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

[atanamis]

StA, hate crimes are not indicating that hating is itself a crime, they are indicating that committing a crime that is motivated by hatred is a different type of crime than otherwise in the same way that first degree murder is a different crime than second or third degree murder, or than manslaughter. These are all "different crimes" based on why you committed the crime. Are these all "though crime" as well?

If hate crime laws are not being consistently enforced this is an enforcement problem, not a legal one.

In 1993, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of hate crime laws, affirming an enhanced sentence for a black Wisconsin man who beat a white 14-year-old boy into a four-day coma. The man had been watching the movie Mississippi Burning with some friends. Soon they set out to find a white person upon whom to exact revenge for the violence against African Americans portrayed in the film. Without the hate crime enhancer, the man would have served a maximum of two years in prison; the hate designation could have added five more years to his sentence.

And I am in no way defending the actual hate crime laws on the books here, or the way they are enforced. I was the CREATOR of the index thread on the DCF about police abuse, and fully agree that many hate crime laws on the books are bogus. The argument here isn't whether they are being applied properly, but whether it is reasonable to charge people differently based on the motivation of their crime at all. Heck, you even agreed that a judge could reasonable use these to charge people differently, which seems likely to be equally liable to abuse as hate crimes? I asked you to differentiate between using separate crimes vs judicial judgement for this purpose, are you suggesting that judges are less susceptible to racially biased findings? Can you clarify why you are more comfortable with a judge imposing a 7 year penalty due to motivation rather than a jury doing so?

[Speaker to Animals]

It will always be pursued unjustly. Always. We are a "multicultural" society now, and identitarian politics is how such societies operate up until the point of balkanization and sectarian war.

Those who control the prosecutor control what is "hate" and what is not. While whites currently don't by and large think in identitarian terms, you better believe the other racial demographics certainly do, and that was one of the chief faults of the Obama Justice Department. Go watch videos of democratic party leaders talking about how their job is to shut white people down and then reconsider whether you think it's at all possible to enforce these laws equally when an entire political party is trying to persecute a major racial demographic.

The only way to have hate crime laws enforced equally is to live in a homogeneous society. Yet living in a homogeneous society means you don't need such laws in the first place..

[atanamis]

Hmm, I was hoping you had something interesting to differentiate between "judicial consideration" being reasonable while "separate crimes" being different, but it all just came down to your normal culture war screed. Oh well.

[Fife]

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.

Where does the following fit on your "preponderance scale," Mr. Prosecutor? 7 or 9? How many years?

Police: Man spray-painted swastikas on his own home

[atanamis]

Deliberately falsely reporting a crime would (7). Painting swastikas itself is a first amendment free speech expression for which there cannot constitutionally be a penalty. Threatening to commit harm (a separate offense mentioned in the article) should legitimately be a crime as well, but there was too little information about the probable motivation of the threat to decide. I will note that by "provocation" in my list, I did not mean to imply that victims "deserve" to be victimized, but I do think that it is reasonable to handle spur of the moment emotional responses differently from coldly calculated or planned crimes.

To better understand where you are coming from here, do you NOT think that falsely reporting vandalism or making threats of harm should be considered crime? I suppose both could be framed as "just speech", but when you lie to officers in a way that causes them to investigate non-existent crimes or make threats of harm against others I do feel as though those should not be considered as protected speech. Do you disagree?

Edit: I notice that you also asked about penalty. I think a fine of maybe $1k would suffice for false report of a crime, and I would probably handle threats of violence by probation and mandatory counselling in most cases, and quite possibly a restraining order. I also think all fines should be payable through public work programs in any case where the felon is unable or unwilling to pay the fine. I would try to provide flexibility to accommodate work schedules. I really don't think that prison sentences for non-violent crimes are valid, unless the felon proves themselves unwilling to comply with the judgement. They are both expensive on the taxpayer and inhumane.

[Speaker to Animals]

You are deliberately missing the point. Be honest. In order to decide whether he committed a "hate crime", you have to look at the identity of the perpetrator. You admit it is a crime to make a false police report. But it's also a crime to commit vandalism. By themselves, the false report is the greater crime. But had it been a white guy who vandalized a Jewish guy's house by painting a swastika on it, you'd decide it was a hate crime worthy of greater punishment. But if it's the Jewish guy expressing the same speech during an arguably worse crime, it gets the lesser sentence.

[SilverEagle]

You are deliberately missing the point. Be honest. In order to decide whether he committed a "hate crime", you have to look at the identity of the perpetrator. You admit it is a crime to make a false police report. But it's also a crime to commit vandalism. By themselves, the false report is the greater crime. But had it been a white guy who vandalized a Jewish guy's house by painting a swastika on it, you'd decide it was a hate crime worthy of greater punishment. But if it's the Jewish guy expressing the same speech during an arguably worse crime, it gets the lesser sentence.

