Isn't this a hate crime?

[FireDancer]

I think a hate crime is when a member of any group commits a crime against any other group based on their membership in that group.

For example, a black person attacks a black person because they are white or vice versa. A straight man attacking a gay man because he is gay, or vice versa.

Ever crime against a member of a different group isn't a hate crime if the motivation had nothing to do with that group. For example, a black man car jacks and Indian man because he wants his car, or vice versa, is not a hate crime because even though the men were of different races, the motivating factor had nothing to do with that race.

I do think it is a hate crime no matter what group is the victim or perpetrator. It isn't really universally enforced in my experience but it should be. The hard part is proving intent. For example, in the car jacking scenario I explained above the motivating factor could have been race and not the car, but how does one prove that?

 

[LuvOrlando]

I think most people intuitively get that the way this issue is dealt with is just not right. Most people assume the law is open to all but it is not. On paper the idea seems more inclusive than when translated into in practice. In reality law enforcement never even pursue real world hate crimes unless their victims fall into particular groups therefore the issue is never actually addressed. The courts CAN"T find a person guilty of a hate crime unless the charges are actually raised against the criminal on the victims behalf. This omission is underhanded and I think it's just plain wrong. My heart breaks for the victims who aren't lucky enough to be included because their skin is the wrong color or their religion the wrong sub-set or their orientation the wrong preference. At the core what is most confusing to me is the underlying assumption that when white, straight christian people hate, it is somehow more powerful that hatred coming from other sectors of society. How on earth is that assumption itself not racist?

I think the only way equality will ever actually be enforced is if someone somewhere who is part of the 'so called' majority gets victimized and shoves the issue down everyone's throats clear up to the Supreme Court where interpretation becomes less relevant and logic prevails. I hope someone somewhere does it soon and frankly, I'm a bit surprised the issue has been dormant for so long.

As for me, every time I read a story like the one from Philadelphia it makes me a little more upset, a little more distrustful, and a little more jaded.

 

[johnnymo99]

I think the only way equality will ever actually be enforced is if someone somewhere who is part of the 'so called' majority gets victimized and shoves the issue down everyone's throats clear up to the Supreme Court where interpretation becomes less relevant and logic prevails. I hope someone somewhere does it soon and frankly, I'm a bit surprised the issue has been dormant for so long.

Very true. I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[LiLIrishChick63]

well tbh idk what is considered a "hate crime" anymore. a few weeks ago my local news had a story on it about this boy who lived in a neighboring city who got beat with bricks. he was a white boy, and he was dating a black girl, and he got beat up by a group of black boys because he was dating a "black" girl and on the news they kept having all of these people claiming it WASN'T a hate crime.

one of them even went so far as to say "this isn't a hate crime, just a hateFUL crime"....

 

[eliza61]

I think the only way equality will ever actually be enforced is if someone somewhere who is part of the 'so called' majority gets victimized and shoves the issue down everyone's throats clear up to the Supreme Court where interpretation becomes less relevant and logic prevails. I hope someone somewhere does it soon and frankly, I'm a bit surprised the issue has been dormant for so long.

As for me, every time I read a story like the one from Philadelphia it makes me a little more upset, a little more distrustful, and a little more jaded.

So if I'm reading this right, if whites start envoking the hate crime bill and some how the cases make it to the supreme court. Let's go as far as to say the even say hate crime legislation is unconstitional, then all of a sudden every body is going to be treated equal?

That's not going to solve the problem because whether you want to admit it or not Luv, there are people who are racist. There are folks who are flat out homophobes and only way they know how to solve their so called problems is with violence.
There are people alive, kicking and spreading their vitrole. I know it's very frustrating reading articles about people simply flinging "hate crime" for every bar fight but until we can get rid of people bent on using violence as their weapon of choice we need strong measures to deal with them.

We don't need more people getting beat up to make things equal.

