Several young Jewish kids were attacked by ten angry poorly educated Christians (yes, their religion is relevant as is their lack of education; you’ll see why) on the subway the other day. The Jewish kids were returning from a Chanukah celebration and were carrying a menorah. The Christian guys (one of whom has a Myspace page depicting him holding a gun to his girlfriend’s head; what a riot) wished the Jewish kids a Merry Christmas. Apparently they thought they were being sarcastic and were under the impression the Jewish kids would feel duly insulted. Instead the Jewish kids wished them a happy Chanukah right back. The Christians took offense, angrily declaring that the Jews had killed their Savior (see, that’s where the religion is relevant) on Chanukah (that’s where the lack of education is relevant) and that the Jewish kids were going to go straight to hëll. Apparently endeavoring to give them a preview, one of them spat on one of the Jewish kids. The Jewish kid calmly declared intent to, like Jesus, turn the other cheek. Whereupon the Christian guys attacked.
And who stepped in to intervene? A Muslim guy, who got two black eyes for his trouble.
Fortunately police were present at the next stop to arrest the attackers, one of whom was already slated to begin a six month jail stay in January for beating up a black guy in 2005.
No word from the MTA as to where hate crimes and assaults rank in desireability in comparison to pole dancers.
PAD
• 
roger: “We’re ALREADY on that slope. Motive is ALWAYS considered for both determination of guilt and of punishment.”
Well, whether or not someone *had* a motive is always considered. Accidentally putting something from a store into your pocket is different than doing it deliberately. So in a shoplifting case cares whether or not you had a motive. But what that motive is? That’s not part of the law. It make get you some leeway emotionally if you were stealing food to not starve, but there aren’t specific laws that make certain motives for shoplifting worse than others.
Roger, what would you say is an example of motive being part of the law other than hate crimes? All I can think of is crimes of passion vs. premeditated murder, but even that isn’t really motive, it’s forethought. The actual motive could be the same in either a crime of passion and a premeditated case.
I’m actually in favor of hate crime distinctions. Sure, the end result for the victims is the same, but I think when it comes to prosecution we need the distinction. The standard laws for murder and assault simply weren’t working for a lot of minorities, because society was pretty much at the point where they weren’t even considering those acts crimes. When you start specifically labeling those acts as crimes and prosecuting them differently, it puts a spotlight on them and forces people to look at them differently. I guess you could look at it as PR as much as anything.
Also, isn’t there a difference between a husband who kills his wife in a moment of rage and someone who prowls the streets looking for someone to hurt (like the jáçkáššëš in the story)? I’m much more concerned about the latter.
[QUOTE]Most of the rules are in Leviticus. IIRC, there’s no reference to homosexuality in the New Testament, other than that 12 guys traveling around together bit.
Interestingly, the prohibitions are against 2 men, showing that G-d likes a bit of Hot Lesbian Action as much as the rest of us :D[/QUOTE]
The laws in Leviticus were against the sin of men wasting their seed. The population of the tribe had to be kept up to keep the tribe strong. Thus, homosexuality and mášŧûrbáŧìøņ were seen as extremely sinful, while lesbianism wouldn’t be a waste. Although, they probably still frowned on it.
As far as the new Testament goes, Jesus never said anything on any sexual topics (that we know of). The Christian sexual attitudes derive from Paul, who thought abstinence was best, but if you couldn’t be abstinent, then you should marry. And by marriage, he meant a man and a woman. However, more of the less extreme Christian groups do seem to be getting more tolerant of homosexuality.
“Also, isn’t there a difference between a husband who kills his wife in a moment of rage and someone who prowls the streets looking for someone to hurt (like the jáçkáššëš in the story)? I’m much more concerned about the latter.”
Why? If these guys have a history of violence, then they could attack someone again, but that doesn’t mean that it will be premeditated. They could just get angry again. Just because a husband kills his wife out of rage doesn’t mean that he won’t get enraged later and kill someone again. The two situations really aren’t that different.
PAD: “Just for the record, I am opposed to the notion of legislating “hate crimes.” Hatred has its place in the legal system: It serves as motivation. If five guys jump me on a subway, I don’t really give a crap if it’s because they hate Jews, hate bald guys, hate guys with glasses, or want my wallet. I just want their áššëš in jail because they beat me up.“
I’d tend to agree with you. Judge folks on their actions, not their thoughts. But I also believe the motivation for (thought behind) an act does have relevance in being able to properly judge the act. Won’t entirely excuse the act, but knowing Jean Valjean stole some bread to feed a starving child would change my opinion of what was an appropriate punishment.
