"Hate Crimes" really annoy me. I guess the title implies that if someone is not gay, black, Jewish, or whatever is attacked, its out of love and therefore not a Hate Crime.
I wonder if a gay man is killed he is more dead than a dead straight, white guy......
I wonder if LIFE is somehow not as worse a sentence for an average person than LIFE for someone who kills a member of a "special" group.
I wonder where are all the celebrities with tape across their mouths for the inequality for a single, white female being attacked as there are for wanting "rights" for a gay male....
And dont even get me started on how much more these "Special" crimes cost....it brings in the Feds - it goes to a more expensive Federal Court and not local State....but I am sure these defenseless, special people are worth it {sarcasm}....
All this to say, if you are just the average white person - if you dont have anything special about you, you are on your own - actually, you are beneath these special groups..... Good luck to you - better be able to take care of yourself because if something happens to you.....well, it just doesnt matter as much....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
6 comments:
I thought that ALL crimes of violence were hate crimes. Does one beat or murder some because one likes him?
Everyone is protected. Hate crimes laws apply more severe penalties for crimes committed against someone due to their race, gender, religion, ethnicity and sexual preference.
If you have any of these things and someone commits a violent crime against you because say you are white or female or Christian then a hate crime law would apply. Like say a black guy beats you up for being white or a crazed Muslim attacks you for being Christian.
Not saying they would prosecute, but they could.
I see hate crime laws the same way the law applies more severe penalties based on premeditation, negligence, disregard or malice.
Abraham
I've often thought the same thing. All crimes should be treated equally.
Pearls,I completely agree with you.
From the very beginning of my legal training it was drummed into us that the law should be fair and impartial regardless of who or what you are. The logic behind this and the 14th Amendment is that fair and equal treatment is the only way to prevent the historical legal persecution of minorities and others not favored by the political establishment. Now suddenly we are told that its OK to dicriminate in employment so long as its in favor of a moinority or that that it's a hate crime if a minority is the victim, or that past criminal records cannot be considered in hiring since that has a diproportionate impact on minorities. The face of the hate crime statute is admittedly neutral but we all know that political correctness is the mechanism for its application. The end result of the above is discrimination pure and simple and the feeling of disillusionment that you express is widespread. At a time in history when we are told that we must put aside our prejudices, the above legal distinctions based upon minority status is only making the problem worse.
SED
Pearls,
A hate crime is an act of terrorism. Terrorism is an act of violence intended to intimidate, drive off, or destroy a population, a community. The victim's usually mean nothing at all to the perpetrator, except as a symbol of whatever sick fantasy is driving some antisocial, destructive, delusional killer.
The motivation and circumstances of hate crimes, terrorism, and criminal acts mean little to the victims - except that terrorism and hate crimes are intended to be felt by a community, where a criminal (except for terrorists like "organized" criminals) wants to plunder a few individuals and hide within the community.
Where the friends, acquaintances, family of a victim of crime may fear - rightly - that they are also vulnerable, victims of hate crimes and terrorism know that someone intent on destruction is actively hurting those like them - and there is an implied promise of return.
Crime and hate crimes and terrorism weaken a community. They divide loyalties, they create barriers to friendship, to sharing griefs, sorrows, help, and growth. Terrorists tend to require community support to continue their activities. Criminals require holes to hide in. Perpetrators tend to blend into the community, so that the community may be reluctant - or afraid - to examine itself to find the cancer sheltered there. Hate crimes taint and corrupt a community that contains the perpetrators, as well as poisoning and electrifying the fear, anger, and distrust of their target.
"Simple" crimes tend to be random and their lack of focus is less hazardous, as an erosion of community spirit, than hate crimes.
And I think that is why hate crimes must be considered to require harsher penalties. Allowing hate crimes to be "acceptable" through mild punishment encourages them to continue and grow. Either the community demonstrates that hurting others is not acceptable, and that hurting for hate is *especially* heinous - or we invite the KKK, the masked vigilantes of southern Arkansas from the early 20th century, and other atrocities to develop.
Hate crimes are an expression of a group against a community. The answer has to be from one community to itself as well as to the offenders.
Brad, you've had a gulp of the Kool-aid being served by the media and the hand-wringers in DC. Hate crimes are NOT against a group. They are no different than any other crime.
Oh, except for the motivation - the thought driving the commission of the crime.
So how is motivation relevant? Am I not just as dead if my killer's motivation was to kill me so I couldn't testify against him, or if he were a member of the Black Panther's and didn't like 'whitey'?
How far do we take these Thought Crimes? Is someone who says, "I hate whites, and I plan on killing them all," then guilty of Conspiracy To Commit Murder? Or is he just a drunk guy at a BBQ whose kid just got beaten up by a white kid?
Isn't our country all about what you do? Motive is irrelevant, actions have consequences.
If your imaginary community feels threatened by someone's actions against another person, let THEM bring suit against the aggressor. Let THEM convince a jury of the damages they've incurred or the loss of freedom they've endured.
And as the cherry on the sundae, per the 14th amendment, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
When was the last time you saw or read about a black person being convicted for a hate crime against a white person?
Per the DOJ, whites comprise the vast majority of victims of a hate crime, but it's rarely tried as such.
http://tinyurl.com/lwz8y2
I say, "Great!" as long as the 14th amendment is followed. Treat all Americans the same. Confer no special rights or privileges simply because of your race or gender.
OK, OK, one last thing: From the article noted above -
The report says 40 percent of white hate crime victims were attacked by blacks, adding, "The small number of black hate crime victims precludes analysis of the race of persons who victimized them."
Yet they seem to be the only ones ever published in the papers. Why is that?
Post a Comment