TigerHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,808
|
Post by TigerHoya on Apr 22, 2008 8:22:13 GMT -5
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Apr 22, 2008 9:43:24 GMT -5
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Apr 22, 2008 9:51:50 GMT -5
I hope the Hoya steps up and makes this front page news. This was one of the biggest stories of the year and it would be unfair to all the parties invovled to bury this in the back pages
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Apr 22, 2008 13:10:40 GMT -5
I get the impression they didn't want to base the prosecution on a Facebook fingering, three weeks after the fact. Seems like sound investigative work to me.
|
|
moe09
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by moe09 on Apr 22, 2008 13:15:05 GMT -5
They should definitely write something considering the way some groups on campus and others treated the kid even before a trial could occur. Of course, the trial being dropped doesn't necessarily mean he's innocent either, but the way he was treated before was definitely unfair. Here's The Hoya article: www.thehoya.com/node/15956
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 22, 2008 13:16:16 GMT -5
|
|
hoyaLS05
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by hoyaLS05 on Apr 22, 2008 14:05:37 GMT -5
I hope the Hoya steps up and makes this front page news. This was one of the biggest stories of the year and it would be unfair to all the parties invovled to bury this in the back pages Yeah, this story, like every other story about this incident last fall, was the paper's lead story -- top right hand corner of the cover.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Apr 22, 2008 15:29:27 GMT -5
I hope the Hoya steps up and makes this front page news. This was one of the biggest stories of the year and it would be unfair to all the parties invovled to bury this in the back pages Yeah, this story, like every other story about this incident last fall, was the paper's lead story -- top right hand corner of the cover. Sorry, I didn't get so see today's article before I posted, I just hoped that the late breaking news wouldn't be pushed back
|
|
JimmyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Hoya fan, est. 1986
Posts: 1,867
|
Post by JimmyHoya on Apr 24, 2008 15:09:43 GMT -5
It would be an absolute crime if they don't make this a front page story. The shenanigans Cooney has faced the past 5 months has been ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Apr 24, 2008 17:53:29 GMT -5
It would be an absolute crime if they don't make this a front page story. The shenanigans Cooney has faced the past 5 months has been ridiculous. Like what?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,866
|
Post by thebin on Apr 30, 2008 9:57:22 GMT -5
The concept of "hate crimes" - where by definition one victim's rights are inferior to another's based on immutable facts of his/her DNA- ought to make anybody's skin crawl. It certainly does mine.
|
|
|
Post by lightbulbbandit on Apr 30, 2008 11:04:38 GMT -5
The concept of "hate crimes" - where by definition one victim's rights are inferior to another's based on immutable facts of his/her DNA- ought to make anybody's skin crawl. It certainly does mine. Except that is not what hate crime laws actually do, unless you think the only purpose of criminal sanctions is to make the victim feel better. The point of hate crime laws (or at least what the point should be, I won't get into the use of them as campaign issues and pandering to the month's favored minority) is that when a person attacks an individual or group solely because of that person's real or perceived membership in a certain class/group/etc then the criminal is more likely to do so again. When there is a criminal who society believes is more likely to commit a crime against people with a particular identity solely because of that particular identity then society has an interest in that criminal's incapacitation for a longer time.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,866
|
Post by thebin on Apr 30, 2008 11:29:35 GMT -5
1. Where is the evidence for this grand assertion that someone who beats someone up for money or because they are a crack head or pyschotic is less likely to repeat the crime than someone who beats someone up out racial or sexual prejudice? That sounds like a grand social science pronouncement big on the social and really short on the science.