Similarly, for “hate crimes” in particular, I’m wary of the slippery slope they represent and would tend to oppose making a penalty more severe because of what someone thought. But in a recent comment on this topic posted to another blog, it was pointed out that a “hate crime” is, in a certain manner, a larger crime as it is an assault not only on the individual but on a larger group.
They phrased it better than I am here, but it gave me some pause for thought. Perhaps the person who attacks me because they don’t like the Irish should be should punished more severely than the one who attacks me because they don’t like me individually?
We’re ALREADY on that slope. Motive is ALWAYS considered for both determination of guilt and of punishment.
Yes, I know that. Mostly it factors into determining WHETHER someone did what they were accused of doing. (“Why would the accused do something like this? Here’s why…”) Plus state of mind comes into play: Whether the person fully knew and understood what he was doing, and the possible consequences of his actions.
But ultimately it comes down to whether someone committed a crime, not the shadings of the why. From my understanding, the reason there are different degrees of murder has less to do with what the perp was thinking but instead whether he planned it in advance, because each step of the murder is another crime.
PAD
It make get you some leeway emotionally if you were stealing food to not starve,
Unless you’re Jean Valjean.
PAD
“Just for the record, I am opposed to the notion of legislating “hate crimes.” Hatred has its place in the legal system: It serves as motivation. If five guys jump me on a subway, I don’t really give a crap if it’s because they hate Jews, hate bald guys, hate guys with glasses, or want my wallet. I just want their áššëš in jail because they beat me up.”
I tend to agree as well; the proper place for consideration of hatred in the legal system is as part of the person’s motive, which can *already* change the category of crime which is charged. There’s a big difference between premeditated murder and involuntary manslaughter, for instance, and it all comes down to the motivation for the act.
That said, even if there are no ‘hate crimes’ laws on the books, the fact of somebody’s hatred for a particular ethnic group can be very relevant to their prosecution and sentencing. For a less extreme example, I would say in cases where somebody spray paints swastikas on a synagogue or burns a cross on a lawn, the prosecutor has prima facie evidence to hand of the defendants’ intent to intimidate and threaten, which are crimes in themselves.
Attempted murder is a crime solely of motive.
In what’s conventionally understood as a hate crime, you still need a victim. With attempted murder, you don’t even need a victim — only an intended victim.
Your observation will mean something when you catch me sheltering 3, or 5, or however many hypocrisies I’ve caught you sheltering. Until then, the honor of establishing the low standard of discourse doesn’t go to me.
Addressing subways (and tangentially related topics) in general:
I’ve only been to New York once— in 2000 to visit my cousins— and we took the subway for a relatively short distance. Our experience? No problems. Before we got on the train, my Mom asked someone at random how to get to the right train to take us wherever we were trying to go. He pointed the way and we got to the correct train.
The ride itself was uneventful. Slightly crowded, as I recall, but not too bad. But no weirdness took place.
On the other hand… I attended summer classes outside London (at what was then called Middlesex Polytechnic in Trent Park) in 1988, and often rode the subway to get to London. At that time, instead of no weirdness, I encountered one incident. Some guy stood up, introduced himself (by both name and nationality) to the occupants of the sparsely-populated train car, and asked something along the lines of “have you accepted Jesus into your life?” Everyone pretty much ignored him, and he soon moved on to another car.
When the guy first stood up (or maybe he was already standing), and got everyone’s attention (probably said “excuse me” or something innocuous like that), I thought he was going to ask for the time or something like that. He was young, presentable in appearance, and didn’t have the aura of a kook.
Of course the fact that he at least considered prosteltyzing a group of strangers might put a question mark next to whether he was a kook, but at least he wasn’t foaming at the mouth.
Weirdness on the subways, by the way, reminds me of the Bill Cosby routine, “A Nut in Every Car”, from his debut album, Bill Cosby is a Very Funny Fellow Right!. In it, he describes the great deal of how for the cost of subway fare at the time (1963), you could get all manner of entertainment. At one point, he describes how one guy provided entertainment for a long stretch, received a standing ovation when he got off; and then got back on for an encore.
Speaking of Law & Order those same cousins I visited in 2000? I found out last month that various Law & Order shows have filmed inside their brownstone. The cool thing about that is that the money they receive goes to help Zac— a recent NYU film school graduate— and his budding directorial career.
