Aron; so is Coral Sea, and surely so is Ruslan. None of us are sock puppets; none, committees.

Reynardine, thank you for the clarification even though my question was tongue in cheek…i just love how there’s no levity amongst all of you…

John,

You’ve been very generous in sharing your opinions or beliefs here, all of a sudden, so I’d like to be equally generous with my response, even though you chose to totally ignore my previous comment.

I hope you don’t think it’s impertinent to ask if you might be willing to explain your basis for believing at least one or two of the things you’ve written here. You seem to think that the mere fact that you believe them should be reason enough for everyone to accept their truth. However, where your opinions are checkable, they don’t seem to stand up too well to scrutiny.

Here’s an example: You wrote, “what poor aadilla doesn’t understand is that i’m not angry..lol I like how he automatically ASSumes things.. interesting though how he paints groups w/opposing viewpoints as being automatically homophobic and racist.”

Problem No. 1: “Aadila” is an Arabic word meaning “justice” or “righteousness.” As a personal name, it is generally female. I wouldn’t want to jump to conclusions, but you might want to consider the possibility that you wrongly ASSumed she is a he.

Rather worse is your false claim that “he” “paints groups w/opposing viewpoints as being automatically homophobic and racist.” All s/he has done is draw an inference – and not an unreasonable one – based on your comments, such as this gem: “The day hate crime laws in this country are overturned will be a day to celebrate nationwide.” Care to explain why? More generally, you’ve made a hasty generalization about aadila that is amply disproved by her/his many other comments here, as you’d know if you’d bothered to acquire some knowledge before spouting off.

Reynardine already answered this one: “hmmmm perhaps aadilla and Erika are the same person? :)” I would only add that anyone who still thinks emoticons are clever is living in 1996.

Now we come to your major manifesto: “ ‘Hate Crime’ laws are a politically correct joke..Said laws create division and discord amongst the population..A person is a person and [their] sexual preference and race should not define them..Once you start categorizing people as ‘black, gay, bi-sexual’ etc… other groups get left out..The day hate crime laws in this country are overturned will be a day to celebrate nationwide.”

I won’t bother to deconstruct this rather incoherent foray. I’ll just ask two questions: 1. In what way are hate crime laws a “joke” of any kind? and 2. Did you actually learn your English in England or have you just spent too much time reading National Front websites?

And then there’s this bit of juvenile snarkiness: “Ruslan, you typed that ‘discord already exists’ in society..i thank you for pointing out the obvious..;)”

Again with the emoticons, but more troublingly, you seem to think you’ve cherry-picked something you can hit with a devastating comeback, and we’ll all be oh-so-impressed. Can you perhaps understand why someone over the age of 14 might not be impressed?

CM, the Federal Hate Crimes charges can be added to the simple assault usually charged by lame a** local prosecutors in nonlethal beatings. The victim’s actual status is irrelevant, and it is the perp’s perception of him that defines a hate crime.

Really, John? So why did you type this?

“Said laws create division and discord amongst the population.”

“Create” would suggest that these laws make MORE discord if not cause it in the first place.

“Ruslan, you typed that “discord already exists” in society..i thank you for pointing out the obvious..;)”

John, either you already know he wrote that as background for providing a (perfectly lucid) justification for designating some crimes as “hate crimes” (but are playing ignorant to make an insult where none was deserved) or you don’t. Either way, you’re a fool.

actually adamhill I didn’t know he had wrote that so quit foaming at the mouth…but that doesn’t make a justification for such a law..so i wasn’t playing ignorant to insult..you’re reading waaaayyyyy too much into this so now who’s the fool?

Ruslan, you asked why I typed that..the explanation was in my first post..and i’m aware of what I typed..you know, I figured right wingers owned the monopoly on rage and short sightedness but it appears leftists suffer from the same..too funny

“The victim’s actual status is irrelevant, and it is the perp’s perception of him that defines a hate crime.”

Well, Sam, I provided the actual statute earlier, but here’s the relevant language again:

“the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person,” or as added more recently, “the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person.”

