H2Oya 05
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Let's go Hoyas!
Posts: 298
|
Post by H2Oya 05 on Apr 10, 2006 8:37:04 GMT -5
Not to get ahead of ourselves, but on the topic of hate crimes, if the women is lying and is falsely accusing the duke lacrosse players because they are white, because they are affluent, because they go to duke, or some similar reason, is that a hate crime?
|
|
aggypryd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by aggypryd on Apr 10, 2006 9:17:50 GMT -5
Something I've wondered from the beginning: what if the roles were reversed? What if a white girl said she was raped by some people on the Grambling football team and the people who raped her were black? Would it be ok to paint everyone black player with the same brush and make them submit to a DNA test but not the one or two white players on team? I bet Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al would be all over that crying racial profiling and this and that. you don't need to go to Grambling... NCCU is an HBCU also... I guarantee you that those boys wouldn't be hiding behind lawyers...they'd already be in jail if they were Black...
|
|
Madgesdiq
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,434
|
Post by Madgesdiq on Apr 10, 2006 10:06:26 GMT -5
Thanks to the link that hoyalawya posted, we can see the postion of the State of NC on this precise subject: In North Carolina, a hate crime is defined as a crime or violent incident perpetrated against someone solely because of his or her race, religion, or national origin/ethnicity. Hate crimes target individual victims, but they also victimize the entire community by creating fear, anger and mistrust.What a poorly reasoned statute. Under the statute, if a masked male rapist was successfully targeting women of all ethnicities on the college campus of John Doe University, and thus creating an atmosphere of fear, anger and mistrust among all women on campus, that is not a hate crime. However, if a masked male rapist is specifically targeting Asian women on campus, leaving notes with anti-Asian epithets and creating an atmosphere of fear anger and mistrust among that specific group, it is a hate crime. In such hypothetical situation, if in scenario #1 the police find a poster of Osama Bin Laden in the perps room, and a journal indicating that he was targeting US women for their promiscuity and failure to abide to Allah's dress code, does it then become a hate crime? What if in scenario #2, the perp winds up being Asian and says he was targeting asian classmates that he was attracted to but had spurned his advances and leaving notes to throw off the police, is it no longer a hate crime? All intentional crimes of violence are hate crimes, and the notion that you can legislate against the thought that accompanies a violent crime is absurd.
|
|
tgo
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 799
|
Post by tgo on Apr 10, 2006 10:22:19 GMT -5
not to hijack this thread or anything but I would love to hear from someone who thinks hate crimes laws are a good idea. i have never heard a defense of them. in such a defense i would like to know why as a society we should punish someone less for raping (or murdering or whatever the heinous offense) someone if they do it just because they are a despicable person who doesnt deserve to live. why does that person get off easier? what kind of world do we hope to create with such a law that doesnt look at the actions of an individual when judging them but their thoughts and doesnt treat victims equally when the same act has been committed against them? Obviously my opinion is that rape is rape. there may be circumstances to take into account like the age of the victim when handing out punishment but i cant see how the comparative races of the victim vs the assailant matter in any way.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,856
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Apr 10, 2006 11:26:52 GMT -5
What bothers me about hate crime laws is the fact that their very existence suggests that the penalties for murder and rape aren't strong enough. I feel that the penalties for such crimes should be so severe that there is no room to make them tougher based on a factor like race.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Apr 10, 2006 12:43:12 GMT -5
I am not a lawyer and this post is not intended to defend or attack hate crimes laws, but let's at least have a basic understanding of what these laws are and why they were written and passed. They are not based solely on the races of those who commit and fall victim to crimes.
Please read it again.
In North Carolina, a hate crime is defined as a crime or violent incident perpetrated against someone solely because of his or her race, religion, or national origin/ethnicity. Hate crimes target individual victims, but they also victimize the entire community by creating fear, anger and mistrust.
It is intended to identify crimes committed against an individual SOLELY because of their race/ethnicity/religion/national origin.
And why? Because those crimes are commited with the INTENTION of creating fear/anger/etc. in the entire community, beyond the horror of the specific crime -- therefore compounding the impact of the original crime.
Perhaps one might equate it with ethnic cleansing, KKK attacks, that Wyoming killing of the gay man, or any of a wide number of historical precendents.
Of course a one-on-one attack is awful. The theory apparently is that a one-on-one attack that is intended to have a more far reaching and intimidating impact is even worse.
Whether or not this is a good idea or an effective set of laws, it is not the simplistic practice that some in this thread have suggested. Nor is it some invention of a radical part of our society. It is law in many states. Including both red and blue states.
