Hate Crime In Cicero
- Thread starter frocher
- Start date
athena123
Well-known member
Frocher, If I beat you up and stole your car, that's an act of violence. But if you're black and I beat you up and stole your car, how is that more an act of violence than if you were white? Define violence. Any initiation of force against another [self defense doesn't count] is an act of violence. Violence against another human being can take the form of physical, mental, emotional or spiritual abuse.
I'll agree to disagree with you. The legal system and people like you obviously place a greater value on one victim over another. I don't. Everyone has value, hence my conviction that any act of violence against another regardless of the victim's sexual gender, preference or race IS a hate crime.
I'll agree to disagree with you. The legal system and people like you obviously place a greater value on one victim over another. I don't. Everyone has value, hence my conviction that any act of violence against another regardless of the victim's sexual gender, preference or race IS a hate crime.
knoxydoll
Well-known member
Quote:
The problem is a lot of the time they won't make the distinction between the because. The victim will play the race, religion, gender, sexual orientation card and this causes discrepancies in the system. If you say I stole your car because you were black, but I just stole your car because I needed a car, I would still be charged with a hate crime.
I'm not trying to argue with you because you are right, but what's written in the judicial books isn't always what happens in real life.
Originally Posted by frocher
Say I am black and you are white, hypothetically, and you beat me up and steal my car that is not necessarily a hate crime. Now if you beat me up and stole my car because I was black, that is a hate crime. There should be a harsher penalty placed on a crime that singles people out because they happen to belong to a particular group. I think you are having a hard time grasping the definition of a hate crime. It is a legal term, not something that you can give an arbitrary definition to. BTW, people like me believe in being rational. |
The problem is a lot of the time they won't make the distinction between the because. The victim will play the race, religion, gender, sexual orientation card and this causes discrepancies in the system. If you say I stole your car because you were black, but I just stole your car because I needed a car, I would still be charged with a hate crime.
I'm not trying to argue with you because you are right, but what's written in the judicial books isn't always what happens in real life.
blazeno.8
Well-known member
Quote:
Yes, but when the victim is solely targeted because of gender, preference, or race, that is why it is a hate crime. When in the eyes of the attacker the victim ceases to be a human (in part or in whole) and only an instance of a unacceptable social group that can be fixed with violence.
I think there is a strong separation between the "ends" and the "means" (let's take "means" to be mental reasoning to take action in this case and not the physical realization of the act) here. It is not the end which makes it a hate crime let's say the car is stolen period. Stolen car does not = hate crime. Stolen car and driver attacked because driver is a woman and the attacker believes women shouldn't drive = hate crime. Stolen car and driver attacked because attacker detests the social class to which the driver belongs = hate crime. Stolen car and driver attacked because someone is running from the cops does not = hate crime.
edit:
And since you want a definition of violence (which is really unnecessary) then I would define it as any unwelcomed physical interaction between two or more parties which can result in physical injury of one or the other. Now keep in mind this is only physical violence and not any other type.
| Originally Posted by athena123
Frocher, If I beat you up and stole your car, that's an act of violence. But if you're black and I beat you up and stole your car, how is that more an act of violence than if you were white? Define violence. Any initiation of force against another [self defense doesn't count] is an act of violence. Violence against another human being can take the form of physical, mental, emotional or spiritual abuse. I'll agree to disagree with you. The legal system and people like you obviously place a greater value on one victim over another. I don't. Everyone has value, hence my conviction that any act of violence against another regardless of the victim's sexual gender, preference or race IS a hate crime. |
Yes, but when the victim is solely targeted because of gender, preference, or race, that is why it is a hate crime. When in the eyes of the attacker the victim ceases to be a human (in part or in whole) and only an instance of a unacceptable social group that can be fixed with violence.
I think there is a strong separation between the "ends" and the "means" (let's take "means" to be mental reasoning to take action in this case and not the physical realization of the act) here. It is not the end which makes it a hate crime let's say the car is stolen period. Stolen car does not = hate crime. Stolen car and driver attacked because driver is a woman and the attacker believes women shouldn't drive = hate crime. Stolen car and driver attacked because attacker detests the social class to which the driver belongs = hate crime. Stolen car and driver attacked because someone is running from the cops does not = hate crime.
edit:
And since you want a definition of violence (which is really unnecessary) then I would define it as any unwelcomed physical interaction between two or more parties which can result in physical injury of one or the other. Now keep in mind this is only physical violence and not any other type.
little_marlec
Member
this is awful and the fact that he shows no remorse for his actions are even worse. he deserves to be locked up for a long time.
athena123
Well-known member
Quote:
Please don't confuse my complete disagreement with lack of understanding. I DO understand the legal definition of a hate crime, I just object to the premise behind it. I don't think any act of violence against another should be considered a "worse" offense based upon who the victim happens to be. Period. A car jacking is a carjacking. It's a horrible thing to do to another, no matter the motive. Labeling something as more "hateful" because the victim belongs to a certain race/gender or sexual preference doesn't decrease prejudice and bias, instead it increases it.