[atanamis]

You are deliberately missing the point. Be honest. In order to decide whether he committed a "hate crime", you have to look at the identity of the perpetrator. You admit it is a crime to make a false police report. But it's also a crime to commit vandalism. By themselves, the false report is the greater crime. But had it been a white guy who vandalized a Jewish guy's house by painting a swastika on it, you'd decide it was a hate crime worthy of greater punishment. But if it's the Jewish guy expressing the same speech during an arguably worse crime, it gets the lesser sentence.

I do not agree you need to look at the identity of the perpetrator. I think that looking at the identity of the perpetrator to determine whether it is a hate crime is invalid discrimination, and should be blocked by any reasonable measure. A hate crime is about motivation, just as a "first degree" crime or a "crime of passion" is. That is literally ALL a hate crime is. The crime committed here was "reporting a false crime". Is your case that the motivation for the commission of this crime was hatred of a specific people group? If so, I suppose it should be considered a hate crime and penalized appropriately. The story didn't really explain why this man did as he did, but it would make sense that his motivation might have been to direct the police to harass racists which would make that a hate crime. I might go so far as to double the fine in that case?

[Speaker to Animals]

You are deliberately missing the point. Be honest. In order to decide whether he committed a "hate crime", you have to look at the identity of the perpetrator. You admit it is a crime to make a false police report. But it's also a crime to commit vandalism. By themselves, the false report is the greater crime. But had it been a white guy who vandalized a Jewish guy's house by painting a swastika on it, you'd decide it was a hate crime worthy of greater punishment. But if it's the Jewish guy expressing the same speech during an arguably worse crime, it gets the lesser sentence.

I do not agree you need to look at the identity of the perpetrator. I think that looking at the identity of the perpetrator to determine whether it is a hate crime is invalid discrimination, and should be blocked by any reasonable measure. A hate crime is about motivation, just as a "first degree" crime or a "crime of passion" is. That is literally ALL a hate crime is. The crime committed here was "reporting a false crime". Is your case that the motivation for the commission of this crime was hatred of a specific people group? If so, I suppose it should be considered a hate crime and penalized appropriately. The story didn't really explain why this man did as he did, but it would make sense that his motivation might have been to direct the police to harass racists which would make that a hate crime. I might go so far as to double the fine in that case?

But you can't determine the motive of "hate" without making assumptions about a person's mentality based on speech that was expressed, and you can see the exact same exacerbating factor in this case resulting in two different outcomes depending upon the identity of the accused. What's worse, you have to assume that just because a white guy painted a swastika it meant his motives were hateful. It might not be. You don't really know. What you really do is just read the description of the crime; white guy? check; swastika? check; hate crime.

[SilverEagle]

You are deliberately missing the point. Be honest. In order to decide whether he committed a "hate crime", you have to look at the identity of the perpetrator. You admit it is a crime to make a false police report. But it's also a crime to commit vandalism. By themselves, the false report is the greater crime. But had it been a white guy who vandalized a Jewish guy's house by painting a swastika on it, you'd decide it was a hate crime worthy of greater punishment. But if it's the Jewish guy expressing the same speech during an arguably worse crime, it gets the lesser sentence.

I do not agree you need to look at the identity of the perpetrator. I think that looking at the identity of the perpetrator to determine whether it is a hate crime is invalid discrimination, and should be blocked by any reasonable measure. A hate crime is about motivation, just as a "first degree" crime or a "crime of passion" is. That is literally ALL a hate crime is. The crime committed here was "reporting a false crime". Is your case that the motivation for the commission of this crime was hatred of a specific people group? If so, I suppose it should be considered a hate crime and penalized appropriately. The story didn't really explain why this man did as he did, but it would make sense that his motivation might have been to direct the police to harass racists which would make that a hate crime. I might go so far as to double the fine in that case?

But you can't determine the motive of "hate" without making assumptions about a person's mentality based on speech that was expressed, and you can see the exact same exacerbating factor in this case resulting in two different outcomes depending upon the identity of the accused. What's worse, you have to assume that just because a white guy painted a swastika it meant his motives were hateful. It might not be. You don't really know. What you really do is just read the description of the crime; white guy? check; swastika? check; hate crime.

StA it's no use arguing with a guy that does nothing but eats hot pockets all day in his mothers basement then takes breaks from posting nonsense just so he can jerk off to Japanimation porn.