So actual status isn’t irrelevant. As for perceived status, the statute isn’t asking anyone to delve deeply into epistemological issues or whatever; it’s as simple as asking, Did the perpetrator believe Mr. Singh was a Muslim, despite the fact that he was actually a Sikh?

I think I understand that you and Dan Z. are skeptical about hate-crime laws because you see them as infringing people’s right to hold whatever opinions they like. But beating the dogsh*t out of someone, or murdering them, can’t be seen as constitutionally protected expressions of individual freedom if we’re to have a viable society.

John, you wouldn’t know levity if it came up and bit you in the butt. Oh, maybe that is an assumption, but its an assumption based upon the evidence of your previous posts.

And for the record, i’m much less nice than aadila. So beware because while aadila is a sweetheart i’m a mean girl :P

And honey please – if you were a Teabagger or White Nationalist you would make more sense. As it is you basically seem incoherent and for someone who is claiming to not be a Teabagging White Nationalist you simply protest too much. Thus my conclusion is that you are in fact a Teabagging White Nationalist – and a very dumb one at that who has absolutely nothing to offer other than animosity.

Try to understand this, sweetie – hate crimes are not punishing people simply for hating – they are punishing actions. Okay, there have been some cases where the action probably should not have been criminal (See, Virginia v. Black where the Grand Wizard of some branch of the KKK was convicted for burning a cross at a Klan meeting on private property with the owner’s permission. Note that at the Supreme Court level this csae was argued with another which should have been criminal the other case was an appeal where some drunk teenagers tried but failed to burn a cross on a black family’s yard – in that case, the criminal conviction is proper. In both cases, the Virginia statute involved punished burning a cross with intent to intimidate and created a presumption that if you burned a cross you like so totally obviously must have had the intent to intimidate so you are guilty. Of course, the Supreme Court said its Constitutional, so it must be like so totally proper ;) ).

Now the question with hate crime laws is it proper to have a separate crime to punish violent criminal assaults – that is what we are talking about. To deny that these laws are designed to address violent criminal assaults is to be completely obtuse. Now some people here argue that there should be such a crime – my opinion is that the motive of hatred to avoid legitimate problems with a fair trial which will come when the defendant’s hatred is an element of the crime is that such cases should be treated at sentencing. There is actually a model for such trials because much more is properly admissible at sentencing than at trial.

There was actually a recent case U.S. v. Cunningham out of the Third Circuit which dealt with admissibility of evidence showing the crime itself. In that case, the crime was possession and distribution of child pronography. The defense was a some other dude defense and the defense stipulated that there were illegal child pronography images found on the defendant’s computer. The prosecution naturally wanted to parade before the jury as much of the vile images as possible. The prosecution in fact did parade some extraordinary vile images and of course they got exactly the effect they were looking for – a conviction and long prison sentence. Interesting case regarding admissibility of evidence – definitely worth checking out.

Now that relates definitely to hate crime cases – the evidence showing that a crime is a hate crime is likely to be highly prejudicial to the jury. That is where the problem with hate crime laws if there is a problem exists. It is not in the sentencing.

One possibility for hate crimes to address this issue is a two part trial – in the first part, the trial can determine if the defendant committed the assault or murder -in the second part, the defendant’s can be determined to have acted out of malice. That would eliminate some of those issues and still allow for enhanced setencing.

However to John it is not the fact that there are people who run around wearing riduculous “ghost costumes” of white robes and pointed hoods that is a problem – and that those people sometimes commit crimes out of their racial bias – it is that those people are getting punished for said crimes. Perhaps John would prefer going back to the days where people could commit violent crimes against minorities (and likely rape women as well) without being punished.

John’s concern trolling speaks volumes indeed.

John, you adorable little banana pudding, you can think anything you like. My guess is you like to pick on women. I have a little theory about that which Erika and I have discussed before, so I won’t repeat it. By the way the gay men on this thread are ten times more of a man then you will ever be. Given a choice of them or the likes of you, I’ll side with them any day…at least they’re fun! You’re just a pathetic whimp.