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Apr 10, 2006 13:09:12 GMT -5
Good post SirSaxa. I'm pretty ambivalent on this topic, but there is a case to be made for hate crime laws - putting aside how they are enforced and implemented - when one gets past all the rhetoric.
Take a nation like Iraq, where you have a deeply split populace with roiling tensions on both sides. Suppose a Sunni kills a Shia for worshiping incorrectly. In the unlikely event that the government was able to enforce the laws in this situation, one could definitely make an argument that the ethnically motivated character of the crime tends to increase tensions and invite retribution against other innocents. The momentary result is the same as if it had been a dispute over a girlfriend - a man is dead and another guy killed him in anger. But the implications are far larger. The rhetorical gamble that "all murders are hate crimes" that you hear occassionally is simplistic, at best.
Again, I do not believe this to be analagous in all but the broadest strokes to the USA, but I'm just trying to give a little perspective on what a hate crimes law hopes to accomplish. In essence, it makes an example of a person, which is always a dicey thing to do, but it's something that our justice system does all the time (the death penalty, anyone?)
Back to the issue at hand - can't we wait to see what happens with this whole mess?
|
|
tgo
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 799
|
Post by tgo on Apr 10, 2006 13:18:05 GMT -5
i would argue that a rape is targeted specifically against women and creates fear etc among women. I would also argue that a murder is targeting humans, and creates fear in that community.
any time a rape or murder occurs i think it creates fear, anger & mistrust in every community. As a man am i not angry and fearful when there is a rapist on the loose or do i not worry about it since he is not looking to rape me specifically?
I see your examples of the Klan and similar mob violence whose goal goes beyond the crime itself but to echo CTHoya08, why are the punishments for rape & murder not already sufficiently severe? there should be no where to go on these punishments, they should be as high as our society will allow.
Also, I don’t think that every time someone commits a crime where the choice of victim is made due to racial bias/ anger etc they are targeting an entire community. if you disagree, then would you argue that any rape targets the entire female population? if not, then why does the entire female population not get the same deference that a subset of that population gets? In the Duke scandal, assuming rape(s) did occur and assuming that the rapists denigrated her not just as a woman and human but also as a black woman and human, it seems to still be a jump from there to say that their intent was to create a widespread fear in the black female population of their area.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 10, 2006 13:46:25 GMT -5
All intentional crimes of violence are hate crimes, and the notion that you can legislate against the thought that accompanies a violent crime is absurd. Actually, criminal laws put an emphasis upon subjective state of mind. For example, if you shoot someone, whether or not you knew the gun was loaded might be an issue at your trial. This is not anything new. Here's a quote from 1942: "The theory of the criminal law is different. Here it is still felt necessary to investigate a man's secret thought, or absence of thought, whenever intention, or malice, or even negligence is an element of the crime in question." If you're looking for statutes that make perfect sense in every hypothetical situation, you're going to be looking for a long time. We make laws to address general problems, be they real or perceived. SirSaxa did a very good job of illustrating why these laws exist. I'll add that here in Texas, our hate crimes statute is known as the James Byrd Act. If there's an argument against these statutes, it's that race is such a charged issue that the law might be misused. In the Duke case, might an elected DA, surrounded by a media circus and a large black community, feel pressured to seek prosecution under the NC Hate Crimes Act, even if doing so is not warranted by the facts? Might a jury be overly zealous to convict? I don't think "thought police" is an effective argument against these statutes, since examining mental states is nothing new in the field of criminal law. Even if you maintain these laws create "thought police," it's thought police supported by a democratic majority.