Regarding crime in general (and attitudes toward safety), it’s interesting to compare the U.S. culture with that of other countries. After my six weeks in London, my parents came over and we spent a week touring Ireland. At one point we stayed at a bed and breakfast in or near Dingle Bay on the west coast of that country. The proprieters of that bed & breakfast left the key on a hook outside the front door so you could let yourself in if you came in when everyone else has retired for the night. Is there anywhere in the U.S. — even the rural U.S. — where such a thing would happen? Somehow, I doubt it. It may very well be that in some small farm town, such a practice would be perfectly safe; but I have the feeling that our collective impression about how dangerous it is today would preclude people from doing that.
Rick
P.S. For whatever it might be worth, portions of the Doctor Who episode “Mawdryn Undead” were filmed on the grounds of Middlesex Polytechnic (or as we called it “Camp Middlesex.” I didn’t know that when I was there, but sometime later, when I was watching that episode again, I said, “wait a minute….”
P.P.S. In looking up Trent Park online to confirm I correctly remembered the name of the community, I discovered a Wikipedia entry which states that some German generals and staff officers were imprisoned on the grounds, and treated with a reasonable degree of hospitality; and that many of the rooms in the mansion (where we had classes) were bugged, giving the allies access to important information. I never knew any of that when I was there. I just knew about the alleged ghost.
There’s a big difference between premeditated murder and involuntary manslaughter, for instance, and it all comes down to the motivation for the act.
Well, yes, except the difference is that planning to commit a murder is a crime separate from committing a murder (as is conspiracy to commit murder.)
PAD
Hate crimes? Yes, I do. My hatred of such acts as violence against persons or property is widely, almost universally shared. We legislate well when we consider what is universally hated and what is not.
That is, all legislation concerns distinctions on morally slippery slopes. It is thus never a particularly good argument against (or for) a piece of legislation to say that it concerns a slippery slope. That moral fact about legislation being a slippery slope is a simple truism, telling us nothing.
What a slippery slope concerns has two edges — first, as to the other, we have to ask whether what is hated by us is sufficiently definable, as to retain its “objectiveness”, as to what “it” is that is universally hated. Second, though, and more critically, if we admit that we are moved by hate when we legislate, then we ought to guard against our passion, that our emotions may be deceiving our reason.
This second edge is like the adage “The road to hëll is paved with good intentions.” We must be quite careful that we do not build roads to hëll for others, when we legislate. Perhaps, instead, that means that we should be building bridges to heaven, for others — defining and punishing proposed acts as crimes according to how we might achieve, not the show of vengance of society upon the offender, but rather a display of the gracious mercy of God for the offender.
In fact, that was what I thought Christianity was all about: making real the idea and the ideal that grace and mercy, even love, should displace vengance, as the aim of society, and of the peoples thereof.
But, I have never seen such a society emerge, in the history of this world, from the principles of Christianity, as I would understand them to be. And, Christians, sadly, seem to be extremely reluctant to give up the idea of retribution and of vengance in this world — almost as if they did not refuse to believe, in practice, in the justice of a world to come. How else could one explain, for instance, the horrid affection that many Christians (among others) display for the macabre institution that we call “the death penalty”? A Christian society would unanimously abolish such an atrocity.
Similarly, the idea of any infliction of punishment before a conviction under due process of law is most abhorrent, at least to me. Yet, on the talk shows last night, or for weeks recently, we find considerable evidence of support for the ideas and practices of “torture”, in total violation of the aspirational “nulla poena sine lege” standard. But, could any truly principled Christian society even remotely endorse any act akin to “torture”? Why, then, is so much of Christianity, in America, simply saying, “well, if torture has a chance in hëll of working, then it is morally acceptable”? Such blatant utility calculi ought to confront the edges of the slippery slopes that true morality commands that it face.
(It is also hard to ignore the history of Inquisitions and other public pogroms, even those carried out in the name of Christianity and of Christendom — as to how such perversions of fundamental Christianity could ever have happened.)
Hate crimes? Yes, I do. We can’t criminalize hate and indifference tantamount to it, easily, but that’s what we have to do, anyway, as a society — until the day when peace reigns over all the earth. And, how will that miracle finally happen? Oh, we know, yes, we know that we must learn to love one another, and to make it ever more possible for us to show that love, and not hate, inspires them — when we confront our mortal selves as moral beings — in the very ways that we write laws, to announce possible ways to Heaven, or not to pronounce on some roads to Hëll.
>it still has too many echoes of the beginnings of the Thought Police for my comfort level.
What bothers me about it is that it sets up a justice triage of society telling people “your life is worth less than someone else’s”. Yes, realistically that’s the way it is, but why institutionalize it? Police? Makes sense, but does it work? Cops still seem to be getting gunned down anyway. Not much of a deterrent?