CM, what is wrong with using emoticons? Next, are you going to tell me that dotting the i in Erika with a little heart is unacceptable? Okay, maybe its unacceptable for signing letters to opposing parties or for court pleadings so maybe for those especially the ones threatening to sue them if they do not fix the illegal things they are doing i should use a little smiley face. Also is pastel pink or purple paper acceptable for such letters? Please let me know exactly what the proper equiette is in this area because they simply did not teach it in law school ;)

Well done, Erika. That has got to be the most thoughtful troll demolition that I have read in ages.

Absent any intellectual content, all that John has to offer is smirking immaturity. He is out of his depth here and should return to a more suitable pursuit, like beer pong.

Just for the record, Erika, have you ever put a smiley or used a glitter pen on a subpeona? :o

aadilla, no I don’t pick on women so stop w/ the ASSumptions…Gregory, Erika hardly demolished anything..She’s jumping to conclusions regarding my original statement..Of course people should be punished for their crimes regardless who the victim is..it’s the non-labeling of the victim that has all of you in an uproar…nor am I protesting anything Erika…please state where I sounded like I’m protesting..I’m merely offering an OPINION albeit one unpopular w/ the little social circle on here

also aadilla, how do you know I’m even male? I could be a female..remember this is the internet..as if aadilla is an actual name..lol stop trying to be coy..and yes I do like bananna pudding but I don’t drink alcohol so Gregory will have to find another beer pong buddy

Erika,

Nothing really “wrong” with emoticons, but they do have somewhat the same qualities as outdated slang. : þ

In fact, John, you have said not one damned thing that indicates legal background, intellectual depth, or a serious interest in anything. You appear to simply be buzzing around people’s ears just to disrupt conversation, so…

Come here,

little mosquito,

closer….

SWAT!

Let’s look at this from a different perspective..What if hate crime laws were abolished? would that necessarily indicate mandatory attacks on minorities? what do all of you fear if such an event occured? I ask this out of curiosity more than anything b/c the mere mention of such a thing has really bought your tempermental sides out and has led to baseless assumptions…much to my amusement I might add..this is almost like talking to right wingers

John honey if you can’t tell if you are male or female, there may be people here to help…but you are going about it all wrong!

Why don’t you start here:

^[2]

aadila, only on the ones to hostile witnesses ;)

And it seems like you’ve attracted an unwanted admirerer in John. “Banana” related issues definitely appear present in this one.

CM, i probably just use them because its never too late to have a happy childhood (actually adolesence in this case) :)

John, everything since aadila’s original reply to you has been nothing but protest. You have about the same level of charm and content as a toddler throwing a temper tantrum.

aadilla, i’m done w/ you..you have nothing to offer

CM, my post is very coherent and aadilla’s inferences are off base. what i meant by my statement is that a criminal should be punished for crimes against another person and that a person’s race or sexuality shouldn’t be a factor..

Why? it’s very easy for said “hate crimes” to become a “boy who cried wolf” situation.. now to address your questions:

1. the term “hate crime” is a joke..whatever laws deal with assaults or murder against gay or black people, being those laws are used and they are, should suffice

2. I’m not familiar w/ any National Front sites…and you realize what you just did by stating that, right? you ASSumed

John, now you’ve had your hissy fit you can go sulk away and glare at everyone. As Gregory already pointed out all I said was ending hate crime laws would bring joy to the racists and haters.

That must have struck a nerve, because all of a sudden you explode and start projecting your issues on everybody, calling people right wingers, saying I don’t know my own gender, saying Erika is the same person. I mean, what’s up with that? You even tried to verbally bitch slap Ruslan and CM…which is definitely not a good idea. Not to mention Reynardine.

I’m sorry you are so upset honey but the cognitive dissonance in your remarks is a clear indicator that not all is well with your head. I could be mistaken, but i don’t think you’ve managed for all your bellowing to convince anyone otherwise.

John, read my first comment on this thread, especially the last three paragraphs. That’s my argument in favor of hate crime laws, and I’m sticking with it.

In the meantime, you might study up on the difference between a statement and a question, because you seem to show some confusion about that in your point No. 2.

What it all boils down to is this: I’m neither a right winger nor a leftist yet you ASSume I’m the former b/c of a statement taken out of context…This social circle is used to dealing w/ commentray from ignorant righties so hence your ASSumptions..I don’t fit this mold, ergo you don’t know how to peg me, hence the baseless statements..