 

[LoraJ]

well tbh idk what is considered a "hate crime" anymore. a few weeks ago my local news had a story on it about this boy who lived in a neighboring city who got beat with bricks. he was a white boy, and he was dating a black girl, and he got beat up by a group of black boys because he was dating a "black" girl and on the news they kept having all of these people claiming it WASN'T a hate crime.

one of them even went so far as to say "this isn't a hate crime, just a hateFUL crime"....

I consider that a hate crime because it was a racially motivated crime. There was a post here on the DIS about a white couple that was murdered by some guys who were black. They wanted to know why it was not considered a hate crime. Was there evidence that they were killed because they were white? Or it was just random, it could have been anyone of any race, it did not matter to the killers, like the car jacking story above.

 

[LuvOrlando]

So if I'm reading this right, if whites start envoking the hate crime bill and some how the cases make it to the supreme court. Let's go as far as to say the even say hate crime legislation is unconstitional, then all of a sudden every body is going to be treated equal?

That's not going to solve the problem because whether you want to admit it or not Luv, there are people who are racist. There are folks who are flat out homophobes and only way they know how to solve their so called problems is with violence.
There are people alive, kicking and spreading their vitrole. I know it's very frustrating reading articles about people simply flinging "hate crime" for every bar fight but until we can get rid of people bent on using violence as their weapon of choice we need strong measures to deal with them.

We don't need more people getting beat up to make things equal.

I am on the same page as you in thinking that bigotry is a problem. But I think after that we veer apart.

I simply do not understand how letting other groups seek protection under the law would reduce it's effectiveness? Didn't inclusion in the right to vote among women and non whites make this country stronger? Also, didn't exclusion from the protection of certain laws, namely the constitution get us into this big mess in the first place? My opinion is the enemy of equality is inequality no mater how it is justified, it's never ok.

Up close I do see your point and where these laws have some benefit. But the benefits are short term and come with a hefty cost. For some reason when I think things through I follow them through the mud all the way to the far off distant conclusion and that far off place is where I tend to see the problems that shape my beliefs.

I don't really disagree with you on the subject I disagree with the solution, KWIM

 

[Wall-E1]

I think the problem here has a lot to do with media manipulation. People listen to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and others that spew their hatred. They get it into their heads that whites are treated unfairly and mistake these talk show hosts' racist commentary for news. Hate crime laws are absolutely needed. Our legal system provides for different designations of offenses. For example - first or second degree murder, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter; etc., we don't just classify murder as murder. The same goes with crimes against a specific race or religion. They need their own designation. They are not random acts of violence. They are much more heinous.

Matthew Shepard was tortured, tied to a fence, and left to slowly die for over eighteen hours. His "crime" - he was gay.

James Byrd was lynched and dragged along the pavement for three miles behind a pickup truck. In the process, his arm and head were torn off by the dragging. His torso was left at the side of a road. His "crime" - he was black.

David Ritcheson was beaten, burned with cigarettes, had a swastika carved onto his chest; and was sodomized by a patio umbrella pole. The neo-nazis that did this to him were yelling "white power" while attacking him. His "crime" - he was Hispanic.

Murder is murder, but these crimes absolutely deserve a special designation under the law. So, for all of the whiners out there claiming that blacks or gays get preferential treatment under the law, why not try walking in their shoes for awhile?

 

[Holly]

I am on the same page as you in thinking that bigotry is a problem. But I think after that we veer apart.

I simply do not understand how letting other groups seek protection under the law would reduce it's effectiveness? Didn't inclusion in the right to vote among women and non whites make this country stronger? Also, didn't exclusion from the protection of certain laws, namely the constitution get us into this big mess in the first place? My opinion is the enemy of equality is inequality no mater how it is justified, it's never ok.

Up close I do see your point and where these laws have some benefit. But the benefits are short term and come with a hefty cost. For some reason when I think things through I follow them through the mud all the way to the far off distant conclusion and that far off place is where I tend to see the problems that shape my beliefs.

I don't really disagree with you on the subject I disagree with the solution, KWIM

If you disagree with the current solution, what do you suggest as a more equitable one?