|
|
Madgesdiq
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,434
|
Post by Madgesdiq on Apr 10, 2006 14:08:49 GMT -5
All intentional crimes of violence are hate crimes, and the notion that you can legislate against the thought that accompanies a violent crime is absurd. Actually, criminal laws put an emphasis upon subjective state of mind. For example, if you shoot someone, whether or not you knew the gun was loaded might be an issue at your trial. This is not anything new. Here's a quote from 1942: "The theory of the criminal law is different. Here it is still felt necessary to investigate a man's secret thought, or absence of thought, whenever intention, or malice, or even negligence is an element of the crime in question." If you're looking for statutes that make perfect sense in every hypothetical situation, you're going to be looking for a long time. We make laws to address general problems, be they real or perceived. SirSaxa did a very good job of illustrating why these laws exist. I'll add that here in Texas, our hate crimes statute is known as the James Byrd Act. If there's an argument against these statutes, it's that race is such a charged issue that the law might be misused. In the Duke case, might an elected DA, surrounded by a media circus and a large black community, feel pressured to seek prosecution under the NC Hate Crimes Act, even if doing so is not warranted by the facts? Might a jury be overly zealous to convict? I don't think "thought police" is an effective argument against these statutes, since examining mental states is nothing new in the field of criminal law. Even if you maintain these laws create "thought police," it's thought police supported by a democratic majority. Logically fallacious in every respect. The fact that "it is law in many states" blue, red, green or purple doesn't mean that it is good law. Jim Crow laws were once supported by a democratic majority; Proposition 187 passed with flying colors; as did anti-gay marriage referendums in any state they were presented in. Legislation is subject to judicial review, and arguing that something is the law doesn't make it right. Legislation passed to appeal to the emotions, whether it be "hate crime laws", "three strike laws", or "sexual predator laws" are often opportunistic and constitutionally questionable. Putting a face to a horrific crime, whether it is James Byrd or Matt Shepard, or Jessica Lunsford or Megan Kanka, does not mean that legislation rushed through in the aftermath is by defintion good legislation.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 10, 2006 14:22:15 GMT -5
Logically fallacious in every respect. Care to say why?
|
|
Madgesdiq
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,434
|
Post by Madgesdiq on Apr 10, 2006 14:37:15 GMT -5
I am not a lawyer and this post is not intended to defend or attack hate crimes laws, but let's at least have a basic understanding of what these laws are and why they were written and passed. They are not based solely on the races of those who commit and fall victim to crimes. Please read it again. In North Carolina, a hate crime is defined as a crime or violent incident perpetrated against someone solely because of his or her race, religion, or national origin/ethnicity. Hate crimes target individual victims, but they also victimize the entire community by creating fear, anger and mistrust.It is intended to identify crimes committed against an individual SOLELY because of their race/ethnicity/religion/national origin. And why? Because those crimes are commited with the INTENTION of creating fear/anger/etc. in the entire community, beyond the horror of the specific crime -- therefore compounding the impact of the original crime. Why wouldn't any serial killer or serial rapist in a given community, but especially one like Ted Bundy, BTK or Son of Sam, who leaves calling cards with the specific intention of causing fear or anger in such given community, be guilty of a hate crime? Son of Sam had all of NYC locked in their apartments for 4 months. The same for the DC sniper. When did word community get hijacked by the PC thought police to mean other than "a group of people living in a particular local area."
|
|
Madgesdiq
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,434
|
Post by Madgesdiq on Apr 10, 2006 14:38:18 GMT -5
i would argue that a rape is targeted specifically against women and creates fear etc among women. I would also argue that a murder is targeting humans, and creates fear in that community. any time a rape or murder occurs i think it creates fear, anger & mistrust in every community. As a man am i not angry and fearful when there is a rapist on the loose or do i not worry about it since he is not looking to rape me specifically? I see your examples of the Klan and similar mob violence whose goal goes beyond the crime itself but to echo CTHoya08, why are the punishments for rape & murder not already sufficiently severe? there should be no where to go on these punishments, they should be as high as our society will allow. Also, I don’t think that every time someone commits a crime where the choice of victim is made due to racial bias/ anger etc they are targeting an entire community. if you disagree, then would you argue that any rape targets the entire female population? if not, then why does the entire female population not get the same deference that a subset of that population gets? In the Duke scandal, assuming rape(s) did occur and assuming that the rapists denigrated her not just as a woman and human but also as a black woman and human, it seems to still be a jump from there to say that their intent was to create a widespread fear in the black female population of their area. I agree with this post 100%.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Apr 10, 2006 14:49:14 GMT -5
i would argue that a rape is targeted specifically against women and creates fear etc among women. I would also argue that a murder is targeting humans, and creates fear in that community. any time a rape or murder occurs i think it creates fear, anger & mistrust in every community. As a man am i not angry and fearful when there is a rapist on the loose or do i not worry about it since he is not looking to rape me specifically? I see your examples of the Klan and similar mob violence whose goal goes beyond the crime itself but to echo CTHoya08, why are the punishments for rape & murder not already sufficiently severe? there should be no where to go on these punishments, they should be as high as our society will allow. Also, I don’t think that every time someone commits a crime where the choice of victim is made due to racial bias/ anger etc they are targeting an entire community. if you disagree, then would you argue that any rape targets the entire female population? if not, then why does the entire female population not get the same deference that a subset of that population gets? In the Duke scandal, assuming rape(s) did occur and assuming that the rapists denigrated her not just as a woman and human but also as a black woman and human, it seems to still be a jump from there to say that their intent was to create a widespread fear in the black female population of their area. I agree with this post 100%. Does it make complete sense in every context? No. Is the logic used in hate crimes statutes consistent with that which underlies other statutes? Probably not. However, it is the law it has been passed by the duly elected state legislature of North Carolina and signed by the governor. Your arguments seem to go to whether the law should be law in the first plage Mag and tgo - it may be bad law but bad law can still be applicable and as an attorney I would rather apply it than risk opening myself up to a malpracitce or negligence law suit. The fact is if you don't like the law thats a discussion best brought up with the legislature, this has to do with potential criminal charges not with whether the law these players allegedly broke is good law or bad law. There is a significant amount of case law and jurisprudence that regards hate crimes law as constitutional, justiciable, and enforcable - the only way to overturn such a law is through the use of the legislative process.
