Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 09-19-2019, 01:00 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by UCBearcats View Post
Given the racial makeup of this act, why are they not being charge with a hate crime? Imho I hope none of these guys are out for a couple decades.
As I understand it, Minnesota doesn't have a specific 'hate crime' charge that they could be charged with, instead there are enhanced penalites attached to the base crime if they're shown to be motivated bias against specific protected classes (of which race is one). So Minnesota doesn't ever charge someone with a 'hate crime', they charge them with a regular crime then as part of the trial attempt to prove that the additional penalty applies.
  #102  
Old 09-19-2019, 01:01 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
And when you can demonstrate that the attack was because of a specific value of one of those classes then you have a hate crime.
18 white people doing that to a black person and itíd be automatically assumed. Seems political.
  #103  
Old 09-19-2019, 01:03 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,130
I wanna know why white people can't have their own parades.
  #104  
Old 09-19-2019, 01:14 PM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
18 white people doing that to a black person and itíd be automatically assumed. Seems political.
People can assume whatever they want. It still has to get proven in a court of law, with evidence, in order for there to be a hate crime conviction.
  #105  
Old 09-19-2019, 01:21 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Just outside of Titletown
Posts: 22,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
18 white people doing that to a black person and itíd be automatically assumed. Seems political.
And yet, that's not what the law says.
  #106  
Old 09-19-2019, 01:26 PM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Retired Straight Dope Staff
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Shore of LI
Posts: 19,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
18 white people doing that to a black person and it’d be automatically assumed. Seems political.


And that would be the historical context that I keep referring to. These laws didn’t just pop out of nowhere.
  #107  
Old 09-19-2019, 02:18 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Every human is in at least 8 of the classes Machine Elf listed.
You're right, the law DOES actually protect everyone, and not just minorities.
  #108  
Old 09-19-2019, 02:23 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,397
Again, I don't think the real dispute in this thread is whether the legal criteria is met for a hate crime or not. I think people are simply asking that the same standard be applied to all races. If one immediately considers whites beating up blacks to be hate motivated, then it should be the same vice versa - and ditto if one does not rush to label blacks beating whites as a hate crime, either.
  #109  
Old 09-19-2019, 02:26 PM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Again, I don't think the real dispute in this thread is whether the legal criteria is met for a hate crime or not. I think people are simply asking that the same standard be applied to all races. If one immediately considers whites beating up blacks to be hate motivated, then it should be the same vice versa - and ditto if one does not rush to label blacks beating whites as a hate crime, either.
The legal standard is not what one "immediately considers," it is what can be proven in a court of law. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
  #110  
Old 09-19-2019, 02:29 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Again, I don't think the real dispute in this thread is whether the legal criteria is met for a hate crime or not. I think people are simply asking that the same standard be applied to all races. If one immediately considers whites beating up blacks to be hate motivated, then it should be the same vice versa - and ditto if one does not rush to label blacks beating whites as a hate crime, either.
The problem with this sort of complaint is, the people who are being measured in wondering if this particular crime is a hate crime are not necessarily the same people who would rush to assume that it was a hate crime if the races were reversed. Some of them might be - but then the criticism should be addressed specifically to that person, not made as a blanket accusation.
  #111  
Old 09-19-2019, 02:49 PM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 7,248
I'm wondering who these unnamed people are, who will immediately assume that white people beating up black people are committing hate crimes. If I saw a group of white people try to rob a black guy, then stomp him when he fought back, I'm pretty sure I would in that case go, "Huh. That looks like a bunch of sociopaths trying to rob a guy." Has anyone in this thread said "Yeah, I automatically assume white people attacking black people are committing hate crimes", or are we all arguing over what some hypothetical other people might do if the situation were entirely different?
  #112  
Old 09-19-2019, 02:56 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by IvoryTowerDenizen View Post
And that would be the historical context that I keep referring to. These laws didnít just pop out of nowhere.
And if it isnít part of the statue itís not part of the statue. What unspoken permutations are de-facto not hate crimes due to historical context and political considerations?
  #113  
Old 09-19-2019, 02:58 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
The problem with this sort of complaint is, the people who are being measured in wondering if this particular crime is a hate crime are not necessarily the same people who would rush to assume that it was a hate crime if the races were reversed. Some of them might be - but then the criticism should be addressed specifically to that person, not made as a blanket accusation.
Iím not a fan of the hate crime concept. Just like Iím not a fan of categorizing speech as hate speech with the intent to criminalize it. However, if it is going to exist it should be applied evenly.
  #114  
Old 09-19-2019, 03:08 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Iím not a fan of the hate crime concept. Just like Iím not a fan of categorizing speech as hate speech with the intent to criminalize it. However, if it is going to exist it should be applied evenly.
What part of my post do you think was advocating that hate crime laws should not be applied evenly?
  #115  
Old 09-19-2019, 04:30 PM
El_Kabong's Avatar
El_Kabong is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Smack Dab in the Middle
Posts: 15,687
As an aside, several posters to this thread have argued that one of the criteria that, to them, defines the cited robberies as hate crimes is the number of perpetrators involved. It would seem that a robbery and beatdown involving 18 of one racial category vs. 1 of another category = hate crime, whereas 1 vs 1 may or may not. So where's the cutoff? 2 vs. 1? 5? 10? just curious.
  #116  
Old 09-19-2019, 05:14 PM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Retired Straight Dope Staff
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Shore of LI
Posts: 19,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Again, I don't think the real dispute in this thread is whether the legal criteria is met for a hate crime or not. I think people are simply asking that the same standard be applied to all races. If one immediately considers whites beating up blacks to be hate motivated, then it should be the same vice versa - and ditto if one does not rush to label blacks beating whites as a hate crime, either.
Absolutely true.

But given my limited amount of mental energy, all I know is that when I go to High Holy Day services in a couple weeks, my synagogue will have metal detectors, police guards, and sign in sheets because of hate crimes. Hasidic people in Brooklyn are in hiding because of multiple attacks in broad daylight. Transwomen have murdered in recent weeks. Black people are routinely having cops called on them for innocuous behaviors.

So my heart goes out to the white victims who's assaults may not be immediately attributed to racial hate. But it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the ongoing flood of religious, race, sexual identity/orientation attacks that are happening. I struggle to work up unhappiness that a group of white guys beating down a black guy is more quickly is assumed to be racially motivated, or when a brick is thrown at an old Jewish guy, or when a gay guy is jumped leaving club, than when the majority/minority roles are reversed.

So let’s fix the actual huge problem of religious, sexual, and racially motivated attacks first, then we can really worry about the fairness of “impressions”.

Last edited by IvoryTowerDenizen; 09-19-2019 at 05:15 PM.
  #117  
Old 09-19-2019, 05:41 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Hate crimes are essentially terrorism. Let's go with the following hypothetical. If gay men are targeted and beaten for being sighted at a gay bar, it makes gay men afraid to walk openly in the street. All gay men, all the time, because there are people targeting them, specifically, for beatings. The hate crime impacts all gay men in a direct way.

If a gang of thugs beats someone up during a robbery, everyone shares the concern equally. Nobody is afraid to be who they are, to be openly what they are, to be free to walk the streets just like everyone else. That attack is part of society as a whole, and can be treated as simply an act of violence, that we all deal with equally.

None of this answers my question, nor has anyone else thus far. I was trying to turn the question around from the opposite direction and examine this crime in particular, not some other theoretical crime. So imagine you are a judge who has to decide sentencing for these young men. You know for a fact that they were acting out of racial animus. Now decide in your mind what length of prison sentence they should get for this ďhate crimeĒ.

OK, got that number in your mind?

Now, tell me why it would be a travesty of justice to give these defendants that same sentence you envisioned, if you contrariwise knew for a fact that they didnít care about the guyís race, but were just out to have some good clean fun by viciously beating a defenseless person in a creative variety of ways.


Quote:
Originally Posted by IvoryTowerDenizen View Post
So my heart goes out to the white victims who's assaults may not be immediately attributed to racial hate. But itís a drop in the bucket compared to the ongoing flood of religious, race, sexual identity/orientation attacks that are happening.

I donít know about that. We are talking about race here, so letís leave aside some of that other stuff. FBI statistics show that a larger percentage of African Americans engage in violence against white people than the percentage of white people who engage in violence against African Americans. (More common then either is intra-group violence from whites against whites or blacks against blacks.) What percentage of each group is acting out of racial animus I donít know, and I donít believe this is the proper consideration for the justice system, as I have repeatedly said. But at the very least your assertion is not self-evidently true.
  #118  
Old 09-19-2019, 05:46 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
None of this answers my question, nor has anyone else thus far. I was trying to turn the question around from the opposite direction and examine this crime in particular, not some other theoretical crime. So imagine you are a judge who has to decide sentencing for these young men. You know for a fact that they were acting out of racial animus. Now decide in your mind what length of prison sentence they should get for this ďhate crimeĒ.

OK, got that number in your mind?

Now, tell me why it would be a travesty of justice to give these defendants that same sentence you envisioned, if you contrariwise knew for a fact that they didnít care about the guyís race, but were just out to have some good clean fun by viciously beating a defenseless person in a creative variety of ways.
This question has been answered multiple times, by several different posters.
  #119  
Old 09-19-2019, 06:14 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,674
It’s been answered zero times by no posters.
  #120  
Old 09-19-2019, 06:30 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Itís been answered zero times by no posters.
Have you tried reading the thread? The answers are right there.
  #121  
Old 09-19-2019, 06:38 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Have you tried reading the thread? The answers are right there.

Then cite a post that answered the specific question I asked, not some general thought experiments about why enhanced penalties are appropriate in some hypothetical circumstances. This specific question, if you need reminding, is whether (and if so, why) whatever harsh penalty would be assessed for a hate crime in this beating would be unjustly harsh if they were just doing it for fun.

I actually think that it is slightly less heinous for them to hate white people than it is for them to just think it is fun to inflict creative forms of violence on an unresisting and innocent victim without concern to race.
  #122  
Old 09-19-2019, 06:54 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,861
For some actual information:

Quote:
Racial/ethnicity/ancestry bias (Based on Table 1.)
Among single-bias hate crime incidents in 2017, there were 5,060 victims of race/ethnicity/ancestry motivated hate crime.

48.6 percent were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Black or African American bias.
17.1 percent were victims of anti-White bias.
10.9 percent were victims of anti-Hispanic or Latino bias.
6.3 percent were victims of anti-American Indian or Alaska Native bias.
4.5 percent were victims of bias against a group of individuals in which more than one race was represented (anti-multiple races, group).
3.3 percent were victims of anti-Asian bias.
2.6 percent were victims of anti-Arab bias.
0.4 percent (18 individuals) were victims of anti-Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander bias.
6.4 percent were victims of anti-Other Race/Ethnicity/Ancestry bias.
  #123  
Old 09-19-2019, 07:40 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Then cite a post that answered the specific question I asked, not some general thought experiments about why enhanced penalties are appropriate in some hypothetical circumstances. This specific question, if you need reminding, is whether (and if so, why) whatever harsh penalty would be assessed for a hate crime in this beating would be unjustly harsh if they were just doing it for fun.
My apologies, I misunderstood. I thought your question was in some way related to the conversation that was happening in this thread. I didn't realize you were talking about something else, entirely. Consider my last two posts retracted.
  #124  
Old 09-19-2019, 08:00 PM
KidCharlemagne is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,335
I'm gonna have to watch 12.5 hours of BULLY GETS OWNED!!!! videos to make up for watching that one.
  #125  
Old 09-19-2019, 09:18 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
My apologies, I misunderstood. I thought your question was in some way related to the conversation that was happening in this thread. I didn't realize you were talking about something else, entirely. Consider my last two posts retracted.

Mine was about this actual assault, as opposed to a hypothetical scenario involving some other less heinous crime. Iím the one sticking closest to the subject, bub.
  #126  
Old 09-19-2019, 09:39 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
Moderator Warning



This is IMHO, not the Pit. The "Title/username combo" clearly indicates that you are attacking/insulting the user and not attacking the post, so this is an official warning for personal insults.
This was a foolish slip on my part. I apologize to the OP and to the participating posters. I also received a warning in GQ the day prior to this one. I fully expected that one but that just means I should have been that much more conscious of my subsequent posting behavior. Which i wasn't. I'm going to take a posting break from the board for a while, maybe a month, and get my wits about me.
  #127  
Old 09-19-2019, 11:02 PM
Doug K. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Hutchinson, KS
Posts: 4,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deltree View Post
Yes. Even without the passcode, they can be wiped and restored to factory new condition. They get bought from thieves by fences here, then shipped to foreign countries where the authorities (and phone companies) don't care that they were stolen, and sold to end-users for much cheaper than actual factory-new ones. Needless to say, the thieves in the US receive only pennies on the dollar of the phone's actual retail value, but they think "hey, ten bucks is ten bucks..."
With most phones now after a factory reset the first thing that happens on restart is a prompt to enter the password for the gmail account or the AppleID, depending on what kind of phone it is. Without that password you just have an expensive paperweight.
  #128  
Old 09-20-2019, 05:53 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Now, tell me why it would be a travesty of justice to give these defendants that same sentence you envisioned, if you contrariwise knew for a fact that they didnít care about the guyís race, but were just out to have some good clean fun by viciously beating a defenseless person in a creative variety of ways.
Because the joyride beating is one crime and the hate crime beating is two crimes.

The hate crime beating is everything the joyride beating is, plus it's a attack on the entire group that was singled out.

Is it a bit of "security theater"? Yeah, a bit, it's not simply a response to violence, but a signal that society will not stand for racist/sexist/something-ist attacks.
  #129  
Old 09-20-2019, 06:51 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,674
So...the message is also that society will stand for brutal beatings (including forcible removal of the victim’s clothing) that are purely about sadistic amusement and showing off for one’s peers?
  #130  
Old 09-20-2019, 07:10 PM
don't mind me is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 1,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
So...the message is also that society will stand for brutal beatings (including forcible removal of the victimís clothing) that are purely about sadistic amusement and showing off for oneís peers?
Yes, exactly. That's why cheesesteak said the act your describe is a crime by itself.
  #131  
Old 09-20-2019, 07:12 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,674
Seems like everyone debating this with me wants to have their cake and eat it too. It’s a zero sum game, so you can’t have it both ways.
  #132  
Old 09-20-2019, 08:36 PM
Hellestal is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Storyland
Posts: 2,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
It’s a zero sum game, so you can’t have it both ways.
I don't see any game going on here, "zero sum" or otherwise.

X is not a crime.

Y is a crime.

X*Y is also a crime. It can be distinguished from the crime Y by having the additional component X, and in fact, the law finds crime X*Y worse than crime Y, and so the punishment is worse for X*Y than for crime Y. This distinction is completely normal. Concocting clever plans in your head to kill your rich Uncle Chuck for the inheritance money is not against the law, but killing your rich Uncle Chuck is big fat no-no. But the two can be put together: concocting a clever plan in your head to kill your rich Uncle Chuck, and then murdering him according to that plan, is a more serious crime than killing him spontaneously or negligently.

That is the kind of distinction that this thread is about. There have been posters in this thread who have offered reasons why they believe X*Y is legitimately a worse crime than Y (with respect to hate crimes), and therefore deserves a worse punishment.

I'm not sure I buy into those arguments myself, actually, but I think I can understand them. But you have not responded to any of those arguments. Instead you have written things that are comprehensively non-responsive to the other posters in this thread. For example, this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
So...the message is also that society will stand for brutal beatings (including forcible removal of the victim’s clothing) that are purely about sadistic amusement and showing off for one’s peers?
This is a strawman of profound intellectual weakness.

No one in this thread "stands for brutal beatings". Society does not "stand for brutal beatings".

The actual message of society is that brutal beatings are against the law. Criminals who are caught having committed brutal beatings are arrested and charged. Everyone in this thread wants brutal beatings to be against the law, and society in general likewise wants brutal beatings to be against the law. Second-degree murder is against the law, and should be punished. First-degree murder is a different and more serious crime, and should also be punished, even worse than second-degree murder. But the fact that first-degree murder is punished more severely does not mean that the "message of society" is that second-degree murder is perfectly okay. That's not true at all. Second-degree murder is a serious crime, and is punished like a serious crime.

Last edited by Hellestal; 09-20-2019 at 08:37 PM.
  #133  
Old 09-20-2019, 11:37 PM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
So...the message is also that society will stand for brutal beatings (including forcible removal of the victim’s clothing) that are purely about sadistic amusement and showing off for one’s peers?
Oh for fuck's sake, do you really believe there are no possible charges here other than hate crimes? Like maybe assault and battery? You can't believe that.

Last edited by Larry Borgia; 09-20-2019 at 11:38 PM.
  #134  
Old 09-21-2019, 12:44 AM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
This was a foolish slip on my part. I apologize to the OP and to the participating posters. I also received a warning in GQ the day prior to this one. I fully expected that one but that just means I should have been that much more conscious of my subsequent posting behavior. Which i wasn't. I'm going to take a posting break from the board for a while, maybe a month, and get my wits about me.
Dunno if you'll read this then...but thats a very self-aware and upstanding thing to admit. Well done.
  #135  
Old 09-21-2019, 12:54 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Borgia View Post
Oh for fuck's sake, do you really believe there are no possible charges here other than hate crimes? Like maybe assault and battery? You can't believe that.

I have made it clear that I donít believe this or any other crime should be prosecuted as a ďhate crimeĒ. The penalty for doing this, regardless of motive, should be extremely draconian.
  #136  
Old 09-21-2019, 09:21 AM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,293
Since people seem to have skipped over my earlier post, can anyone who is objecting to the way this incident was charged state exactly what "hate crime" statute in Minnesota they should have been charged under? People keep talking about this incident as though 'hate crime' is a specific charge in Minnesota, but when I looked into it Minnesota doesn't have a statute that defines a specific charge of 'hate crime'. People are saying it should be considered 'two crimes' or that it should be charged as a specific thing but, AFAICT, in Minnesota it would always be charged as a standard crime with a sentence enhancement, and not as 'violent crime + hate crime' or 'hate crime'.

It's weird to see people upset that a prosecutor didn't charge someone with a crime that doesn't actually exist in the jurisdiction.
  #137  
Old 09-21-2019, 10:20 AM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Since people seem to have skipped over my earlier post, can anyone who is objecting to the way this incident was charged state exactly what "hate crime" statute in Minnesota they should have been charged under? People keep talking about this incident as though 'hate crime' is a specific charge in Minnesota, but when I looked into it Minnesota doesn't have a statute that defines a specific charge of 'hate crime'. People are saying it should be considered 'two crimes' or that it should be charged as a specific thing but, AFAICT, in Minnesota it would always be charged as a standard crime with a sentence enhancement, and not as 'violent crime + hate crime' or 'hate crime'.

It's weird to see people upset that a prosecutor didn't charge someone with a crime that doesn't actually exist in the jurisdiction.
What about this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2019 Minnesota Statutes

2016 609.2233 New 2016 c 189 art 4 s 14
609.2233 FELONY ASSAULT MOTIVATED BY BIAS; INCREASED STATUTORY MAXIMUM SENTENCE.
A person who violates section 609.221, 609.222, or 609.223 because of the victim's or another person's actual or perceived race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability as defined in section 363A.03, age, or national origin is subject to a statutory maximum penalty of 25 percent longer than the maximum penalty otherwise applicable.
  #138  
Old 09-21-2019, 11:18 AM
MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,619
IANAL but that statute seems to be a sentencing enhancement not actual crime. A jury would have to find that bias was the motivation. An aggravating factor, as it were. I could be wrong and I wouldn't be surprised if I were.
  #139  
Old 09-21-2019, 12:04 PM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellestal View Post
I don't see any game going on here, "zero sum" or otherwise.

X is not a crime.

Y is a crime.

X*Y is also a crime. It can be distinguished from the crime Y by having the additional component X, and in fact, the law finds crime X*Y worse than crime Y, and so the punishment is worse for X*Y than for crime Y. This distinction is completely normal. Concocting clever plans in your head to kill your rich Uncle Chuck for the inheritance money is not against the law, but killing your rich Uncle Chuck is big fat no-no. But the two can be put together: concocting a clever plan in your head to kill your rich Uncle Chuck, and then murdering him according to that plan, is a more serious crime than killing him spontaneously or negligently.

That is the kind of distinction that this thread is about. There have been posters in this thread who have offered reasons why they believe X*Y is legitimately a worse crime than Y (with respect to hate crimes), and therefore deserves a worse punishment.

I'm not sure I buy into those arguments myself, actually, but I think I can understand them. But you have not responded to any of those arguments. Instead you have written things that are comprehensively non-responsive to the other posters in this thread. For example, this:
This is a strawman of profound intellectual weakness.

No one in this thread "stands for brutal beatings". Society does not "stand for brutal beatings".

The actual message of society is that brutal beatings are against the law. Criminals who are caught having committed brutal beatings are arrested and charged. Everyone in this thread wants brutal beatings to be against the law, and society in general likewise wants brutal beatings to be against the law. Second-degree murder is against the law, and should be punished. First-degree murder is a different and more serious crime, and should also be punished, even worse than second-degree murder. But the fact that first-degree murder is punished more severely does not mean that the "message of society" is that second-degree murder is perfectly okay. That's not true at all. Second-degree murder is a serious crime, and is punished like a serious crime.
Is there some way we can get you to handle the 9-11 truthers? This is an excellent re-stating of the concepts under discussion.
  #140  
Old 09-21-2019, 01:47 PM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I have made it clear that I donít believe this or any other crime should be prosecuted as a ďhate crimeĒ. The penalty for doing this, regardless of motive, should be extremely draconian.
There is no mention of a hate crime charge in the article linked to in the OP. The suspects are all being charged with assault and other crimes. The only person who mentioned a hate crime charge was the OP himself, who as far as I am aware is not a prosecutor in Minnesota. Hate crime charges are difficult to prove and I doubt they'll come up when there are so many easy to prove crimes here.
  #141  
Old 09-21-2019, 02:35 PM
KidCharlemagne is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Then cite a post that answered the specific question I asked, not some general thought experiments about why enhanced penalties are appropriate in some hypothetical circumstances. This specific question, if you need reminding, is whether (and if so, why) whatever harsh penalty would be assessed for a hate crime in this beating would be unjustly harsh if they were just doing it for fun.

I actually think that it is slightly less heinous for them to hate white people than it is for them to just think it is fun to inflict creative forms of violence on an unresisting and innocent victim without concern to race.
Your points have generally been valid, but I think you're just kind of expecting too much from the legal system. We set laws as best we can (in theory), and adapt them (hopefully) as issues come up.

If "wilding" or that "knock out game" became a persistent and pervasive crime, then a federal "Just Can't Beat People Up For Fun Act" would soon be passed. There are always legal gaps that need to be filled. You could argue that we should leave it all up to judges, but inevitably you get some idiot judge who makes a bad call - which is often how these laws get enacted.

Yes, it is unjust that these kids might get off with a 25% lighter sentence if it isn't considered a hate crime. But overall, I think hate crime legislation sends the important message that we view these crimes as particularly despicable, because it's much easier for crimes between visually distinguishable people to snowball into something that tears the social fabric irreparably. I'm personally ok with a few people getting a lighter sentence than they should once in a while to help stave off civil armageddon.
  #142  
Old 09-21-2019, 02:48 PM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
Your points have generally been valid, but I think you're just kind of expecting too much from the legal system. We set laws as best we can (in theory), and adapt them (hopefully) as issues come up.

If "wilding" or that "knock out game" became a persistent and pervasive crime, then a federal "Just Can't Beat People Up For Fun Act" would soon be passed. There are always legal gaps that need to be filled. You could argue that we should leave it all up to judges, but inevitably you get some idiot judge who makes a bad call - which is often how these laws get enacted.

Yes, it is unjust that these kids might get off with a 25% lighter sentence if it isn't considered a hate crime. But overall, I think hate crime legislation sends the important message that we view these crimes as particularly despicable, because it's much easier for crimes between visually distinguishable people to snowball into something that tears the social fabric irreparably. I'm personally ok with a few people getting a lighter sentence than they should once in a while to help stave off civil armageddon.
This is all well and good, but, again, assault is actually against the law. There doesn't have to be a hate crime for serious sanctions to apply. If two white guys beat up another white guy and send him to the hospital because he thinks the Eagles are a better band than Creedence, they can still get sent away for a long time.
  #143  
Old 09-21-2019, 03:50 PM
KidCharlemagne is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Borgia View Post
This is all well and good, but, again, assault is actually against the law. There doesn't have to be a hate crime for serious sanctions to apply. If two white guys beat up another white guy and send him to the hospital because he thinks the Eagles are a better band than Creedence, they can still get sent away for a long time.
I genuine don't understand how that applies to my post.
  #144  
Old 09-21-2019, 04:01 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
Your points have generally been valid, but I think you're just kind of expecting too much from the legal system. We set laws as best we can (in theory), and adapt them (hopefully) as issues come up.

If "wilding" or that "knock out game" became a persistent and pervasive crime, then a federal "Just Can't Beat People Up For Fun Act" would soon be passed.

Sadly, this has the ring of truth.
  #145  
Old 09-21-2019, 04:40 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Sadly, this has the ring of truth.
What is sad about it? We make laws to address anti-social behaviour as we, as a society, view it. It's not always efficient or perfect but what the hell else are you going to do? I can pretty much guarantee that a round table of criminologists and statisticians aren't going to produce a set of laws you're in love with.
  #146  
Old 09-21-2019, 05:44 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,674
And I would repeat and expand on the point no one responded to, which is that black people hating white people after 350 years of slavery and Jim Crow, followed mostly by “now you’re on your own, good luck—and you’ll need it, because we’re not repaying you for the lost wages or punitive damages for what was done to your people“ is actually not as antisocial as simply thinking it’s fun to brutalize an innocent person in unusual and creative ways.
  #147  
Old 09-21-2019, 07:18 PM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
I genuine don't understand how that applies to my post.
It seemed like you were saying that a non-hate crime assault would get a lesser charge than an assault that was a hate crime. This isn't true. The assaults get the same treatment. It's just that with a hate crime, there are now two crimes instead of one. The assault doesn't get a "lesser sentence" as you put it. It gets the same sentence. The second charge is what gets more time.
  #148  
Old 09-21-2019, 07:27 PM
KidCharlemagne is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Borgia View Post
It seemed like you were saying that a non-hate crime assault would get a lesser charge than an assault that was a hate crime. This isn't true. The assaults get the same treatment. It's just that with a hate crime, there are now two crimes instead of one. The assault doesn't get a "lesser sentence" as you put it. It gets the same sentence. The second charge is what gets more time.
I think it was pretty clear I wasnt speaking technically. Would "lesser total sentence" have made the crux of my point much clearer?
  #149  
Old 09-21-2019, 08:15 PM
KidCharlemagne is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
And I would repeat and expand on the point no one responded to, which is that black people hating white people after 350 years of slavery and Jim Crow, followed mostly by ďnow youíre on your own, good luckóand youíll need it, because weíre not repaying you for the lost wages or punitive damages for what was done to your peopleď is actually not as antisocial as simply thinking itís fun to brutalize an innocent person in unusual and creative ways.
I just realized (because your Pit thread was bumped in my subscribed threads), that you're the guy with the intellectually racist but politically liberal (?) ideas. You may recall in that thread that I said I didn't know you but found the dichotomy interesting. So quick question: Did you feel animus towards blacks before the elderly black woman saved you from the Latino gang (sorry you went through that -sounds terrifying), and was that a conversion moment that left you "split" intellectually and emotionally on the issue?

Now as for your post - I'm starting to see why that Pit thread was started . I don't see anyone saying that a hate crime is more/less antisocial than a Jokeresque Beat-O-Rama, and after rereading the thread I don't see where you made the point you say no one is responding to. I'm not quite sure I understand anything actually - you seem to be saying we shouldn't have hate crime laws because blacks were/are mistreated, but do you realize the very first hate crime legislation was enacted after the Civil War to protect blacks from the Klan? I'm guessing I'm misunderstanding your point. What would you like to see done and why?
  #150  
Old 09-21-2019, 08:16 PM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
I think it was pretty clear I wasnt speaking technically. Would "lesser total sentence" have made the crux of my point much clearer?
I just don't think it's unjust that a single crime gets a lesser sentence than two crimes. (Technically hate crime is an aggravating factor rather than a separate crime, but I think the point stands. There are all sorts of aggravating and mitigating factors that can increase or decrease a sentence.)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017