>dialogue that some claimed I was putting in there just to make Steel look bad–were the words of men far more educated and well-read than I.
Which just goes to prove the logic behind some role-play game systems where intelligence and wisdom are considered separate attributes.
Hate crimes? Yes, I do. We can’t criminalize hate and indifference tantamount to it, easily, but that’s what we have to do, anyway, as a society — until the day when peace reigns over all the earth. And, how will that miracle finally happen? Oh, we know, yes, we know that we must learn to love one another, and to make it ever more possible for us to show that love, and not hate, inspires them — when we confront our mortal selves as moral beings — in the very ways that we write laws, to announce possible ways to Heaven, or not to pronounce on some roads to Hëll.
Well, first of all, the correct quote is “Hëll is paved with good intentions.” Not “the road to hëll.” That’s a popular misquote.
And second, no: We in fact cannot criminalize hate and indifference, or at least should not. You cannot legislate what people can and should think. If nothing else, how far do you take it? Bigotry is typically learned behavior: Do you also prosecute the parents in the spirit of being accessories to the crime? After all, if they taught him to hate, why should get off with no punishment?
You criminalize actions, not thoughts. People can think anything they want, but must be judged on what they did. Or don’t you believe in “hate the sin but love the sinner?”
PAD
“Attempted murder is a crime solely of motive.” — Mike
No, it’s not. It’s a crime of action. If all it took to be guilty of this was to think about, or want to kill someone, we’d all likely be in trouble. Not to say that everyone has had some murderous though at some time, but I think it’s pretty safe to say that nearly everyone has, at one point in their life, at least wanted to or strongly thought about hurting someone.
Attempted murder is just that…it’s a murder that failed…the shot goes wild, the stab wound isn’t fatal, the deadly trap doesn’t go off as planned. In other words, but for some intervening event that usually, but not always, is very close temporally to the attempt, it’d be murder. Attempted murder isn’t a crime of motive, it’s a crime of failed action.
“Motive is ALWAYS considered for both determination of guilt and of punishment.”
No, it’s not. Many crimes just are, regardless of motive. Manslaughter is one. Specifcially, it’s a motiveless, or even an anti-motive crime. You could be action with the specific intent to NOT kill, and still through the course of your actions commit manslaughter.
That’s not to say that juries don’t, or shouldn’t, consider motive during their deliberations. That’s up to the individual jury, and even juror.
But notice what PAD is saying…mens rea, or motive in laymans’ terms, has long been incorporated into criminal statutes. Murder is defined, archaically, as the act of killing with malice aforethought. Implicit in that defintion is that the act was intended, the perp meant to kill his victim.
But hate crimes tack on extra punishment because of the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator. If those kids had not been christian, but instead just attacked the other kids, they’d be eligible for a certain level of punishment. Under a hate crime system, the very same act…different only because of the utternaces of “Merry Christmas” and “Happy Chanuka”…would allow for a more harsh sentence. It’s extra punishment because of the nature of the thoughts, not the nature of the crime. The crime is exactly the same…assault with intent to inflict bodily harm, let’s say.
Consider that California’s Three Strikes sentencing laws were struck down. Why? Because it applies punishment to the criminal based on the nature of the criminal, not the nature of the crime. Hate crime laws do the same, which should be something in the purview of the jury, not the legislature.
Alex wrote: Also, isn’t there a difference between a husband who kills his wife in a moment of rage and someone who prowls the streets looking for someone to hurt (like the jáçkáššëš in the story)? I’m much more concerned about the latter.
In all seriousness, it wouldn’t make a difference to the wife. Whether killed by her spouse or by a predator on the street, the result is the same.
My comment you cite is referring to the wikipedia article:
With attempted murder you don’t even need a victim, only an intended victim. With a hate crime, you still need a victim.
We already tolerate more severe thought-policing than the establishment of hate crime standards.
That same wikipedia page also says:
“The courts will pay particular attention to counts of attempted murder and justifiably will be highly critical of any such count unless there is clear evidence of an intention to kill. Attempted murder is an Offence of specific intent”
So if someone just *thinks* about killing another person, there won’t be an attempted murder charge. He has to actually do something.
Mike: “With attempted murder you don’t even need a victim, only an intended victim.”
No, Mike. That is, in the simplest layman’s terms, conspiracy to commit murder. And even then, you technically do have a victim. Bobb is correct in his statements regarding the matter. Wikipedia, fun for a laugh that it may be, is hardly a reputable source for anything these days. Try finding a law university site or something along the lines of http://www.findlaw.com or Blacks Law Dictionary.