|
|
aggypryd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by aggypryd on Apr 10, 2006 14:51:34 GMT -5
I am not a lawyer and this post is not intended to defend or attack hate crimes laws, but let's at least have a basic understanding of what these laws are and why they were written and passed. They are not based solely on the races of those who commit and fall victim to crimes. Please read it again. In North Carolina, a hate crime is defined as a crime or violent incident perpetrated against someone solely because of his or her race, religion, or national origin/ethnicity. Hate crimes target individual victims, but they also victimize the entire community by creating fear, anger and mistrust.It is intended to identify crimes committed against an individual SOLELY because of their race/ethnicity/religion/national origin. And why? Because those crimes are commited with the INTENTION of creating fear/anger/etc. in the entire community, beyond the horror of the specific crime -- therefore compounding the impact of the original crime. Why wouldn't any serial killer or serial rapist in a given community, but especially one like Ted Bundy, BTK or Son of Sam, who leaves calling cards with the specific intention of causing fear or anger in such given community, be guilty of a hate crime? Son of Sam had all of NYC locked in their apartments for 4 months. The same for the DC sniper. When did word community get hijacked by the PC thought police to mean other than "a group of people living in a particular local area." If you read the definition of a hate crime, you'd see why the DC Sniper wouldn't fall under this statute...
|
|
Madgesdiq
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,434
|
Post by Madgesdiq on Apr 10, 2006 15:14:49 GMT -5
I agree with this post 100%. Your arguments seem to go to whether the law should be law in the first plage Mag and tgo - it may be bad law but bad law can still be applicable The fact is if you don't like the law thats a discussion best brought up with the legislature, this has to do with potential criminal charges not with whether the law these players allegedly broke is good law or bad law. There is a significant amount of case law and jurisprudence that regards hate crimes law as constitutional, justiciable, and enforcable - the only way to overturn such a law is through the use of the legislative process. I am really rusty on this, but I think that Mitchell and RAV are the two Supreme Court Cases on hate crimes and they are decided differently. I don't think case law is completely settled. I am against any laws that can be selectively and disproportionally applied, creating different classes of victims for the same offense. Again, did the Columbine killers commit a "hate crime" against the one african-american kid they executed while run of the mill murder against the students they killed because they were jocks or popular. Applying the North Carolina law, the answer is yes, and to me, that is wrong.