2. The idea of criminal charges being brought with specific regard to the mindset of the perpetrator as opposed to his/her actions alone makes the mind reel.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,817
Member is Online
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Apr 30, 2008 11:39:56 GMT -5
1. Where is the evidence for this grand assertion that someone who beats someone up for money is less likely to repeat than someone who beats someone up out of prejudice? 2. The idea of criminal charges being brought with specific regard to the mindset of the perpetrator as opposed to his/her actions alone makes the mind reel. Um, your point #2...there's a very big difference between voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. What was in your mindset, i.e. if you did something intentionally, if you were simply careless/negligent because you didn't care, or if you actually believed you were doing all you could to prevent something - all of these are very much a part of law and a basis for determining fault. And I think they should be. With regard to hate crimes, lightbulbbandit is a little bit off on the main justification. A hate crime is meant to be a crime not against an individual (although it is also that), but against an entire group, designed to threated, intimidate, or otherwise coerce the behavior of the group. Put another way, it's terrorism in the most basic sense. It is a separate offense from the individual crime. The idea is that punishing such attacks more severely will discourage the use of violence to promote social change. Society has an interest in not having its social changes be adopted through certain processes, i.e. elections, raised awareness, etc. and not through violence. To that extent, it is logical for society to more harshly punish what amounts to being a crime against society.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,866
|
Post by thebin on Apr 30, 2008 11:46:43 GMT -5
1. Where is the evidence for this grand assertion that someone who beats someone up for money is less likely to repeat than someone who beats someone up out of prejudice? 2. The idea of criminal charges being brought with specific regard to the mindset of the perpetrator as opposed to his/her actions alone makes the mind reel. Um, your point #2...there's a very big difference between voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. What was in your mindset, i.e. if you did something intentionally, if you were simply careless/negligent because you didn't care, or if you actually believed you were doing all you could to prevent something - all of these are very much a part of law and a basis for determining fault. And I think they should be. With regard to hate crimes, lightbulbbandit is a little bit off on the main justification. A hate crime is meant to be a crime not against an individual (although it is also that), but against an entire group, designed to threated, intimidate, or otherwise coerce the behavior of the group. Put another way, it's terrorism in the most basic sense. It is a separate offense from the individual crime. The idea is that punishing such attacks more severely will discourage the use of violence to promote social change. Society has an interest in not having its social changes be adopted through certain processes, i.e. elections, raised awareness, etc. and not through violence. To that extent, it is logical for society to more harshly punish what amounts to being a crime against society. Manslaughter and murder are not the same crime. Beating the crap out of someone for their money or because they drive a purple car is the same crime. Are you assuming that someone might accidentally beat up someone who is gay but they really didnt intend to because they thought they were just shaking their hand? Let's not get bogged down in a straw man argument about intent versus accidental crims. Nobody is presuming that in one case a perp inadvertantly beat someone up when drunk when they just meant to cross the street.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,866
|
Post by thebin on Apr 30, 2008 11:56:52 GMT -5
"The idea is that punishing such attacks more severely will discourage the use of violence to promote social change. Society has an interest in not having its social changes be adopted through certain processes, i.e. elections, raised awareness, etc. and not through violence. To that extent, it is logical for society to more harshly punish what amounts to being a crime against society. "
Of course the above is a completely unworkable premise when practiced in the real world of criminal justice. Trust moron cops and electable political prosecuters to discern intent in every case of battery huh? Result- victims who belong to the right victim class get more justice than those that do not. Belong to the wrong victim group? Don't worry, by definition you are not eligible for the hate crimes Justice Bonus so that settles that.