Also, my name is not John nor am I Caucasian..I’ve always wanted to get inside the mind of “leftists” who exhibit an identical zealotry in their beliefs much like a right winger whether they realize it or not.

This being the case, you have all been unwitting participants in a mental study at your expense. Thanks for playing along :)

John,

Broadly speaking, if hate crimes (crimes motivated by bias toward specific groups of people) were “abolished” then those crimes would not be treated as differentially more serious than ones where bias toward specific groups of people was not a factor. Categorizing crimes that are superficially similar as more or less serious based on the motivation of perpetrators is a conventional part of the criminal code. Categorizing some crimes as “hate crimes” is intended at least in part to reduce bias-motivated crimes in society. I’m not sure what you mean by “indicate mandatory attacks on minorities”, but if you are asking if attacks on minorities would increase if hate crimes were “abolished”, I’d respond that there are too many factors contributing to such crimes to know with any certainty. It’s certainly plausible. Eliminating hate crime statutes would send the message that government no longer considers bias-motivated crimes to be any worse than others, with the implication that a skinhead murder (like that of Mulugeta Seraw) is no different than a random street fight gone bad.

adamhill, thanks for answering the question..I already knew what the answer would be if said laws were abolished..i just wanted to prove my hunch and hear it from one of you…til next time…

It looks like scared little boy John reached the “I’m going to claim that I did this on purpose and therefore won” portion of his tantrum.

Actually, John, that’s not what you said.

Your original argument was that hate crime laws cause more harm and that they should be abolished. The question of what would happen if the laws were abolished was already implied in your original statement, because, a priori in your argument, removing the laws would remedy an alleged harm.

It would, in your words, end “a politically correct joke”. There is really no other way to interpret what you said.

Now, having been handed your hat so to speak by people who are better informed about the law and its effects, you turn around and claim that the issue is one of bias against you. That you have exposed some hidden agenda. That all along what you were really trying to do is offer opposition to progressive orthodoxy, and thereby prove some hidden bias when we disagree.

However, if you would kindly go back and re-read my “inference”, there was no comment about you before you began the wild accusations.

I stated merely that it would be a banner day for racists and haters. There was no implied slur against you or your views. There was nothing at all but an objective rejoinder to your observation.

So now, having been unable to substantiate your original claim that hate crime laws cause harm, you have attempted to prove we are merely reactionaries who jumped to conclusions about you.

If your “hunch” was that we would quickly prove you wrong when you present a fallacious argument, yes, I agree, that is a safe hunch. But the mere fact of being proved wrong implies nothing more than you failed to argue your point.

In short, dearie, your claims of “inferences” against your person simply do not proceed from the facts. That, I think is merely sour grapes.

John sez “This being the case, you have all been unwitting participants in a mental study at your expense. Thanks for playing along :)”

If you were more than 16 you would realize that this is one of the oldest and lamest clichés on the intertubes.

“1. the term “hate crime” is a joke..whatever laws deal with assaults or murder against gay or black people, being those laws are used and they are, should suffice”

Ok cool. Let’s make it so judges can’t consider motive at all in cases while we’re at it. So murder will be murder whether you did it due to provocation and extreme emotional distress or whether you planned to kill someone in cold blood. Assault will be assault whether you jumped someone or stepped in to protect a friend. Brilliant!

“.I don’t fit this mold, ergo you don’t know how to peg me, hence the baseless statements..”

Based on the statements you provided, people quite rightly pegged you as a right winger, if not something of a concern troll. You attack hate crime laws, using arguments very similar to those of typical right wingers, and also display the same kind of beliefs about hate crime laws which right wing pundits propagate.

Since this is the ONLY material we have from you, it is only logical that people assume you are some sort of conservative. In other words, people infer based on the data available. You certainly haven’t said anything to differentiate yourself from the right, especially with your “look how fanatical leftists are”-type comments.

Various posters have shown again and again that you clearly don’t understand what hate crimes laws do, and several people including myself were kind enough to explain it to you.

Also, someone who signs as “John”, wishes to be identified either as male, or as a toilet. Plunk your ASSumptions down on that one, John.