This same reasoning is why I'm against university quotas based upon race and/or gender and handing out government small business loans to minority groups and women. Why should a woman be more entitled to a small business loan than an equally qualified male? Why should a male of hispanic descent be more entitled to a small business loan than a white male?
If we seek to be a more color blind society and have others judge us based upon our merits rather than our race/gender or sexuality, changes to our legal system that do NOT favor one group over another will have to be made.
| Originally Posted by frocher
I think you are having a hard time grasping the definition of a hate crime. It is a legal term, not something that you can give an arbitrary definition to. |
Please don't confuse my complete disagreement with lack of understanding. I DO understand the legal definition of a hate crime, I just object to the premise behind it. I don't think any act of violence against another should be considered a "worse" offense based upon who the victim happens to be. Period. A car jacking is a carjacking. It's a horrible thing to do to another, no matter the motive. Labeling something as more "hateful" because the victim belongs to a certain race/gender or sexual preference doesn't decrease prejudice and bias, instead it increases it.
This same reasoning is why I'm against university quotas based upon race and/or gender and handing out government small business loans to minority groups and women. Why should a woman be more entitled to a small business loan than an equally qualified male? Why should a male of hispanic descent be more entitled to a small business loan than a white male?
If we seek to be a more color blind society and have others judge us based upon our merits rather than our race/gender or sexuality, changes to our legal system that do NOT favor one group over another will have to be made.
athena123
Well-known member
Yes ma'am, I'm seriously against affirmative action! This is coming from a woman of mixed descent [half Mexican American]. It's not a question of women and minorities stepping aside for white males at all. It's more a matter of refusing to think of myself as a victim because I'm a woman and because I'm bi-racial. Why should I get more breaks as a result of something I'm born with and didn't earn with my own efforts?
I don't think passing laws and legislation and big government is the answer to all of our social ills, but that's another thread....
I don't think passing laws and legislation and big government is the answer to all of our social ills, but that's another thread....
Dizzy
Well-known member
Quote:
But how do you prove that? How can you prove that it was a racially/sexual orientation/gender orientation motivated incident and that it's not just tacking on more charges because it's an election year for that DA? 'Hate Crimes' have the potential to lead down very, very scary paths of precedent.
Quote:
It causes prejudice and bias because it's often applied unevenly because the definition of a hate crime is so vague. Look at the murder case of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome- definitely can be construed as a hate crime, yet it wasn't.
In any event, it's not illegal to not like someone because of some group they belong to- we have freedom of association. Is it in bad taste? Yes. Does it help further society any? No. Now it is illegal to carjack someone, kill someone, beat someone, etc. THAT should be the crime, because, again, how do you prove the motivating factors were something group-based? If they specifically admit to it, like in the case in Cicero, then you've got it. If they don't admit to it, how do you apply hate crime statutes and not set a precedent of eroding other people's rights to association?
Quote:
Putting restrictions on one group is not leveling the playing field, it's condoning the belief that all people are not equal and furthers the divide between them. It also punishes future generations- why should we punish a white male just because he happened to be born a white male? He can't change his skin color to suit someone else's PC quotas, I don't understand why this is okay.
Requiring the same standards for everyone, regardless of gender, creed, race, etc. is equality. Restrictions will just keep feeding the cycle.
| Originally Posted by frocher
If the entire motive of the car jacking was to hurt and demean the person you stole the car from, just because they belong to a certain group, the motive definitely matters and should be taken into account when that person it being punished. |
But how do you prove that? How can you prove that it was a racially/sexual orientation/gender orientation motivated incident and that it's not just tacking on more charges because it's an election year for that DA? 'Hate Crimes' have the potential to lead down very, very scary paths of precedent.