I wonder how many cases of hate crimes have been brought to trial for white straight victims. I am assuming WELL under 1% of all hate crimes charges ever brought. But you know, there are not a lot of white straight people in America. Remove Jews from that group and I wouldn't be surprised if that number were flat out zero.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,866
|
Post by thebin on Apr 30, 2008 15:04:13 GMT -5
And lawyers correct me if I am wrong, but the intent to commit a crime, the element of mens rea needed to have commited a crime, would cease to be a factor as long as one considered that a perpetrator was in fact ATTEMPTING to beat the crap out of someone for example. Whereas WHY they wanted to beat that person up is of no cosequence to what admitedly few elements of common law I know. That is no small difference- are you trying to do what you must know is illegal vs WHY are you trying to do that exactly....... The former seems to be a question for police, prosecuters and juries to ponder- the latter it seems should only preocupy shrinks.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,817
Member is Online
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Apr 30, 2008 15:34:19 GMT -5
And lawyers correct me if I am wrong, but the intent to commit a crime, the element of mens rea needed to have commited a crime, would cease to be a factor as long as one considered that a perpetrator was in fact ATTEMPTING to beat the crap out of someone for example. Whereas WHY they wanted to beat that person up is of no cosequence to what admitedly few elements of common law I know. That is no small difference- are you trying to do what you must know is illegal vs WHY are you trying to do that exactly....... The former seems to be a question for police, prosecuters and juries to ponder- the latter it seems should only preocupy shrinks. As I said, the idea is that hate crime provision is considered to be not a crime against a person, but a crime against society. For ascertaining whether or not this crime has been committed, intent is indeed important. More specifically, as to " are you trying to do what you must know is illegal vs WHY are you trying to do that exactly....... The RICO act would be a good example of this. Individual crimes are not punished as harshly as those committed as part of an organization. Hell, something legal like owning a pizza parlor as part of such an organization is illegal. The "why you're doing it" becomes important. I wonder how many cases of hate crimes have been brought to trial for white straight victims. I am assuming WELL under 1% of all hate crimes charges ever brought. But you know, there are not a lot of white straight people in America. Remove Jews from that group and I wouldn't be surprised if that number were flat out zero.Prejudiced much? Alas, the facts get in the way: 2006 FBI hate crime statistics - www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/victims.htmlAmong the single-bias hate crime incidents in 2006, there were 5,020 victims of racially motivated hate crime. 66.4 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-black bias. 21.0 percent were victims of an anti-white bias.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,866
|
Post by thebin on Apr 30, 2008 16:34:30 GMT -5
So black on white violence is less than a third as common as white on black violence huh? That seems about right to you? Must be because you are so enlightened and I am so racist I guess. Adjusted for percentages of violent crimes commited by race in this country, those numbers you cite, while not close to what I predicted, still reflect an astounding preference for mysteriously finding extra bonus hate crimes against whites rather than doing so against blacks. If you think acknowledging the fact that blacks commite a disproportionate number of the nation's violent crimes makes me a racist, you are too stupid to discuss this with. "According to victims and witnesses, blacks committed 68.5 percent of all murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults in New York last year, though they are only 24 percent of the city’s population. Whites, who make up 34.5 percent of New Yorkers, committed 5.3 percent of those crimes. Blacks are nearly 13 times more likely to commit violent crimes than whites." www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-02-07hm.html
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 30, 2008 16:42:08 GMT -5
And lawyers correct me if I am wrong, but the intent to commit a crime, the element of mens rea needed to have commited a crime, would cease to be a factor as long as one considered that a perpetrator was in fact ATTEMPTING to beat the crap out of someone for example. Whereas WHY they wanted to beat that person up is of no cosequence to what admitedly few elements of common law I know. That is no small difference- are you trying to do what you must know is illegal vs WHY are you trying to do that exactly....... The former seems to be a question for police, prosecuters and juries to ponder- the latter it seems should only preocupy shrinks. I can't recall how it works in other states, but in Texas the judge or jury makes a separate finding as to whether the crime was a hate crime. When a defendant is found guilty of the charged crime, that determination of guilt is separate from the determination of whether a hate crime occurred. So, for example, if an assault occurred, a Texas jury could find someone guilty of the assault but refuse to find the defendant committed a hate crime. It's a little bit like seeking the death penalty -- it's within the prosecutor's discretion to seek hate crime classification, and it requires the trier of fact's approval. So, to actually answer your question, the mental state required for a finding that a crime was a hate crime is separate from the crime itself. It's often extremely difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant intentionally singled out a victim based on race/religion/gender/sexual preference/whatever else. I can't speak for the other states, but this is a major reason that Texas' hate crime statute is almost never used.
|
|