|
|
Madgesdiq
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,434
|
Post by Madgesdiq on Apr 10, 2006 15:27:38 GMT -5
Why wouldn't any serial killer or serial rapist in a given community, but especially one like Ted Bundy, BTK or Son of Sam, who leaves calling cards with the specific intention of causing fear or anger in such given community, be guilty of a hate crime? Son of Sam had all of NYC locked in their apartments for 4 months. The same for the DC sniper. When did word community get hijacked by the PC thought police to mean other than "a group of people living in a particular local area." If you read the definition of a hate crime, you'd see why the DC Sniper wouldn't fall under this statute... So if hypothetically if the radical Islam of John Muhammed caused him to target "Americans" as opposed to the accepted notion that his violence was a result of his failed marriage and military service, should one motive for his killing spree necessitate a different and more severe punishment than the other? If you target American citizens are you a terrorist or a "hate criminal"? Is one worse than the other? Aren't the victims dead in both cases. The Mitchell case in Wisconsin involved some African-American youths who watched Mississippi Burning and then beat a white kid named Reddick into a coma. They received double the sentence that they would have received if they had just been after his watch or his Nikes. Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed stating that the Wisconsin statute violated the black youths right to hold bigoted views under the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed and upheld the conviction. Why? Is a hate induced coma worse than one instigated by the motive of robbery. What if one of Mitchell's assailants wanted his Nike's and the other beat him up because he was white. Should assailant #2 get a more severe penalty? Does the answer change if assailant #2 just punched the kid once in the gut while assailant #1 beat him with a baseball bat? Sorry. It doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 10, 2006 15:31:44 GMT -5
Logically fallacious in every respect. The fact that "it is law in many states" blue, red, green or purple doesn't mean that it is good law. Jim Crow laws were once supported by a democratic majority; Proposition 187 passed with flying colors; as did anti-gay marriage referendums in any state they were presented in. Legislation is subject to judicial review, and arguing that something is the law doesn't make it right. Legislation passed to appeal to the emotions, whether it be "hate crime laws", "three strike laws", or "sexual predator laws" are often opportunistic and constitutionally questionable. Putting a face to a horrific crime, whether it is James Byrd or Matt Shepard, or Jessica Lunsford or Megan Kanka, does not mean that legislation rushed through in the aftermath is by defintion good legislation. So by "every respect" you meant the last sentence of my argument? What is the true measure of whether a law is "good legislation?" It appears that for you it's whether or not Madgesdiq agrees with it. What's strange is that many of the "bad laws" you list were done away with democratically. (How were Jim Crow laws dealt with? The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.) As Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." It's my personal opinion that people should be free to make all the idiotic laws they want. The true measure of whether a law is "good" is its support by a majority of citizens. How about my assertion that examining mental states is common throughout criminal law, which doesn't square well with your "This is Thought Police!" argument? As for not having special legislation for serial killers "terrorizing the community," this is a weak argument. As I said above, laws deal with specific problems. If serial killings became a widespread problem in, say, Arkansas, then yes, Arkansas could and should pass legislation to deal with this problem (of course it's not really an issue because if you're on trial for 13 murders you're screwed already if convicted). The people of N. Carolina passed a statute with the intent of protecting specific communities. You'll find state laws protect children disproportionately as well. Does this create two classes of offenders? No, it's simply putting the values of society into law. In the case of hate crimes legislation, there is probably more politics mixed in (politicians attempting to attract minority voters might vote for hate crimes legislation), but the same principle applies. Whether it is "right" to favor certain groups in criminal law is up to the people and their elected legislators. Did you write a paper on this at GU or something?
|
|
Madgesdiq
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,434
|
Post by Madgesdiq on Apr 10, 2006 15:52:43 GMT -5
As for not having special legislation for serial killers terrorizing the community; this is a weak argument. As I said above, laws deal with specific problems. If serial killings became a widespread problem in, say, Arkansas, then yes, Arkansas could and should pass legislation to deal with this problem (of course it's not really an issue because if you're on trial for 13 murders you're screwed already if convicted). The people of N. Carolina passed a statute with the intent of protecting specific communities. You'll find state laws protect children disproportionately as well. Does this create two classes of offenders? No, it's simply putting the values of society into law. In the case of hate crimes legislation, there is probably more politics mixed in (politicians attempting to attract minority voters might vote for hate crimes legislation), but the same principle applies. Whether it is "right" to favor certain groups in criminal law is up to the people and their elected legislators. Did you write a paper on this at GU or something? Let's agree to disagree. Your argument ignores the facts of how hate crime laws are selectively applied. The Mitchell case is the Supreme Court precedent with respect to 'hate crimes' and it involves black youths beating the tar out of a white kid. I would bet that statistically in Wisconsin that Jeffrey Dahmer inspired more fear in the homosexual community with his serial murders than a handful of black teens running around causing one night of trouble did in Madison's white community. If Dahmer had been straight and targeting homosexuals, would his crimes have been worse? Yet, under Wisconsin law, the wilding teenagers were charged with a hate crime. I doubt that Rehnquist's decision in Mitchell makes whites in Wisconsin sleep better at night.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Apr 10, 2006 16:05:17 GMT -5
Again, did the Columbine killers commit a "hate crime" against the one african-american kid they executed while run of the mill murder against the students they killed because they were jocks or popular. Applying the North Carolina law, the answer is yes, and to me, that is wrong. Perhaps you might read the NC quote again. Quite clearly, applying the NC law the answer would have been "NO". The quote about the NC law says nothing to indicate the killing of the one black student at Columbine would have been viewed any differently from all the other killings at Columbine. In North Carolina, a hate crime is defined as a crime or violent incident perpetrated against someone solely because of his or her race, religion, or national origin/ethnicity.If you believe hate crime laws are misguided, that is one thing. But understanding what the laws say is a necessary precondition to presenting a cogent case against them.
|
|