The Hate Crime/Racism double standard has to stop

[mgb_phys]

WIf I pummel you and throw you off a bridge because I know you like Apple computers, and for no other reason, that makes my crime much more of a perversion than if you and I got into a dispute over money, women, etc.

But if you got into a fight over the obvious superiority of Linux over Apple - should it be assumed that the Apple user is the victim because of the historical dominance of Linux.

...though I have yet to hear of gay men ganging up to beat the crap out of straight men.

Isn't that the alleged point of the article - that when reflectivity<0.5 attack reflectivity>0.5 it isn't regarded as a hate crime. Whereas as reflectivty>0.5 attacking reflectivity<0.5 automatically is?

 

[jreelawg]

I think it would have been more effective if you simply said he has no evidence to back his claim and left it at that.

Which leads me to ask, where is your evidence, jreelawg. I hope you have at least one source which confirms your claim, otherwise please refrain from making unsupported statements.

You don't think people at storm front use articles like these to help fuel racism?

 

[russ_watters]

My understanding of hate crimes is thus:

Hate crimes are punished differently than other crimes because it is judged that an entire class of people has been targeted/victimized. Ie, if a hate crime is committed against a black person, then other black people in the area will feel victimized and less safe (see: Rodney King riots). This justification doesn't make sense to me, as a completely random crime occurring near someone will tend to make them feel less safe as well. Indeed, it seems to me that the exact opposite is true. Consider:

My next-door neighbor is white and my neighbor two doors down is black. My neighborhood is about 10% black.
1. If my white next door neighbor is murdered at home in a random killing, everyone in my neighborhood will feel at risk for such a crime. Thus my entire neighborhood has been victimized.
2. If my black neighbor two doors down is murdered due to his race, only the black residents have been victimized.

 

[j93]

Not status. Intent and motivation. These are important factors that are generally taken into account when a crime is being judged and punished. What ever classification (social, racial, ect) that the victim or perpetrator belonged to are irrelevant. It is the intention and motivation for the crime which is at issue.

Here in California if a person takes a minor across the state line they are guilty of kidnapping. If it can be proved that this person took a minor across the state line with the intent of having sex with the minor they are now both a kidnapper and a sex offender. Its more or less the same crime right? Except that there is a particular difference in motivation and intent for the latter example and the person will be tried and punished diffferently based on that. Would you disagree with the courts making this distinction?

The difference between Manslaughter, First Degree, and Second degree murder are all related to intent and motivation (This is not a new concept invented for hate crimes). RICO statues also involve such distinctions . There is a huge difference in the societal impact of a random violent crime and one that is part of a systematic problem whether it be racism or gangs or the mob this should be obvious that two drunks guys fighting in a bar should be punished differently than a mobster beating a business owner because he has not paid his extortion money or a gang beating up a random teen because he wore the wrong colors.

 

[j93]

My understanding of hate crimes is thus:

Hate crimes are punished differently than other crimes because it is judged that an entire class of people has been targeted/victimized. Ie, if a hate crime is committed against a black person, then other black people in the area will feel victimized and less safe (see: Rodney King riots). This justification doesn't make sense to me, as a completely random crime occurring near someone will tend to make them feel less safe as well. Indeed, it seems to me that the exact opposite is true. Consider:

INTENT is the difference. Hate crimes are used against hate groups. Hate groups preach hate then eventually act on it ie members of hate groups clearly show that the violence is not random but is targeted and premeditated (Premeditated like in the difference between degrees of murder charges). Imagine a killer broadcasting the intent of killing an individual for years and then going out and killing that person there is no way in the world that crime would not be prosecuted as a more grievous charge (In that case First-Degree Murder).