The question doesn’t seem to be who I am than it seems to be who are you without me.
Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), is defined as a mental illness primarily characterized by extreme focus on oneself, and is a maladaptive, rigid, and persistent condition that may cause significant distress and functional impairment.
Diagnostic criteria;
a grandiose sense of self-importance; believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by other special people; takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends; lacks empathy; is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her; arrogant behavior.
I’m actually in favor of hate crime distinctions. Sure, the end result for the victims is the same, but I think when it comes to prosecution we need the distinction. The standard laws for murder and assault simply weren’t working for a lot of minorities, because society was pretty much at the point where they weren’t even considering those acts crimes. When you start specifically labeling those acts as crimes and prosecuting them differently, it puts a spotlight on them and forces people to look at them differently. I guess you could look at it as PR as much as anything.
I think society has advanced to the point now where crimes against minorities are considered crimes. And if it hasn’t then why would we expect Hate Crime Legislation to be any more effective? If the problem is that laws are being ignored it will probably not help to just pass more laws.
But thanks for stating you position in a reasonable, civil matter. It’s important to see that not everyone on the pro-Hate Crime legislation side is an ášš.
But in a recent comment on this topic posted to another blog, it was pointed out that a “hate crime” is, in a certain manner, a larger crime as it is an assault not only on the individual but on a larger group.
They phrased it better than I am here, but it gave me some pause for thought. Perhaps the person who attacks me because they don’t like the Irish should be should punished more severely than the one who attacks me because they don’t like me individually?
That’s a good argument, Sean. You could say that hate crimes against specific groups of people diminishes society in a way that random acts of violence do not.
I think that the harm caused by 1- unequal application of any such laws 2- the resulting antagonism between ethnic groups (or whatever is used to create the groups that hate crime legislation will be applied to) and 3- the potential for misuse and abuse of such laws will be greater than the good that will be achieved. And since the good that could come from them would be equally achieved by just better enforcement of the laws we have, the risk/benefit ratio is not favorable. In my opinion.
Your observation will mean something when you catch me sheltering 3, or 5, or however many hypocrisies I’ve caught you sheltering. Until then, the honor of establishing the low standard of discourse doesn’t go to me.
Only in your own mind have you done anything of the kind. Since nobody other than you believes this to be true I simply chalk it up to another manifestation of your likely disorder.
What bothers me about it is that it sets up a justice triage of society telling people “your life is worth less than someone else’s”. Yes, realistically that’s the way it is, but why institutionalize it? Police? Makes sense, but does it work? Cops still seem to be getting gunned down anyway. Not much of a deterrent?
But it’s hard to say that there is no deterrent. Cops are also put into the position of being possible victims far often than most of us are. The average person should get through a week without having some drunk with a gun in a position to blow them away. A cop may face that daily. The fact that so few are actually shot and killed may be, in part, due to the knowledge of what may happen to the shooter. That said, I wouldn’t mind it if every murderer was treated as though the person he or she killed was a cop.
1 i myself am a christian, but isn’t jews Gods chosen people? so why the hate? also, christians believe in the fact that Christ chose to die for everybody. He could have stopped it. Jesus loved all people regardless of their religion. why can’t christians understand that?
Yes, to demonstrate the motive the law does not tolerate. Hate crime laws to not depend on *thought intolerance* any more than conspiracy to murder charges.
Where you have a victim, you have, in the most general sense, an imposition made on that victim. What imposition is inherently made on one targeted for murder?
If you need my point rephrased: With conspiracy to murder you don’t even need to inconvenience anyone, only an intent to inconvenience someone. With a hate crime, you still need someone inconvenienced.
Narcissism implies gratification. You haven’t demonstrated gratification.
The same is true for police. What justification is there for cop-killer laws mutually exclusive of the need for hate crime laws?
The part I just bolded? That justification applies to hate crime standards.
That guy in the anti-Semitic attack article who’s also going away for assaulting a black guy? He’s choosing the obvious non-conformists to the majority. His attitude increases crime, and you would give him the same punishment other offenders feel the need to have some acquaintance with their victims to do.
I don’t see how your generosity to those who feed off the most vulnerability segments of society just isn’t plain soft.
You say that like I’m not going to immediately remember:
Those posts ain’t only in my mind. You are a very offensive person.
peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005874.html#373296
The posts are not only in your mind, but the actual acts of you proving something are entirely in your mind.