Quote:
| Hate crime is simply the name for that kind of offense. I think it is appropriate, because it is used to label crimes that were motivated by hate or bias against certain groups. And the notion that punishing people for hate crimes increases prejudice and bias perplexes me. |
It causes prejudice and bias because it's often applied unevenly because the definition of a hate crime is so vague. Look at the murder case of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome- definitely can be construed as a hate crime, yet it wasn't.
In any event, it's not illegal to not like someone because of some group they belong to- we have freedom of association. Is it in bad taste? Yes. Does it help further society any? No. Now it is illegal to carjack someone, kill someone, beat someone, etc. THAT should be the crime, because, again, how do you prove the motivating factors were something group-based? If they specifically admit to it, like in the case in Cicero, then you've got it. If they don't admit to it, how do you apply hate crime statutes and not set a precedent of eroding other people's rights to association?
Quote:
| Affirmative action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Are you seriously arguing that women and minorities should step aside to make more opportunities for white men? Historically, our legal system has favored one group over all others based on "race/gender or sexuality" : white heterosexual men. Changes have been made, over the last century, to try and level that playing field. I think that is a step in the right direction to true equality. |
Putting restrictions on one group is not leveling the playing field, it's condoning the belief that all people are not equal and furthers the divide between them. It also punishes future generations- why should we punish a white male just because he happened to be born a white male? He can't change his skin color to suit someone else's PC quotas, I don't understand why this is okay.
Requiring the same standards for everyone, regardless of gender, creed, race, etc. is equality. Restrictions will just keep feeding the cycle.
Beauty Mark
Well-known member
I think motivation is a big issue. I think anyone who attacks someone for a reason like race should be prosecuted harsher than someone who looks at the individual. To me, it's more cruel and they're honestly more likely to be a repeat offender because my motivation is really large.
Being a color blind society is NEVER going to be the solution. We will always come up with ways to discriminate against each other. We need to acknowledge our skin tones are different, many people are culturally different, and we need to learn how to all live in society without using race/gender/sexuality/etc. as an excuse to wrong another group.
As for AA, I'm for AA if it's looking at a larger picture. If a child did well in a shitty public school but didn't make the SAT scores for Harvard because of lack of opportunity to do well on those tests, I don't think s/he should be immediately dismissed. I think that should go regardless of race, gender, etc. If AA does that vs. the blanket race examination, I don't think it's a bad solution.
Being a color blind society is NEVER going to be the solution. We will always come up with ways to discriminate against each other. We need to acknowledge our skin tones are different, many people are culturally different, and we need to learn how to all live in society without using race/gender/sexuality/etc. as an excuse to wrong another group.
As for AA, I'm for AA if it's looking at a larger picture. If a child did well in a shitty public school but didn't make the SAT scores for Harvard because of lack of opportunity to do well on those tests, I don't think s/he should be immediately dismissed. I think that should go regardless of race, gender, etc. If AA does that vs. the blanket race examination, I don't think it's a bad solution.
Dizzy
Well-known member
AA and Harvard should have nothing to do with each other though- where in our laws grants the feds the right to determine who gets into a private college? That is between Harvard and the applicant, not Harvard, the feds and the applicant.
Laws will never erase discrimination- you're right when you said that people aren't going to just ignore those factors. But this isn't a situation that you can just throw laws at and think that everyone will be happy with it- laws don't fix problems, people do. People have to want to fix it or change it in order for it to happen, otherwise it'll be another useless law on the books that's only enforced in a blue moon and unevenly.
The "cruel" factor, I feel, should be left out of crimes- it's too circumstantial. Who is judging what is cruel? What if that person is a member of an extremist organization, like the Black Panthers, La Raza or the KKK? When has a crime ever been committed out of love or happiness or a willingness to share? How many times have you heard that one person loved someone else so much they just had to murder them and their entire family? These laws are there to deter crime because someone infringed on someone else's rights; it's not illegal to be cruel, it is illegal to infringe on someone else's rights.
Laws will never erase discrimination- you're right when you said that people aren't going to just ignore those factors. But this isn't a situation that you can just throw laws at and think that everyone will be happy with it- laws don't fix problems, people do. People have to want to fix it or change it in order for it to happen, otherwise it'll be another useless law on the books that's only enforced in a blue moon and unevenly.
