Hate Crime In America: Liberian Boy Beaten In Philadelphia

[Kuciwalker]

Ad hominems

[MrFun]

mitchell, Zkribbler, The Mad Viking, Edan

[Dr Strangelove]

This incident really steams me up. You know, I often disagree with Berz, Wraith and their ilk, but I wouldn't beat them up over a mere philosophical disagreement.

[Kuciwalker]

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Wycoff


Do you have any proof indicating a higher rate of recidivism for people who commited "hate crimes" than for people who commited regular crimes? If not, then your statement is false.

Uh, you need a remedial course in logic, son.

The absence of proof now renders an argument false???

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Sava
Hate-crime legislation is basically an indirect attack on the first amendment. Because you are punishing someone more severely because of motive, you are basically punishing someone for their political views.

It's not an indirect attack. It's a very direct recognitition that the Constitution sets limits to freedom of speech. You may not incite violence. You may not knowingly spread falsehoods.

If two guys get beat up really bad, almost to the point of death, but one guy is beat up because he owes money, and another got beat up because he is black... why should one attacker get a more severe punishment?

Well, in the first instance, the victim did harm to the attacker by using his property and not returning it. Almost theft, and potentially a criminal act. He also knew, or ought to know, that he did something wrong.

In the second instance the victim is innocent of any wrongdoing and not even known to the attacker.

At the end of the incident, the first victim may feel that what happened to him was out of proportion to the wrong he committed, and he would be right. He might have reason to fear people he borrowed money from and did not pay back on time.

The second victim would be concerned that he is a potential victim of anyone not in his group, and should fear everyone.

Even someone who is mugged can comprehend the reason as I have some stuff that the criminal needed or wanted.

How does one comprehend and internalize being beaten over one's skin colour?

Motive matters. It always has, and it always will.

The damage to the victim matters, and damage includes more than just the physical damage.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

Motive matters. It always has, and it always will.

Yes and that is why judges have discretion when it comes to sentencing. This is where the use of maximum sentencing is appropriate.

It is equally inappropriate to define a seperate crime for merely holding thoughts that are deemed hateful.

[The Mad Viking]

Red herring. No one has ever been charged for a hate crime for merely thinking.

Inciting violence is just making a speech. It is the intent that makes it a crime.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

No what has been done has been to dogpile on with a specious charge/law that in its essence is simply merely a thought crime.

I have stated numerous times in this thread the precedent that this sets is that it sets the stage for thought crime regardles of whether it is tied into an actual physical crime. The penalty for comitting an eggregious crime should be part and parcel of the sentencing guidleines not the necessity for creating a seperate charge that is a) unlikely to be proven within a shadow of a doubt and b) setting the stage for where we don't want the justice system to go.

As for the incting violence example, it is the act that represents the crime not the intent. It is tied to an action. Hate crime legislation in of itself is not tied to an action as the 'real' crime is prosecuted in a separate charge and should be sentenced accordingly to intent etc.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Sprayber
So a man that beats his wife is only guilty of a hate crime if he has a problem with women in general and not just his wife in particular?


What exactly proves a person is guilty of a hate crime (where there is no bed sheets or tattoos to give it away)?


Who exactly is protected and who is not?

How severe or trivial must an action be to be considered a hate crime?

Just a few things I'd like to get straight. (not to say non straight is bad.)

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
As for the incting violence example, it is the act that represents the crime not the intent. It is tied to an action. Hate crime legislation in of itself is not tied to an action as the 'real' crime is prosecuted in a separate charge and should be sentenced accordingly to intent etc.

I think you are so certain you are correct that you have stopped trying to think.

In inciting violence, the "act" is either speaking or writing. The act is not a crime at all.

Hate crimes are essentially inciting violence not through speaking or writing, but through actual criminal acts.

[Kuciwalker]

I think you are so certain you are correct that you have stopped trying to think.

Ironic, coming from someone who never started.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

In inciting violence, the "act" is either speaking or writing. The act is not a crime at all.

Actually putting to paper or in verbal form is the act and the criminal one at that as that ACT has been clearly spelled out as an illegal activity for a set of specific cirumstances. A combination of otherwise legal activities under normal circumstances can and will be defined as illegal in others. Just because speech/writing is legal in most circumstances does not mean it is legal in ALL circumstances. OTOH merely having thoughts of inciting violence is not a crime at all were they not put into action(s) nor should they be even if actions occurred. Further it is the actions that ultimately cause the illegality not the thoughts. I have always granted the motivations are part and parcel of the punishment phase via sentencing but NOT as a crime in of themselves.

For example, were I to extort the values (in ink, word or elcctronic media) of assassinating the president and ask other to join in my efforts that would be a crime and would not fall under the auspices of protected speech and would constitute a criminal ACT. Were I to simply think those things, it simply would mark me as a typical 'poly weenie.

Hate crimes are essentially inciting violence not through speaking or writing, but through actual criminal acts.

How so? Is every so called hate crime a call for like actions (and if so please prove so) or is it merely and more likely the case that it is a misguided motivation for a person or small group of like minded losers to commit a crime. You assume too much, like the intelligence of the losers that commit hate crimes to actually consider their actions being a vehicle to incite others to do like criminal activities.