Mike: “If you need my point rephrased: With conspiracy to murder you don’t even need to inconvenience anyone, only an intent to inconvenience someone. With a hate crime, you still need someone inconvenienced.”
Nope, sorry, still wrong and play again some other time.
Your argument is still flawed at its core. However, having just pointed out to Mulligan the dead endedness of debating with your density and looking at the stupidity in your last few posts, I’m not going to keep going with this one. You know almost nothing of the law, you live in your own little world and you’re dense as hëll. Anyone else wants to discuss it, fine. Somebody else wants to waste time with Mike? Do it without me.
~B?)
You heard it here, folks: victims of crime aren’t inconvenienced. Whatever, Jerry.
Narcissism implies gratification. You haven’t demonstrated gratification.
Using your own bizarro standards, your lack of reply to the other points implies admission of their accuracy.
There are few things I would rather not explore than what it is that gratifies you. I can only assume they are on par with the rest of your thought processes.
Me: Only in your own mind have you done anything of the kind.
you: You say that like I’m not going to immediately remember:
* my summary of your pattern of hypocrisy: peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005186.html#315512
* your hypocrisy you conveniently provided for me to include in my summary of how my behavior demonstrates I live by rules: peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005683.html#352032
* today
Those posts ain’t only in my mind. You are a very offensive person.
Oh the posts certainly exist and, as always, I’m delighted to see you refer to previous incidents of you looking like an ášš. But your interpretation? Strictly in your own mind.
And either you know this, which makes you simply an jerk who infests other people’s blogs because he got tired of nobody interacting on his own–a parasite, essentially–or you honestly don’t get it, in which case you are too nutty to deal with. I go back and forth on this. Are you a jerk and a bully, in which case you need to be treated as such, or are you just too far gone to understand what you are, in which case benign neglect is the kindest course of action?
At any rate, the fact that, despite your best efforts, an actual discussion on the issue of hate crimes has taken place here certainly demonstrates that, despite your claims, no “contempt” for the issue exists among the host and posters. Just contempt for idiotic arguments, made idiotically.
Yeeeaaah, thanks for not disagreeing I don’t qualify as narcissistic.
It’s a wonder you feel the need to challenge anything I say.
I’m simply responding to accusations directed at me. If you don’t like it, don’t provide them.
Unless you demonstrate how holding others to a standard you refuse to be held to doesn’t qualify as hypocrisy, you haven’t giving me a reason to believe that that isn’t what it literally takes to qualify. It’s a straightforward 1:1 relationship:
n ≠ Rocket+Surgery
If Hëll is paved with good intentions, what is Heaven paved with? Just wondering.
Best of the season, whatever it may be (even to those of us who don’t have a season)
Regards, the Rev.
The Reverend Mr. Black: “If Hëll is paved with good intentions, what is Heaven paved with? Just wondering.”
Asphalt.
And besides, if someone assaults a complete stranger, causing either serious injuries or death, doesn’t it stand to reason that, *on average*, it is in itself a ‘hate’ crime. While some people may kill out of what they think is love (example: a father in here Canada who killed his severely handicapped/retarded daughter because he couldn’t stand seeing her constantly in pain) I daresay they’re the tiny exception. So why, exactly, do we need ‘hate crime’ laws when we’ve already got them?
“So why, exactly, do we need ‘hate crime’ laws when we’ve already got them?”
At the risk of making myself a target for the racism badge, it’s because minority groups get vocal, and get legislation pushed through that add extra protection for crimes against them. It’s what some would call affirmative action from the criminal justice system. Beat a white man to death to steal his wallet, and you get say 10 years. But if a white man beats a black man to death because he’s black, regardless of whether he takes his wallet, and he gets 20 years. It’s symptomatic of the same concept that allows the idea of reparations to come up ever so often.
Which is not at all to say that minorities have not been exposed to discrimination for decades or centuries, or that minorities are not targeted for certain crimes because of their skin color/religion/sexual orientation. But it should highlight how out system allows for affirmative action mentality to be injected into the CJ system.
Mike, I’m not sure why I’m trying, but
“You heard it here, folks: victims of crime aren’t inconvenienced. Whatever, Jerry.”
First off, on attempted murder, way to miss a chance to, for once, admit you were wrong about something. Fessing up and allowing a mikea culpa might actually be a good thing for you to consider once in a while. Just for the record, I’ll stack my legal training against whatever’s posted to Wikipedia any day.