The "cruel" factor, I feel, should be left out of crimes- it's too circumstantial. Who is judging what is cruel? What if that person is a member of an extremist organization, like the Black Panthers, La Raza or the KKK? When has a crime ever been committed out of love or happiness or a willingness to share? How many times have you heard that one person loved someone else so much they just had to murder them and their entire family? These laws are there to deter crime because someone infringed on someone else's rights; it's not illegal to be cruel, it is illegal to infringe on someone else's rights.
wolfsong
Well-known member
Quote:
This is why there is a complex legal system in place. They rely (as far as i know) on character assessments and background checks for signs of prejudice etc as well as questioning the suspect under oath in court. If someone was homophobic then they wouldnt hide it from everyone they have ever met - excluding the person they commit a crime against. Therefore there will be witnesses (friends, family, classmates, neighbours etc) to prejudice prior to the crime who can be called upon to testify against them. They also could be a repeat offender towards a particular minority, and this will go against them in court. I think it falls to close to slander to label someone a racist or a homophobe in court when there is no concrete proof.
Quote:
This is off thread topic but:
Fraud, theft and other illegal activities (including, but not limited to the sale of drugs and other unlawful goods) to benefit family, to provide for children and give them a good christmas etc.
Violence, rape, murder to avenge loved ones.
And i have heard plenty of times in the news about suicidal mothers killing their children before killing themselves (jumping off bridges and in front of trains seems to be the death of choice for these women, though there are the OD's and house fires...) because they love them too much to part with them in death or to let them survive without a mother, or suicide-murder cases (read: suicide pacts).
Honour killing/forced honour suicide (though it is questionable as to whether they can still call it love when their pride and honour comes before their blood).
I agree with those that say there is a clear difference between hate crimes and non-hate crimes for the reasons already mentioned, and that they should be viewed/treated differently when committed.
| Originally Posted by Dizzy
But how do you prove that? How can you prove that it was a racially/sexual orientation/gender orientation motivated incident and that it's not just tacking on more charges because it's an election year for that DA? 'Hate Crimes' have the potential to lead down very, very scary paths of precedent. |
This is why there is a complex legal system in place. They rely (as far as i know) on character assessments and background checks for signs of prejudice etc as well as questioning the suspect under oath in court. If someone was homophobic then they wouldnt hide it from everyone they have ever met - excluding the person they commit a crime against. Therefore there will be witnesses (friends, family, classmates, neighbours etc) to prejudice prior to the crime who can be called upon to testify against them. They also could be a repeat offender towards a particular minority, and this will go against them in court. I think it falls to close to slander to label someone a racist or a homophobe in court when there is no concrete proof.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Dizzy
When has a crime ever been committed out of love or happiness or a willingness to share? How many times have you heard that one person loved someone else so much they just had to murder them and their entire family? |
This is off thread topic but:
Fraud, theft and other illegal activities (including, but not limited to the sale of drugs and other unlawful goods) to benefit family, to provide for children and give them a good christmas etc.
Violence, rape, murder to avenge loved ones.
And i have heard plenty of times in the news about suicidal mothers killing their children before killing themselves (jumping off bridges and in front of trains seems to be the death of choice for these women, though there are the OD's and house fires...) because they love them too much to part with them in death or to let them survive without a mother, or suicide-murder cases (read: suicide pacts).
Honour killing/forced honour suicide (though it is questionable as to whether they can still call it love when their pride and honour comes before their blood).
I agree with those that say there is a clear difference between hate crimes and non-hate crimes for the reasons already mentioned, and that they should be viewed/treated differently when committed.
Dizzy
Well-known member
Quote:
That's all good and well- but again, how do you prove that THAT particular case was motivated by those factors? That's just proving that the person had a bias, not that it was a motive.
It's still not illegal to hate someone because of their group, and to make that so would set a scary precedent for restrictions on speech & religion, restrictions on freedom of association, the applications of laws being held under different standards for different people, etc. The Supreme Court even has issues with Hate Crime Laws for these reasons.
And I don't want to go off-topic either, but your point about honor killings and mothers committing murder/suicide with their kids is a good one. I hadn't thought of that.
| Originally Posted by wolfsong
This is why there is a complex legal system in place. They rely (as far as i know) on character assessments and background checks for signs of prejudice etc as well as questioning the suspect under oath in court. If someone was homophobic then they wouldnt hide it from everyone they have ever met - excluding the person they commit a crime against. Therefore there will be witnesses (friends, family, classmates, neighbours etc) to prejudice prior to the crime who can be called upon to testify against them. They also could be a repeat offender towards a particular minority, and this will go against them in court. I think it falls to close to slander to label someone a racist or a homophobe in court when there is no concrete proof. |
That's all good and well- but again, how do you prove that THAT particular case was motivated by those factors? That's just proving that the person had a bias, not that it was a motive.