“Let me offer an opposing point of view. The concept of ‘hate crime’ does not do any good, and does do some harm. It should be dropped.”
~I’m glad you offered it and want to debate it reasonably; while there have been any number of false alarms or claims by otherwise disturbed victims regarding hate crime charges, that doesn’t disregard the thousands of actual bias based crimes that happen to individual Americans every year, reported and non-. Like with prosepctive Senator Mourdock’s “Rape-Is-A-Gift-From-God” comments regarding the legality of abortion and women’s rights to choose, such a reactionary legislative change would have disastrous and delterious effects to the 28,000+ girls or women who are raped in a year, and would have to carry and care for that baby by government force. In-vitro fertilization, incest and the potential death of the mother in question apparently be damned, to say nothing of the marginalized groups that are the primary targets of these crimes.~

“The concept does not help the society or justice system in deterring or punishing crimes. It does not contribute socially in helping to overcome racial, or other bigotries. It does, however, offer comfort to the bigots and racists who use the existence of hate-crime legislation to support and justify their claims of victimhood.”
That may be true in a few specific instances, but as a whole, this is an argument that feeds straight into the radical right propaganda machine of punishing so-humorously decried’thought crimes’ and creating the narrative where nobody ever experiences discrimination, prejudice or hatred for an inmutable characteristic (race,class,gender, religion,etc.) Before we had The Civil Rights, Fair Housing and Voting Rights Act of the 60′s and Obama’s recent signing of the James Byrd Hate Crime Pact, we had countless blacks, and even hispanics and white jews, who were the victims of lynching in addition to Jim Crow segregation and second-class subjugation and terror in every facet of American society, to say nothing of the nativist immigration policies and religious fundamentalists who tried to impose a softer form of state sanctioned fascism regarding women, non-Protestant/Evangelical believers and the like. We can argue all day that Hate Crime legislation doesn’t ‘stop the crimes’ in question (they do, and there have been historical and empirical evidence strongly supporting, make it less likely with proper government enforcement), but try telling that to any of the marginalized minority groups who have faced decades of institutionalized disenfranchisement. If the laws seem unfair to you, they probably DON’T even apply to you (especially if you happen to self-identify as a heterosexual white Christian male) so its probably not your place to complain about them in a country and world that’s been more than over-zealous in granting you privilege.~

“The problem is that hate crimes are that most heinous type of law: the thought-crime.They depend not on what a person does, but on what they think, on what are their internal social or political views.”
~How right-wingers, and even some self-declared lefties, could POSSIBLY keep coming to this illogical and ill-determined assessment of hate crime legislation, to say nothing of the even more hot-button topic of affirmative action, is beyond educated thinking. First of all, ALL crime in question has an inherent bias or thought that preceded it; when you go to court and a jury over this stuff, particularly murders, there must be evidence presented in favor of declaring the party guilty whether empirical or otherwise. If you’re a neo-nazi or skinhead involved in any black or other racial minorities murder (James Byrd), a young ‘Christian’ and bigoted fundie justifying the murder of an LGBT community member (Matthew Sheppard) or high-powered corporate man beating your wife within a fraction of her life on a daily, and there’s ANYTHING relative indicating you guilty to the public at large of you doing it, you bet your annual salary its a ‘thought’ crime, but than again, so are all the others if we recall the most all action, whether conscious or not, are preceeded by some sort of thought, and never more so than in the case of doing objective evil…~