Now you’re trying to redifine conspiracy to commit murder. See, there is a victim in this crime…but first let’s look at the target of the conspiracy. If that target remains unaware of the conspiracy, I guess you can say he’s not inconcienenced by it all. On the other than, at some point..say, during the trial…said target is going to be made aware that others were plotting his death. I’d say most of us, presented with that information, would at least feel a little freaked out. We might freak out so far as to wonder who else is planning to kill us? That might cause us some level of inconvience as we start jumping at every bang or crack that we hear.
But more than that, let’s look at the real victim of a conspiracy. After all, what actions are involved other than some planning and plotting? Maybe some stockpiling of weapons and supplies, possibly some surveillance on the target, mapping of routes, etc. But taken individually, none of those actions are illegal, right?
Society is the victim of a conspiracy. That’s a hard concept for some folks to grasp, and it does continue to be debated today. But if conspiracies are not prevented…if society has to wait to stop some planned action until said plan is in process…the cost to society is higher. Conspiring to break the law is a crime against society.
And it’s not about thought. Just sitting around and talking about killing someone isn’t a crime (unless that someone is the president). There have to be related actions that indicate more than just intent, just as with attempted murder.
As for hate crimes requiring a victim, that’s wrong, too. If someone puts a burning cross out on the highway, in a public right of way, who’s the victim? If someone spray paints an anti-semetic phrase on the side of a public building, who’s the victim? Both of these acts would be covered by hate crime laws, yet both lack a target, a vitcim to be inconvienenced.
We don’t have judges saying, “Your assailant didn’t know you before he attacked you, so I’m going to tack on 5 years to his sentence.” We literally do not have the fairness you are giving the system credit for having. Hate crime standards, if nothing else, establish that the assailant and his or her victim were truly unacquainted with each other. That, exactly, is why we need hate crime standards.
Violent criminals typically have some acquaintance with their victims, where the victim has some control over his acquaintance with his or her assailant, and the punishment standards have been established by precedent accordingly. If you want to frame it as increasing the penalty where the victim had no connection to his or her assailant that’s fine with me. But that sure-as-fricking-hëll isn’t what we have now.
True Stranger Assault™ is some obvious chickenshit minorities have to go through that people who enjoy some kind of privilege are too soft to accept they don’t comprehend. Where the boundaries of hate crime are violated, the victim had as little control as anyone can have over what’s happened to him or her, short of refusing all opportunities to leave his house. Even with rape, a modicum of control is attributed to the victim in how she dresses (which is why such accounts are prohibited in a rape trial). What’s the excuse for denying stiffer penalties for a truly acquaintanceless assault?
Stop evaluating yourselves by your privileges, and consider evaluating yourself by the privileges you can do without. There are people who go through true stranger-attacks, and the white patriarchy can’t see that beyond, “but enough about you — what about me?” You can choose to be strong.
The Reverend Mr. Black: If Hëll is paved with good intentions, what is Heaven paved with? Just wondering.
Good attempts.
Heavan is paved with clouds. Duh!
The resolve to rephrase implies an admission of error.
Therefore, you are wrong in saying I admitted no error. How urgent will you make your admission, counselor?
It’s a wonder anyone feels the need to portray me as unreasonable.
That isn’t from the action of the accused, but the court. If the judge eats, does that fill the stomach of the accused or any witnesses?
Hate crime standards are no more a thought intolerance law than CtCM.
Uh, yeah, I’m not going to disagree that takes hate crime standards too far, but that ain’t within the “sitting around thinking about” slack given to CtCM everyone keeps portraying hate crime laws as denying, either. My point in comparing it to CtCM is to demonstrate the “thought crime” angle to challenging hate crime standards is just plain wrong, and you only seem to be helping me establish that.
I think it’s been fairly well established that a black who kills a white will likely get more jail time than a white who kills a black. And both probably get more time than if a Black kills another Black.
I believe it’s also more likely that a man who kills a woman will get more time than a woman who kills a man and a mother who kills her kids usually gets way less than you’d think.
The other factor in all this is publicity–if the story hits the papers with a big splash it will probably end up with a bigger punishment.
As for your hypothetical…it reminds me of the old jay Leno joke about “senseless killings”. “A man was killed today on broadway for $10…another senseless killing. Meanwhile, in Queens, another man was killed for $1000–very sensible”
“I believe it’s also more likely that a man who kills a woman will get more time than a woman who kills a man”
Actually, I read a few years back that women serve longer average sentances for murder than men. I have no idea why, the article didn’t get into the causes. Women’s prisons are less crowded so there is less push for early release? Women do a higher percentage of premeditated murders? Just guesses.