It's still not illegal to hate someone because of their group, and to make that so would set a scary precedent for restrictions on speech & religion, restrictions on freedom of association, the applications of laws being held under different standards for different people, etc. The Supreme Court even has issues with Hate Crime Laws for these reasons.
And I don't want to go off-topic either, but your point about honor killings and mothers committing murder/suicide with their kids is a good one. I hadn't thought of that.
athena123
Well-known member
Well, this thread is a great indication that while we all agree that the crime itself was terrible, we DON'T all agree with the definition of or use of Hate Crimes. Interesting thread either way and I'm glad to see everyone in this forum is able to discuss important issues with intelligence and NOT devolve into flamewars and namecalling! Well done!
athena123
Well-known member
Quote:
Well said, not so Dizzy girl!
This is the underlying issue when it comes to hate crimes, affirmative action, political correctness. Anytime laws are passed to protect someone's perception of "their rights" will inevitably infringe upon the rights and freedoms of another. We shouldn't be so quick to undermine the personal freedoms our founding fathers were so careful to protect in the Bill of Rights. That all men are created equal and we all have the right to life, liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.
| Originally Posted by Dizzy
It's still not illegal to hate someone because of their group, and to make that so would set a scary precedent for restrictions on speech & religion, restrictions on freedom of association, the applications of laws being held under different standards for different people, etc. The Supreme Court even has issues with Hate Crime Laws for these reasons. |
Well said, not so Dizzy girl!
Ms. Z
Well-known member
Quote:
I agree!
Quote:
True he's a filthy piece of worthless trash, but I don't agree with this; that would make the person who inflicts this punishment at his same level. I also see it as agreeing with Rivera that this behavior/action is appropriate.
| Originally Posted by MACATTAK
This is horrible. Yeah..you hate gay people so you rape the man. What does that make you? That makes a lot of sense.... |
I agree!
Quote:
| Originally Posted by MACATTAK
This type of trash needs the same type of attack inflicted on him. |
True he's a filthy piece of worthless trash, but I don't agree with this; that would make the person who inflicts this punishment at his same level. I also see it as agreeing with Rivera that this behavior/action is appropriate.
wolfsong
Well-known member
Quote:
If a man who hated black women raped a black woman, then I can’t believe that the race and gender of the 'victim'* wasn’t an issue or - at least in part - a motivation for such an act. Have you ever hated or been afraid of a certain insect and killed it? Did you commit this act without thinking about your hatred/fear of said insect, and treated it like an insect you kill because it is annoying you (i.e. thought of the act/insect in the same fashion as you would any other)? Odd example, but makes sense in my head! Obviously this hatred/fear would almost always be a damn sight stronger between humans - perhaps with the exception of true phobias.
*I write 'victim' because some people take objection to being called that when they have suffered terrible things at the hands of others - some prefer 'survivor' etc.
Its not illegal to be prejudiced, nor is it illegal to voice beliefs. It is illegal to ACT on this prejudice, and to discriminate (outside of legal loopholes).
I agree that its lovely that a group of people with obvious differences in opinions can hold an adult discussion on a serious topic, and raise valid points - rather than slag each other off.
| Originally Posted by Dizzy
That's all good and well- but again, how do you prove that THAT particular case was motivated by those factors? That's just proving that the person had a bias, not that it was a motive. It's still not illegal to hate someone because of their group, and to make that so would set a scary precedent for restrictions on speech & religion, restrictions on freedom of association, the applications of laws being held under different standards for different people, etc. |
If a man who hated black women raped a black woman, then I can’t believe that the race and gender of the 'victim'* wasn’t an issue or - at least in part - a motivation for such an act. Have you ever hated or been afraid of a certain insect and killed it? Did you commit this act without thinking about your hatred/fear of said insect, and treated it like an insect you kill because it is annoying you (i.e. thought of the act/insect in the same fashion as you would any other)? Odd example, but makes sense in my head! Obviously this hatred/fear would almost always be a damn sight stronger between humans - perhaps with the exception of true phobias.
*I write 'victim' because some people take objection to being called that when they have suffered terrible things at the hands of others - some prefer 'survivor' etc.
Its not illegal to be prejudiced, nor is it illegal to voice beliefs. It is illegal to ACT on this prejudice, and to discriminate (outside of legal loopholes).
I agree that its lovely that a group of people with obvious differences in opinions can hold an adult discussion on a serious topic, and raise valid points - rather than slag each other off.