The fact is that there are many places in this country where someone who is Black or a homosexual can't get help from local law enforcement. They stand to be further victimized by bigotry with a badge which is why federal hate crimes legislation is so important.
How many places can you name where this is true for Whites?

It's not the solution that's perpetuating the bigotry, that's just a convenient excuse. The true answer is much more complicated.

 

[FireDancer]

I think the problem here has a lot to do with media manipulation. People listen to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and others that spew their hatred. They get it into their heads that whites are treated unfairly and mistake these talk show hosts' racist commentary for news. Hate crime laws are absolutely needed. Our legal system provides for different designations of offenses. For example - first or second degree murder, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter; etc., we don't just classify murder as murder. The same goes with crimes against a specific race or religion. They need their own designation. They are not random acts of violence. They are much more heinous.

Matthew Shepard was tortured, tied to a fence, and left to slowly die for over eighteen hours. His "crime" - he was gay.

James Byrd was lynched and dragged along the pavement for three miles behind a pickup truck. In the process, his arm and head were torn off by the dragging. His torso was left at the side of a road. His "crime" - he was black.

David Ritcheson was beaten, burned with cigarettes, had a swastika carved onto his chest; and was sodomized by a patio umbrella pole. The neo-nazis that did this to him were yelling "white power" while attacking him. His "crime" - he was Hispanic.

Murder is murder, but these crimes absolutely deserve a special designation under the law. So, for all of the whiners out there claiming that blacks or gays get preferential treatment under the law, why not try walking in their shoes for awhile?

All of those are hate crimes. The same crimes done by someone not white to a white person should also be a hate crime. A hate crime could be perpetrated against the majority also if the motivation is hate. These types of crimes seem under prosectuted.

We would also have to add Reverend Al and Jesse Jackson to hate spewing. They, just like Rush, are divisive figures who look for racial tension where none actually exists, such as the Duke Lacrosse case.

 

[DawnCt1]

I think it is ridiculous to say that the mere voicing of obvious disparities are indicative of hatred directed towards the people who benefit from the inequality (benefit is a loosely used term regarding crime but how else do I say it?). I think we are in very dangerous territory when anyone is demonized simply for making observations. This behavior is not new at all, it is an old true blue method of silencing dissent. The only thing that ever seems to change through eons of history is the "WHO' that is victimized by it and the 'WHO' that is pulling the strings.

As far as the logic behind the statistics regarding hate crime legislation: If only Norwegian women were candidates for being classified as Rape victims, wouldn't the formally counted population of Rape victims therefore be 100% Norwegian???? It's all about linear reasoning and logic. If there was only one thing I took with me out of college with my Degree in Economics, it's that statistics, regardless of their appearance of validity, can be ridiculously easy to manipulate. All you have to do to distort them is be selective about the group from which you collect your samples.

I do happen to see these groups as equals,but then again I happen to see everyone as equals. Being from NYC where I shared a lunch table with every ethnicity imaginable I find it hard to grasp how anyone thinks that superficial attributes alter the human condition. That said, I do not think grooming resentment in the general population though obvious inequlaities is a good way to go about removing the social problems of which you speak. If the goal is to remove social inequalities I happen to think the best place to start is in institutional organizations. I think the whole way things are being managed along these lines, while necessary at the onset, have devolved into being counter productive at this point. IF we are all equal THEN we must all be treated as equal at the very least, in the eyes of the law. Therefore IF a person, any person, is targeted because they are different from their victimizer THEN they should be treated accordingly. No exceptions.

As a result, I believe this case of bias against the Asian community needs to be addressed regardless of the ethnicity of their persecutors as well as any other case that comes along. IMO, its wrong to define who a victim is based upon that persons attributes just like it's wrong to define a criminal's status as such based upon his/her attributes.

Very well said and I agree with all of your observations and conclusions.

 

[Wall-E1]

All of those are hate crimes. The same crimes done by someone not white to a white person should also be a hate crime. A hate crime could be perpetrated against the majority also if the motivation is hate. These types of crimes seem under prosectuted.

