I don't think this is right.

Altron

Well-Known Member
Did you know that by todays laws, if a white person decides to beat up a black person they are convicted of a "Hate Crime" ?
Instead of trying to prove they didn't beat them up, they have to prove that they didn't beat him up just because he is black.
A person who is convicted of a "Hate Crime" gets more time in prison than someone who just does a regular crime.
In the past there were a lot of racists, but not anymore. Actomatically assuming someone commited a crime because of racism is WRONG.
I can understand being punished for your actions, but being punished for your thoughts?

This is why I don't like politics.
 
That ain't necessarily so, Voltron. Beating a person is called assault and battery, and is not a hate crime. Indeed, over 90% of cases like assault are not prosecuted as hate crimes. It becomes a hate crime when the person who administers the beating does so only because of the race of the victim. On a personal note, I don't agree with that little add-on myself, but some in most instances, but some crimes, such as cross burning, or painting Nazi symbols on a Jewish temple, can only be identified as a hate crime.
 
Gato_Solo said:
but some crimes, such as cross burning, or painting Nazi symbols on a Jewish temple, can only be identified as a hate crime.

Those are still crimes. They're covered by vandalism, trespassing, threatening, reckless endangerment (starting a fire on someone's lawn), harrassment... a good prosecutor could find lots to charge someone with for those actions. The symbolism of the act does add something to it, though. Obviously, burning a cross on a black man's lawn is a different crime from burning a non-descript log on a white man's lawn. Given the history of the KKK, a cross burning amounts to a death threat. The mistake is in identifying 'hate' as the thing that makes the cross burning worse. It shouldn't be against the law to hate people, it should only be against the law to hurt them, threaten them, damage their property, etc. It also doesn't make sense to single these particular crimes out as hate crimes. I can't think of any crime that involves love, there's always an element of hate.
 
Ardsgaine said:
Gato_Solo said:
but some crimes, such as cross burning, or painting Nazi symbols on a Jewish temple, can only be identified as a hate crime.

Those are still crimes. They're covered by vandalism, trespassing, threatening, reckless endangerment (starting a fire on someone's lawn), harrassment... a good prosecutor could find lots to charge someone with for those actions. The symbolism of the act does add something to it, though. Obviously, burning a cross on a black man's lawn is a different crime from burning a non-descript log on a white man's lawn. Given the history of the KKK, a cross burning amounts to a death threat. The mistake is in identifying 'hate' as the thing that makes the cross burning worse. It shouldn't be against the law to hate people, it should only be against the law to hurt them, threaten them, damage their property, etc. It also doesn't make sense to single these particular crimes out as hate crimes. I can't think of any crime that involves love, there's always an element of hate.

Indeed, hate is the one thing that actually defines it. True, it's also known as a terroristic threat, and can be prosecuted under that law, but that is only a misdemeanor. The magnitude of the affront does not define the magnitude of the punishment. If you have something as heinous and obviously racially motivated as a cross-burning, then you have another level above the petty crimes you mentioned. While I don't advocate adding the hate crime to another obvious crime, such as assault and battery/murder/rape, or any other felony, I do advocate adding it to a misdemeanor in order to turn a seemingly mild crime into something more serious. Like you said...burning a log on a white man's lawn is not the same as burning a cross on a black man's lawn. There is a difference.
 
Gato_Solo said:
That ain't necessarily so, Voltron. Beating a person is called assault and battery, and is not a hate crime. Indeed, over 90% of cases like assault are not prosecuted as hate crimes. It becomes a hate crime when the person who administers the beating does so only because of the race of the victim. On a personal note, I don't agree with that little add-on myself, but some in most instances, but some crimes, such as cross burning, or painting Nazi symbols on a Jewish temple, can only be identified as a hate crime.

Yes, but the person will be accused of a hate crime right away.
 
Okay...let's try and straighten this out...

You have some punk-ass mofo who likes to go out and physically assault other people. He decides that, today, he's going to focus strictly on minorities. He has no backing of any group, nor is he acting in the name of any group. He get's busted by the police. The charge is assault and battery...perhaps even attempted murder...but not a hate crime.

Take that same individual in the above example, and give him a few Nazi tattoos, a membership card to the local KKK chapter, and a vocal opposition to anyone who doesn't meet his criteria of being American[/B]. Now you have a hate crime. Why? Because of his own views on who should have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are based solely on race. The charge is now a hate crime. If the person being white is your sole criteria for deciding against the hate crime, then you must also look at it this way...A black person decides that white people shouldn't exist in this reality, so he goes on a rampage, killing every white person he lays eyes on...Hate Crime. His crime is specifically targeting another race in order to interfere with their civil rights...
 
But even if he's not a Nazi, not KKK, not racist he will be accused of a hate crime. He might be able to prove he's innocent, but he will be accused of it.
 
Altron said:
But even if he's not a Nazi, not KKK, not racist he will be accused of a hate crime. He might be able to prove he's innocent, but he will be accused of it.

not sure that's the case in reality. for the accusation of a hate crime to be made and sustained evidence must be visible and stand up legally.
 
Ris, Have you never watched "Cops"? The police have all sorts of tricks to 'enhance' the charges they want to level against someone. They tell you to stay still then ask you a question. If you turn to answer they beat the shit out of you and add the charge of resisting arrest. etc...etc..etc... And yes, I've witnessed this stuff first hand. Once it was my son who was the victim.
 
never seen cops but i have read a few news stories where accusations of racial attacks were chucked out of court by judges for plain lack of evidence. most recent was here in wales.
 
Altron said:
Did you know that by todays laws, if a white person decides to beat up a black person they are convicted of a "Hate Crime" ?
Instead of trying to prove they didn't beat them up, they have to prove that they didn't beat him up just because he is black.
A person who is convicted of a "Hate Crime" gets more time in prison than someone who just does a regular crime.
In the past there were a lot of racists, but not anymore. Actomatically assuming someone commited a crime because of racism is WRONG.
I can understand being punished for your actions, but being punished for your thoughts?

This is why I don't like politics.

did i miss the bit where the accused is innocent until proven guilty?

and incidentally this isnt strictly politics - it is more social morality

politics is super - political correctness is not quite so super
 
Altron said:
But even if he's not a Nazi, not KKK, not racist he will be accused of a hate crime. He might be able to prove he's innocent, but he will be accused of it.

Nope.
 
Back
Top