Yeah, it’s a wonder anyone should feel the need to weigh senseless crime and “sensible crime” together with equal gravity, by challenging hate crime standards.
Murdered titans and frost giants.
Mike, I’m not sure why I’m trying
Sometimes, it just isn’t worth the effort of trying to convince someone that 2 + 2 != 5, as it does in Mike’s world.
Considering you haven’t attributed your criticism to anything I’ve said, it’s no wonder.
Posted by Jason M. Bryant
Actually, I read a few years back that women serve longer average sentances for murder than men. I have no idea why, the article didn’t get into the causes. Women’s prisons are less crowded so there is less push for early release? Women do a higher percentage of premeditated murders? Just guesses.
Because a man who shoots his wife’s lover and/or his worthless cheating bìŧçh wife is defending his honour and the sanctity of marriage but a woman who catches her husband with anoter woman and shoots him is over-reacting?
Cf “Miss Otis Regrets” or the Saudi rape victim’s sentence (which was increased on appeal).
An attorney friend [*not* one of the all-time great comic letterhacks] says that defense attorneys – at least in the New Orleans area, where he practices – would often rather try black clients before all-white juries than black or mixed ones. Apparently (my theory, now, not something he said specifically), the way that jury selection works, backs who wind up on juries tend to be on average of higher socio-economic/educational status and to be disapproving of activity that makes the black community look bad (or palys into the hands of racists).
Y’know, Craig, it’s becoming clear that your friends here are doing you a disservice.
Y’see, Peter thinks I’m stupid, and he behaves accordingly. He treats posts he sees as stupid with indifference as he does mine.
In contrast to this appropriate treatment to posts one considers stupid are your friends, who invest time venting disgust on me with the urgent need to portray me as stupid. This urgent need to portray me as stupid demonstrate I’m not stupid.
Craig, you are stupid. You seem to have no urgent need to portray me as stupid, but going by your friends’ behavior, you’re using the behavior that demonstrates I’m not stupid in an introspectively-deficient attempt to portray me as stupid.
I’m sorry you have to hear this from me, who has no fidelity to your inner-harmony, but you don’t have friends who are looking out for you. Peter has tried to say as much to y’all, nicely, on numerous occasions, but you didn’t listen.
Alright, folks, yeah Mike comes across as an arrogant s.o.b., but why reduce the blog to a long list of post amount to not much more than name calling? Just a thought.
Poor Mike. Nothing left in the tank.
But,as usual, you get it wrong. It isn’t that you’re stupid, in the sense of a lack of intelligence. It’s that you act like a jáçkášš. Now, one could argue that acting like a jáçkášš is a stupid thing to do–it would certainly tend to lower the quality of life for most people. But hey, maybe you’re one of those people who have no use for normal human relationships. Being the skunk at the garden party gives you the same gratification (uh-oh!) that those not exhibiting your, um, mindset get from friendship and family.
But it’s yet another manifestation of your narcissism that you define stupidity as How Mike Is Treated. Only in a world where you matter, Mike. Not this one.
You seem to have no urgent need to portray me as stupid, but going by your friends’ behavior, you’re using the behavior that demonstrates I’m not stupid in an introspectively-deficient attempt to portray me as stupid.
I get a kick out of lines like this, because I suspect you have nfc what they actually mean.
Yet, I’m the stupid one?
Pot, meet kettle.
I really wish this site had an ignore feature, because I would definitely use it. I suspect everybody else would as well.
And in more NYC subway news:
Monday night:
A woman was pushed on to the tracks by another woman and saved by a pair of good samaritans. The shover was arrested and is being charged; the intended victim hopes to be able to thank her rescuers.
Tuesday:
NEW YORK — New York City Police are investigating a report by a man who says he was assaulted on a subway train by a group of women who videotaped the attack and posted it on the Internet.
I wonder if that transit spokesman still thinks pole dancers are the “last thing we want”. Somebody really should ask him/her.
Yeah, an ignore feature would be great–I’ll pledge an extra $25 above and beyond the $10 I’m sending anyway for that feature, as long as I could turn it on and off at whim for those times when I want a moment of stupidity.
And I have no doubt that Mike would keep posting anyway, no matter how few people were listening. What options does he have?
Of course, we could all just exercise collective will and ignore him the old fashioned way…but hey, it’s human nature to slow down for train wrecks, even metaphorical ones.
Craig – Where online did you find those? You have me curious. I’m wondering if that “gang of women” had a motive other than random internet video “fun”