We would also have to add Reverend Al and Jesse Jackson to hate spewing. They, just like Rush, are divisive figures who look for racial tension where none actually exists, such as the Duke Lacrosse case.

For every hate crime against a white person that you feel is under prosecuted, I could find two or more hate crimes against a minority group that has been under prosecuted. We could go back and forth for months. In my opinion, all the "it's not fair" whining and "whites aren't protected when attacked by blacks" is just nonsense. All racial groups have been prosecuted under the hate crime laws. If you look back at the FBI statistics that a previous poster left a link to, you'll find that blacks were the perpetrators of hate crimes over 20% of the time. So, just like white people, black people are also being prosecuted under these laws. Now, white people are the perpetrators over 60% of the time under these laws. The reason - white people are more numerous in this country than black people. Generally, what you find in our country, as well as countries the world over is that the majority group tries to suppress or treat unfairly the minority groups. Our country is over 70% white and just over 10% black. So, when a race has a 7:1 ratio over another, it only stands to reason that the more populous race is going to have more incidences of just about anything, over the less populous race. For example, more whites will probably get the swine flu than blacks. This is not because the flu virus is treating white people unfairly. It's because there are more of us to go around. The same is true with other statistics.

We don't need to add Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to a comparison of Rush and Glenn. I too, don't share many of the views of Al and Jesse. The difference is that Al and Jesse have a reason for their anger in some situations. They lived through the civil rights era. They lived in a time when segregation still existed. They lived through a time before hate laws were enacted, when black people received no justice. There is a reason for their anger. Again, I don't agree with many of their views, but I understand why they feel the way they do. Also, for all of their faults they have actually helped to bring about positive changes in some situations. People should try walking in their shoes for a while. I prefer an honest debate where equals on both sides are compared. You are trying to manipulate their media roles. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have daily radio and t.v. shows that reach millions of viewers throughout the day, each and every day of the year. Al and Jesse are political activists who come into the limelight whenever a situation sparks their interest. This may surprise you, but there is no real equivalent to Rush and Glenn on the airwaves today. If you were to look for a black host that is a radical racist and reaches millions of viewers daily, you wouldn't find one. You would think that with all of the preferential treatment that blacks receive that surely there would be a daily radio or t.v. show in the vein of Rush or Glenn that is heard by the nation daily. The best comparison, if simply comparing talk show hosts to other talk show hosts, would be comparing Glenn and Rush to Oprah Winfrey. They all have daily talk shows that discuss current events. They all reach millions of viewers or listeners. The difference of course is that two of the hosts are racists and spew hatred with every almost every word. While the other host, has frank and open discussions on difficult issues, poses thoughtful questions and gives fair and balanced analysis. She also has been known to give away a car or two.

 

[ogreenlee]

Everyone likes to say "I see everyone equally", but either you're lying to yourself or you're unaware.

We're not equal in this country, no matter what the law says. It's hard to understand that unless you've walked in other shoes. How lovely it would be if everyone could just drop the past off like it was a donation at Goodwill? Unfortunately, it's not the case. I assure you that every legal Mexican gets looked at as if he just crawled out of the Rio Grande. He may have every one of his papers in line, but will still be treated as a second class citizen by more folks than we'd like to believe. Even 2nd and 3rd generation Mexicans get the evil eye. How do those people walk around as if nothing is wrong? How could one of them not snap on occasion? Same goes for any group of people, be it sexual orientation, race, gender or religious group.


I have to agree with the PP that mentioned a bias against black people. I sensed that with the very first sentence. Sorry.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I think the problem here has a lot to do with media manipulation. People listen to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and others that spew their hatred. They get it into their heads that whites are treated unfairly and mistake these talk show hosts' racist commentary for news. Hate crime laws are absolutely needed. Our legal system provides for different designations of offenses. For example - first or second degree murder, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter; etc., we don't just classify murder as murder. The same goes with crimes against a specific race or religion. They need their own designation. They are not random acts of violence. They are much more heinous.