“Why create this self-inflicted wound? Why not just charge criminals with murder, assault, or other crime, then use their motives or beliefs are aggravating factors in sentencing?”
~Why don’t we ask that to the individuals and society at large that continues to perpetuate these same crimes generation after generation and ourselves why we allow discrimination, bigotry, prejudice and so many other dark bedfellows of human nature’s uglier underbelly rule our social discourse and relation to the word around us? Nobody asks for these things to happen to them, and continuing to let them occur unpunished only creates GREATER tension, resentment and discontent between races, genders, religions, orientations and the like because events like these make and enforce an “us against them” narrative that can make it an anomaly for civililty and order to operate. We didn’t have all these reform, human rights or advocacy groups throughout the past for nothing and the work clealry isn’t done when events like this rear their ugly head. This is actually a case where white people, the de facto majority in the U.S. and much of the Western world for now, are on complete equal standing in the context of the ‘hate crime’ and federal statutes as well. How ironic is it than that the same crime so many White Right-Wingers of the reactionary stripe so decry would actually bring due justice and resolve should they or anyone under that racial classification, God forbid, find themselves in the unfortunate pair of shoes Mike Darby was here. There simply is no excuse or good enough explanation why this shouldn’t be investigated and charged as a hate crime; lest we ever wish to see a true ‘post-racial’ America after the rise of President Obama where we have had enough of hate and the completely irresponsible and incompetent haters that want to continue boiling the pot of it.~

“Aside from helping the self-justification of reactionaries, hate-crime law does at least one other serious harm. It causes us to seek out racial antecedents to every violent crime, even if there is none. In any community with racial tensions, this is an unwelcome focus. And it plays the game of the racialists, where every crime involving persons of differing races must have a racial dimension.”
~No, their just mad when karma and the better angels of humanity makes them stuff their cake and eat it, too. Most of the people who are in favor of repealing and not granting ‘those OTHERS’ due rights are of course, the reason we need them in the first place. More power to the victims and their fellow minorities looking for justice and equal opportunity in a planet that has become about everything but being that. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time…~

Don’t work folks. Inside John is thinking “CRAP! South Park LIED to me!!”

“Like with prosepctive Senator Mourdock’s “Rape-Is-A-Gift-From-God” comments”.

Hear hear!

Republicans: the Party of Pro-Rape.

Its hardly a surprise that the Republicans are anti-women when the fact that their Presidential candidate Mitt Romney comes from a religion where women are literally second class citizens.

In fact, the Republicans know that if people really understood what the Mormon Church believes about women that Mitt Romney is toast – that is why they have preemptively attacked any discussion of Mormon beliefs as being “anti-Mormon prejustice.” Naturally this belief in male supremacy creates common ground with the rest of the religious right who believes the same thing.

But that really should be the Republican Motto:

“We Believe that Women are Second Class Citizens”

Erika,

You’re probably right about the reasons why Romeny Inc has been so vicious in quelling discussion about the Mormon faith.

But I think part of it too is because many Catholics, who have deep doctrinal rifts with the Mormon faith (not the least of which is posthumous baptism by proxy), only reluctantly supported his campaign. I believe Romney knows quite well without Catholics his campaign is dead in the water (this by the way from my many astute Catholic friends).

I’m by no means against Mormonism or any faith for that matter, but I tend to agree that the pre-emptive attacks against any social criticism on gender roles within the context of Mormonism are likely one and the same with male supremacy, just as with fundamentalist Protestants in the Bible Belt.

“The German girl is a subject. She becomes a [second-class] citizen only when she marries.”- you know who.

*That* sums up the attitude of the Republican Party (all right, just change the nationality)

Toups, I’m sorry we seemed to ignore you. Sometimes we get too caught up in our own squabbles.

Thank you for coming forward, and my heartfelt sympathy to you. I am related to people no better, and maybe so are many of us. If it was a little further back sometimes, that is sheer chance. It doubtless took courage to come here, but if you can help us to understand, that would be a valuable contribution.

CM, I support Hate Crimes laws but I can well understand some people’s Constitutional objections to them, because they set a dangerous precedent of different punishments for different motives.

Sam, there are often different punishments for different motives. If you run down a pedestrian by accident because you were trying to beat a red light and it was foggy, you’ll likely be charged with manslaughter or vehicular homicide. If you chased him down deliberately because you thought he was screwing your spouse, you’ll face Murder 1, and the same thing if you did it because you thought he was Ruritanian.

UPDATE: Luke was out numbered and unarmed. Fight admittedly began over the fact that he was with black friends. Now, the boys that murdered him are only being charged with negligent homicide…0-5years. As could be expected, in court, they made his friends out to be villains, thugs, and many other racially charged stereo types. I am appalled. What does this teach our children? How will this divide people of different races? Isn’t this what we have been working a hard to overcome?