White Girl Gang Rapped By 17 Black Gangsters - Not A Hate Crime

[atanamis]

Nobody of any race should be charged with a hate crime ever. They should be charged for the crimes they committed and it seems like they will be.

The only notable thing is the media coverage. The difference in reporting is blatant but I guess you've got enough white-guilt or white-hate that you don't see it.

See, I don't agree. The reason for hate crimes is that hate crimes are designed to intimidate a populace. That could be guys in suits or it could be people who look or act differently than the norm. A hate crime is done in a way that makes it clear that it was done because of your group membership because the intention is to intimidate members of that group. It can be a relatively tame crime or a harsh one, but it is done to communicate to a group that they are unwelcome or inferior or need to know their place.

And as a society, we DO want to punish such behavior more harshly. That's because a hate crime isn't just a crime now, but a threat that similar crimes will continue occurring until the target group does as they are being told to do. Most murders are one time things. People kill for a specific reason, whether it be jealousy or anger or whatever. A hate crime murder though was committed because the victim was a member of a people group. As long as that people group exists and is not doing as the attacker wants, they still have that same motivation to kill. The same applies to other hate crimes.

That said, hate crime laws SHOULD have tough standards. The label of hate crime should be applied after the primary trial's finding of fact, allowing the felon to explain why they actually committed the crime. Because the only standard needed to escape "hate crime" status is to provide a compelling argument that you had an alternative motive. I think a standard of preponderance of evidence would be fine here, but if we think that a person committed their crime because they hate a people group then we DO need to take that into account in terms of probable recidivism and efforts to disincentivise the behavior.

[Dand]

If we have laws against "hate crime" and "hate speech" then you just have to give up on equality between races, religions, sexualities, etc. Either the law applies to everyone equally or it doesn't.

edit: in the Chicago story today, the victim is not white. Just to clarify. It is a horrible story and I read that the girl's uncle discovered the livestream while it was in progress. People were watching but no one reported it so we can't even blame FB for not reacting quickly. It's a total feel-bad social media Kitty Genovese situation.

[SilverEagle]

If we have laws against "hate crime" and "hate speech" then you just have to give up on equality between races, religions, sexualities, etc. Either the law applies to everyone equally or it doesn't.

Dand is on a roll!

[atanamis]

If we have laws against "hate crime" and "hate speech" then you just have to give up on equality between races, religions, sexualities, etc. Either the law applies to everyone equally or it doesn't.

Why would laws against committing crimes with the goal of intimidating a people group have anything to do with equality? Hate crime laws are about punishing someone based on the motivation expressed for their crime. Like I said, attacking someone because they are wearing a suit and I don't think people with suits should be walking the streets at night would be a hate crime. It has literally nothing to do with race, religion, sexuality, "etc".

It is similar to anti-terrorism laws. Terrorism is the attempt to use violence to sway political activity by causing terror in the civilian populace. Hate crime is the attempt to use violence to sway the (non-political) behavior of a specific people group. Is it hard to demonstrate motive? Sure. And it should be similarly hard to convict someone of terrorism or hate crime. But people committing these crimes need for the target groups to know what the intended change is, so they NEED to communicate their motive to those groups. That is how you can try them for their crime. And if you CAN'T prove (even with the preponderance of evidence standard I suggest) that they did it primarily for reasons of group hatred, then you can't convict them of a hate crime. The mere races (genders, religions, sexualities) of people involved are entirely irrelevant.

[Speaker to Animals]

A motive of hatred might be a factor that a judge should consider when sentencing a person. Making that a separate crime is crazy.

[Okeefenokee]

If we have laws against "hate crime" and "hate speech" then you just have to give up on equality between races, religions, sexualities, etc. Either the law applies to everyone equally or it doesn't.

Why would laws against committing crimes with the goal of intimidating a people group have anything to do with equality? Hate crime laws are about punishing someone based on the motivation expressed for their crime. Like I said, attacking someone because they are wearing a suit and I don't think people with suits should be walking the streets at night would be a hate crime. It has literally nothing to do with race, religion, sexuality, "etc".

It is similar to anti-terrorism laws. Terrorism is the attempt to use violence to sway political activity by causing terror in the civilian populace. Hate crime is the attempt to use violence to sway the (non-political) behavior of a specific people group. Is it hard to demonstrate motive? Sure. And it should be similarly hard to convict someone of terrorism or hate crime. But people committing these crimes need for the target groups to know what the intended change is, so they NEED to communicate their motive to those groups. That is how you can try them for their crime. And if you CAN'T prove (even with the preponderance of evidence standard I suggest) that they did it primarily for reasons of group hatred, then you can't convict them of a hate crime. The mere races (genders, religions, sexualities) of people involved are entirely irrelevant.

Get out of here with that bullshit. Hate crime is thought crime. Either you support free thought or you don't. There is no weasel position for you to take here. No one is going to give you any ground. If you support hate crime, then you support thought crime, and if you support thought crime, get the fuck out and go live in north korea, you totalitarian fuck.

[SilverEagle]

If we have laws against "hate crime" and "hate speech" then you just have to give up on equality between races, religions, sexualities, etc. Either the law applies to everyone equally or it doesn't.