Matthew Shepard was tortured, tied to a fence, and left to slowly die for over eighteen hours. His "crime" - he was gay.

James Byrd was lynched and dragged along the pavement for three miles behind a pickup truck. In the process, his arm and head were torn off by the dragging. His torso was left at the side of a road. His "crime" - he was black.

David Ritcheson was beaten, burned with cigarettes, had a swastika carved onto his chest; and was sodomized by a patio umbrella pole. The neo-nazis that did this to him were yelling "white power" while attacking him. His "crime" - he was Hispanic.

Murder is murder, but these crimes absolutely deserve a special designation under the law. So, for all of the whiners out there claiming that blacks or gays get preferential treatment under the law, why not try walking in their shoes for awhile?

I don't know about anyone else but I don't listen to a single person of which you mention. All these ideas and observations are 100% straight out of my own head. I know what I see and what I do not see. I notice because this effects me because it could be me, not because of some latent bigotry on my part. What I do not see is anyone being sent to jail for hate crimes against people who happen to be like me, and for the record I make no apologies for the random act of being born white Christian and heterosexual and I don't think I should feel guilty for it any more than I think anyone different from me should feel bad about how they randomly got into this world.

If you are correct and this issue is manufactured based upon fallacies then you (and/or anyone else who agrees with this thought stem)should be able to find a few cases where homosexual individuals were tried and convicted for hate crimes against heterosexual individuals, where non-whites were convicted of hate crimes against whites, and non Christians were convicted of hate crimes against Christians. I do not think you will be able to find them because I have never been able to find them. However, I am not always the best researcher on the planet so maybe my findings are more due to my ineptitude than fact. If you, or anyone else can find ANY cases which stood up to an 'actual conviction; following the aforementioned recipes I will gladly and humbly apologize.

 

[LuvOrlando]

If we are all equal then we are all subject to both the same strengths and weaknesses, strong points and flaws... right?

For the record I happen to believe in evolution. As such skin color is nothing more than a characteristic that became dominant because it better allowed people to survive in a particular climate, no more and no less. The very notion that coloring has even the slightest effect on anything else is so laughable as to be unimaginable to my mind. So trying to say, from the first sentence, this was about bigotry is nothing more that a cheap shot... I am not lying to myself nor am I unaware. We all evolved along the same time line and climate caused some of us to look a little different. Some people may choose to use this a a starting point of divergence, some choose religion, some socio-economic status, some education, some neighborhood, some country of origin and some philosophy... whatever - but I assure you I really do not care. Some people are good, and some are not and that's all there is to it.

Quit it with the cheap shots, it's very unbecoming, cheapens your ideas and generally makes it hard to take you seriously.

 

[ogreenlee]

The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program collects data about both single-bias and multiple-bias hate crime incidents. For each offense type reported, law enforcement must indicate at least one bias motivation. A single-bias incident is defined as an incident in which one or more offense types are motivated by the same bias. A multiple-bias incident is defined as an incident in which more than one offense type occurs and at least two offense types are motivated by different biases.

■In 2008, 13,690 law enforcement agencies submitted hate crime data to the UCR Program. Of these agencies, 2,145 reported 7,783 hate crime incidents involving 9,168 offenses.
■Of the 7,783 reported incidents, 7,780 were single-bias and involved 9,160 offenses, 9,683 victims, and 6,921 offenders.
■The 3 multiple*-bias incidents reported in 2008 involved 8 offenses, 8 victims, and 6 offenders. (See Tables 1 and 12.)
Single-bias incidents
Of the 7,780 single-bias incidents reported in 2008:

■51.3 percent were racially motivated.
■19.5 percent were motivated by religious bias.
■16.7 percent stemmed from sexual-orientation bias.
■11.5 percent resulted from ethnicity/national origin bias.
■1.0 percent were motivated by disability bias. (Based on Table 1.)
Offenses by bias motivation within incidents
There were 9,160 single-bias hate crime offenses reported in the above incidents. Of these:

