Did anyone watch that hate crime special on MTV?

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
21

It’s interesting you brought this up, because we discussed this in my sociology class today.

I did watch a goood bit of the show both last night and this afternoon. I am absolutely sickened by hate and discrimination of any kind, so I found the accounts very upsetting. I think that by using the shock value of the stories, MTV was simply trying to show viewers that, even though it may not happen in the suburbian whitebred communities that many kids are accustomed to, it is still a huge problem.

For those of you who feel that it is hypocritical of MTV to play artists like Eminem, and then follow it up with a “hate” special, please remember that MTV is only, when you come down to it, a corporation. Corporations seek to thrive and make money, and in the entertainment industry, the only way to do that is to appeal to a broad range of viewers. MTV targets a teenage to young adult audience, and with such a broad target they must appeal to all musical genres as well as address issues which affect persons in this age category.

It’s well-known that the majority of the entertainment industry is liberal - it’s not likely there’s much anyone can do about that. MTV is obviously one of the most liberal networks, and while I don’t agree with the blatant misrepresentation of Bush, I must point out that if the entertainment world, in general, was conservative (this exludes news stations), then you probably wouldn’t have most of the television programs that are aired. Do you honestly think that if a staunch right-winger controlled MTV networks, that anyone would be able to watch half the videos we have now? The awards shows, the movies, Beavis and Butthead? I don’t agree with bias in the news, but MTV, whether you like it or not, has every right to convey whatever belief they want within reason. It’s cable; you don’t have to watch it.

Finally, my take on hate crime legislation. I totally agree with it in intent. I think that a crime is automatically made more severe if it’s done solely because of hate or discrimination of any kind. However, I don’t think that the judicial system has the capacity to determine the intent behind a crime when it is more ambiguous. Like, if a white man assaults a black man because the black man has had an adulterous affair with his wife, does it constitute a hate crime? In my opinion, no. But what if, in the same scenario, the white man yells racial epithets at the man while beating him? Is it right to persecute this man more severely simply because he yells racial slurs in a fit of rage? Again, I think no, because the original provocation was the affair, not the skin color. However, the black man could take advantage of the system and throw a hate charge along with assault and battery, which would make the sentence more harsh. In such a controversy, our judicial system would be criticized either way and, in turn, the validity of a hate crime charge would be questioned again and again. However, I think that if they can find a way to prevent such a scenario from happening all the time, then these legislations would be a tremendous effort towards a more peaceful society (in that respect at least).

We also talked about patterns in hate crimes, such as age groups, economic situations, etc…but that’s all from me for now. :smiley:

22

Aglarond, the problem with your example is that the victim was chosen because of what he did, not because of what he was.

We have a choice in what we do. We don’t have a choice in our ethnic heritage, our sex or our sexuality. There are people who will argue with me that sexuality is a choice, but I ask (assuming you are a hetero man) could you choose to make love to a man just as happily as you choose to make love to a woman? My sexuality is not a choice for me, I doubt it is for you.

In your example, the only person being victimized was the person you murdered. (and any other men who screwed your wife, but jeez dude, if there was more than one, you’re blaming the wrong person). No other person would feel threatened by your actions. If you went to jail for 5 years, then got out, the chance that you would kill again would be almost non-existant.

If a person murders someone because of their race or sexual orientation, then everyone of that race or sexuality is affected adversely. If this person gets out in 5 years, they will be even more likely to kill someone (because frankly, the scum that do this do not take responsibility for their own behavior)

Yes, the laws will be applied unevenly and unfairly. Guess what? We’re human If you want to remove every law that is applied unfairly, you would have to remove every single friggin’ law from the books. Because every law has been applied unevenly, and many have been used to harass different groups. Police officers are human,judges are human, juries are human, lawyers are human and lawmakers are human, and each person involved in the law is affected by their needs, their prejudices and their emotions, no matter how hard he or she tries to do otherwise.