Why would laws against committing crimes with the goal of intimidating a people group have anything to do with equality? Hate crime laws are about punishing someone based on the motivation expressed for their crime. Like I said, attacking someone because they are wearing a suit and I don't think people with suits should be walking the streets at night would be a hate crime. It has literally nothing to do with race, religion, sexuality, "etc".

It is similar to anti-terrorism laws. Terrorism is the attempt to use violence to sway political activity by causing terror in the civilian populace. Hate crime is the attempt to use violence to sway the (non-political) behavior of a specific people group. Is it hard to demonstrate motive? Sure. And it should be similarly hard to convict someone of terrorism or hate crime. But people committing these crimes need for the target groups to know what the intended change is, so they NEED to communicate their motive to those groups. That is how you can try them for their crime. And if you CAN'T prove (even with the preponderance of evidence standard I suggest) that they did it primarily for reasons of group hatred, then you can't convict them of a hate crime. The mere races (genders, religions, sexualities) of people involved are entirely irrelevant.

You just confirmed that you're nothing but a jackbooted fascist loving cocksucker. Congratulations on that.

[atanamis]

A motive of hatred might be a factor that a judge should consider when sentencing a person. Making that a separate crime is crazy.

/shrug
I'd be fine handling it either way. Can you clarify why you see one as reasonable while the other is crazy? In either case we are asking the court to evaluate why a person committed the crime they committed, and their sentence is effected by the decision reached. Is there a reason why making this a judicial factor of consideration is better than as a separate crime? I am open to changing my mind if there is.

Get out of here with that bullshit. Hate crime is thought crime. Either you support free thought or you don't. There is no weasel position for you to take here. No one is going to give you any ground. If you support hate crime, then you support thought crime, and if you support thought crime, get the fuck out and go live in north korea, you totalitarian fuck.

Yes. I support different sentences based on motivation. If a person accidentally kills someone, I think we should charge them substantially less than if they planned the murder for months in advance and then killed them with malice. I think both of those are different from someone who loses their temper and kills someone in rage. And I think that that is different from someone who kills because they hate the people group that the victim belongs to and wants them to suffer. I take it you would charge accidental death the same as intentionally planned murders since in either case the effect is the same? Or are you actually an intellectually dishonest person who is ok with considering some kinds of intent but not others? If so, that's cool, but I would hope you can understand that some of us do think that taking motivation into account can sometimes be done and is often a good idea even if you disagree.

[atanamis]

My personal ranking of motivations from least to worst:
1) Accident that a reasonable person could have made (unpredictable)
2) Accident caused by negligence (could have known this would happen)
3) Accident caused by recklessness (should have known this would happen)
4) Intentional caused by "provocation"
5) Intentional caused by desire for personal gain
6) Intentional caused by hate
7) Intentional "premeditated"
8) Intentional "premeditated" caused by hate (especially with prior threats)
9) Intentional with the intention to sway political action through fear ("terrorism")

These apply to all crimes and to both civil and criminal proceedings. In all cases, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, but I would only require preponderance of the evidence regarding motivation.

[Speaker to Animals]

A motive of hatred might be a factor that a judge should consider when sentencing a person. Making that a separate crime is crazy.

/shrug
I'd be fine handling it either way. Can you clarify why you see one as reasonable while the other is crazy? In either case we are asking the court to evaluate why a person committed the crime they committed, and their sentence is effected by the decision reached. Is there a reason why making this a judicial factor of consideration is better than as a separate crime? I am open to changing my mind if there is.

The other is crazy for several reasons:

1. As several others have told you, it amounts to thought crime. The depravity of motives for a crime are supposed to be considered at sentencing. To claim that hating somebody itself is an additional crime criminalizes thought, no matter how much you might dislike said thoughts.

2. What it really amounts to is an an anti-white law that applies primarily to whites, while minorities get a free pass. For instance, in the previous kidnapping, Chicago prosecutors announced hate crimes because the victim is disabled, even though the motive for the kidnapping and torture was hatred of whites. The Justice Department's civil rights and hate crimes offices under the Obama administration had become notoriously racist against whites, almost universally refusing to pursue the laws when the victims were white and the perpetrators were minorities. That's not to say it never happens that minorities are charged with hate crimes, but the vast majority of this shit is directed towards white people. The laws themselves become an instrument of hate against a group of people when they are administered as they have been, especially under Obama.

3. Being that such laws are nothing more than thought crime, how do you prove that somebody truly acted out of hate? The law can only apply to things you physically do in the world. But people lie all the time. People get confused. People say stupid shit they don't mean. Hate crime laws always come down to words that were spoken as well as other kinds of speech (like graffiti drawn at the crime scene and whatnot). What these laws actually do is criminalize hate speech committed during a crime. If Chicago prosecutors actually charge those black kids with hate crimes against a white person, the crime will be for hate speech they uttered on camera while torturing the boy. These crimes can be quite revolting, but I am not comfortable with additional crimes for speech. Use the speech when considering the severity of the punishment as has always been the case.