■51.4 percent stemmed from racial bias.
■17.7 percent were motivated by sexual-orientation bias.
■17.5 percent resulted from religious bias.
■12.5 percent were motivated by ethnicity/national origin bias.
■0.9 percent resulted from biases against disabilities. (Based on Table 1.)
Racial bias
In 2008, law enforcement agencies reported that 4,704 offenses among single-bias hate crime incidents were racially motivated. Of these offenses:

■72.6 percent were motivated by anti-black bias.
■17.3 percent stemmed from anti-white bias.
■5.5 percent were a result of bias against groups of individuals consisting of more than one race (anti-multiple races, group).
■3.4 percent resulted from anti-Asian/Pacific Islander bias.
■1.3 percent were motivated by anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native bias. (Based on Table 1.)
Sexual-orientation bias
Of the single-bias incidents, 1,617 offenses were committed based on sexual-orientation bias. Of these offenses:

■58.6 percent were the result of anti-male homosexual bias.
■25.7 percent were motivated by anti-homosexual bias.
■12.0 percent were prompted by anti-female homosexual bias.
■2.0 percent were the result of anti-heterosexual bias.
■1.7 percent were motivated by anti-bisexual bias. (Based on Table 1.)
Religious bias
There were 1,606 hate crime offenses motivated by religious bias in 2008. A breakdown of these offenses shows:

■65.7 percent were anti-Jewish.
■13.2 percent were anti-other religion.
■7.7 percent were anti-Islamic.
■4.7 percent were anti-Catholic.
■4.2 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
■3.7 percent were anti-Protestant.
■0.9 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc. (Based on Table 1.)
Ethnicity/national origin bias
In 2008, law enforcement agencies reported 1,148 offenses were committed based on the perceived ethnicity or national origin of the victim. Of these offenses:

■64.0 percent were due to anti-Hispanic bias.
■36.0 percent were because of anti-other ethnicity/national origin bias. (Based on Table 1.)












*****Looks like to me that these numbers from 2008 fall into line with our census rankings. My comment about your first post wasn't meant to be a cheap shot, but it does read that you're irritated that these "two priveleged" groups are more in focus.

Black people, in general, are poorer than whites and Asians. This would automatically create more crime. Crime falls amongst the most populated. The population in this country reflects those of European descent. The numbers add up. Of course black people and gay people are going to have the highest incidents against them. With groups such as the Klan and Skinheads.. how could it not? Urban gangs are not formed because of the hatred of white people. They're formed out of what they consider necessity and poverty.

 

[sbell111]

Unfortunately it seems like the only "group" protected under the hate crime laws are blacks. It most defiantly would not be a hate crime if the victims were white. I am sure this comes off sounding racist but it is not, just the plain truth.

Now that you mention it, it does sound kind of racist.

 

[ogreenlee]

If everything was equal and all people were equal, then we wouldn't even have an issue.

We want to think that everyone is equal, when the circumstances of history has not allowed it to be so.

Certain laws are set to protect those who need it the most, and if you think that it's not fair, well ask black people or Jews, especially Jesse Jackson's age, if life is always fair. Why do you think we even have these laws?

 

[LuvOrlando]

Now that you mention it, it does sound kind of racist.

Not my words and not the intention of the thread. I'm not bothered by the groups who are included, I think they belong there. In contrast this is about who is excluded. There is a big difference.

BTW I do not happen to think observations are inherently bigoted. If someone were to mention that a certain group is disproportionately stopped for driving expensive vehicles is that observation racist? I don't think so. It only veers over the line if an unacceptable 'because' follows the observation KWIM.

 

[LuvOrlando]

If everything was equal and all people were equal, then we wouldn't even have an issue.

We want to think that everyone is equal, when the circumstances of history has not allowed it to be so.

Certain laws are set to protect those who need it the most, and if you think that it's not fair, well ask black people or Jews, especially Jesse Jackson's age, if life is always fair. Why do you think we even have these laws?

What you are saying is all 100% true, but it does not justify leaving some people out. Leaving people out is the problem, the only problem... and a pretty big one in my opinion.