I would prefer to see hate crimes apply only to those crimes where the hatred is advertised (“Die, kike, Die”) because not only is an whole group of people being victimized, but the crime will encourage others holding the same prejudices, no matter what the law does. That there will be an attempt to apply it where it does not hold true is tragic, but because we are human, this type of tragedy will always be with us.

23

Aglarond, I’d just like to echo what Zyada said.

If someone opened a pit thread about me because I was acting like a twit, that would be just fine. If they did it because I’m gay, I’d hope the teeming millions would collectively help me rip him a new one.

They’re not equal situations- one is based on action, the other on self.

I’d be interested to hear what someone more versed in the law would have to say about “fuzzy hate crimes.”

24

Is is possible we will “Cry Wolf” one to many times, and people won’t care? I can see this happening already in some places, where every time Jackson or Sharpton gets on their $3.95 per minute soapbox people just shake their heads and ignore it.

Not everything is a hate crime, and by using it too much, you cheapen true crimes of hate.

25

First off, andygirl, I doubt anyone around here would remember you as just a skirt chaser. More like your crazy sense of humor and your love of Buffy.

Anyhoo, I didn’t see this one, but I DO remember seeing a STV from a long time ago-there was a gay student in there who sued his school for not stopping harassment. In fact, one teacher told him that he had to expect it if he was going to be openly gay. Hello? If I were a teacher, I wouldn’t care WHAT the reason was-I hate bullies with a passion. I hate people who treat other people like crap for any reason. And the way the teachers just dismissed it because the kid was gay-what the hell? He’s a HUMAN BEING.
Aren’t we all? Isn’t that what matters?

Of course, I don’t watch MTV anymore. It just disgusts me how they spout off about STopping the Violence while sucking Eminem’s dick.

26

I guess I have a bit of a problem with the term “hate crime”. Exactly how many “love crimes” do we prosecute? Offhand, I can think of couple, but things like assisted suicide are a whole other debate. it seems to me that if someone mugs you, he does it because he hates you. You have money that he wants, and so he’s willing to threaten your life and possibly kill you for it. Granted, in a racially motived or homophobic crime, the hate is generally more acute. Perhaps a more accurate term would be “bigotry crime”, but I’m into semantics with this so I’ll digress.

Nice strawman ya got there…

I think equal protection does need to be applied (and I wonder if SCOTUS has ever ruled on the Constitutionality of hate crimes laws based on that or double jeopardy). You simply can’t say, “Well, all laws can be applied unfairly, so unfair laws are OK.” In order to improve the justice system, it is necessary to promote fairness, regardless of whether or not it is an attainable goal. Throwing up your hands and conceding to unfairness should not be an option.

IMHO, hate crimes as written can promote unfairness. They can also promote fairness in the cases where federal courts will enforce laws that local courts ignore, but seemingly at the expense of the Constitutional protections of the accused. I know people are hesitant to amend the Constitution, but we almost need a “federal judical review” in the case of local criminal trials gone wrong. We sort of have that now, but it sometimes seems like a band-aid fix for a gaping wound. Of course, I can see a whole mess of problems an amendment like that would generate…

Maybe I should just shut up now.

27

OK. I’ll admit that my example was a poor one. I won’t try to defend it. A couple of things still bother me, though.

a) If an African American kills me while yelling ‘Kill whitey’, he will not be charged with a hate crime. He will simply be charged with murder and will be out in around 15-20 years(guessing). If I kill an African American while yelling ‘Kill blacky’, not only will every news agency in the country jump all over it, but I could face life in prison.

b) Aren’t all men considered equal. Yes, I know that this country has a history of not practicing what it preached. I’m referring to slavery and other such atrocities. Shouldn’t the focus of this country be to strive toward the goal of equality? I personally believe that we should all have the exact same rights and abide by the exact same laws regadless of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, etc. It seems to me that things such as hate crime legislation take us back a step. It seems hypocritical to me to say that you want equal rights, but then want special treatment under the law. I sure don’t want special treatment. We often see that picture of the scales of justice. It sounds like you’re trying to tip them a little.

Of course, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong. :smiley: