That will get you far around here.
I see from your post count that you’re new but a quick word of advice - I am not a mod, but I can guarantee you that you’ll not only get cautioned but at some point banned for personally insulting other posters, especially in Great Debates.
Also, the whole rest of your post will be ignored if you call someone an idiot in the first sentence.
Just an FYI…
“disproportionatly (sic) charged”?? That’s one of them “through the looking-glass” statements. You know, where up is down and down is up. Are they disproportionately charged, or do they disproportionately commit more hate-crimes?
Let’s see… according to the link you provided, 12% of the population commits 21% of the hate-crimes.
If anything is disproportionate, its the caricature, that has been diliberately crafted by the media, of the typical perpetrator of a hate-crime.
Mention the term “hate-crime” to the average individual, and he or she will, almost without fail, automatically form the mental image of a white persecuting a minority, despite the contradictory FBI crime statistics.
This, from someone who obviously doesn’t understand simple math.
? What’s the difference? Committing a HC leads to a charge, so if they’re disproportionately committing, then they’re disproportionately charged.
The caricature made up in your mind? Seriously, can you prove that the media or proponents of HCL deliberately paint its perpatrators as just soley white or can I go on assuming that that’s yet another paranoid white racist fantasy?
The difference is the phrase, “disproportionately charged”, insinuates that minorities are unfairly charged. Whereas, there is no disproportion in charging any group with the crimes that they do commit, regardless of their number.
Go ahead and assume anything you wish, but here’s a little exercise for ya.
Make two lists.
One list containing movies or television shows with a theme of whites racially persecuting minorities, and another list containing movies or television shows with a theme of minorities racially persecuting whites.
I betcha one list is virtually empty.
You’re right. That was dumb and irresponsible. I shouldn’t have said that and I apologize to Hail Ants for my comment.
I’m pretty sure my understanding of simple math is fine. Would you care to explain where I stated something that was not true? Blacks are disproportionately charged for hate crimes. Is there something you don’t understand about simple English. The reason why I gave those numbers was because Hail Ants asked someone to show cases in which minorities were charged with hate crimes against whites. The fact that the circumstances which he thought were rare were, in fact, quite common showed how distorted the perception of HCL is.
You may have a point about the caricature, but I think it is important to realize that some hate-crimes are more sensational than others. Caricatures are typically based on the more egregious examples. While beating up a guy because he is white is clearly wrong and racist, it doesn’t resonate with the public like the stories of Matthew Shepard (I am aware this is contested by some), James Byrd, or the numerous exploits of groups like the KKK. Not to mention that, while politically incorrect, the double standard exists for a reason. In the same way that we don’t treat male rape victims the same way as female ones, society doesn’t have much empathy for victims of hate crimes who are white. I think one main reason is that outside of a few geographic locations, whites are the majority. It is harder to intimidate the majority. Despite the fact the Colin Ferguson hated white people, I doubt many whites felt it was more dangerous to be white in LI as a result. The opposite is often true. That is not to say he shouldn’t have been charged with a hate crime (had they existed at the time), only that the effect on the community is very different.
Plus, if you read the link, many people feel that one of the reasons why blacks have been disproportionately charged with hate crimes is that prosecutors are not respecting the spirit of the law; instead they use it as a scare tactic to get a defendant to plea or to add more time to the sentence of a dangerous individual. If that is indeed the case, I think it would be a legitimate concern. But, it think that the principles the laws are based on are sound.
Perhaps, but that insinuation was made by people who commented in the link. Even so, I think you may be reading too much in to what I wrote. That phrase alone does not imply that the charges aren’t just; however I do feel that that is likely the case.
I really cant’t think of any shows whose theme includes any group persecuting another. Shows like Law & Order typically revolve around fictional interpretations of real, well known cases. I have seen instances where they show acts of hate from both whites and blacks. They show more whites cause those cases (in real life) have been more popular, and because they care about ratings. Most non-black people won’t watch a show revolving around blacks for a number of reasons. Other than shows about the judicial system and serious dramas, few shows really depict hate crimes or hateful acts based on bias.
IF your question was a general comment on the way the way many whites on TV are portrayed as compared to blacks, I think you may have a point. But only due to the fact that many shows which depict race relations accurately (with regard to the way many blacks treat whites) are not popular. Many “black” shows depict blacks who are racially insensitive. In addition to shows like “The Wire”, “The Hughleys”, “Oz”, “The Parkers”, “Girlfriends”, “Insert WB/UPN show”, etc. (also reality shows like, “The Real World”).
On shows like “The Hughleys”, the main black characters are racially insensitive and crass while the secondary white characters are typically articulate, well-mannered sophisticates. Frank discussions on race are rare to see on TV in general. When I do see people who are open about their biases and prejudices on TV, most of the ones I see are black. YMMV
You said:
There is no disproportion whatsoever by charging a group with the crimes that they commit, regardless of their numbers.
The numbers may be disproportionate when compared to other groups, but they are not “being disproportionatly charged”.
Question: I’m a State Trooped and pull over ten people today. 5 White, 5 Black. All have missing tail-lights. I ticket all the black drivers, ticket 3 white drivers and allow the other two white drivers to go with a warning. I follow a similar pattern for all crimes.
My data shows that blacks committed a disproportion amount of crimes for their population.
Is my data correct? Yes or no?
Are you serious? The numbers are disproportionate to the number of blacks in the general population. The claim I was refuting was that they rarely charge minorities with hate crimes against whites, or that they charge whites disproportionately due to reverse racism. I assert that the claim is wrong, and that, in fact, the opposite is true. Blacks are charged with hate crimes more often than one would expect based on population. Either you don’t understand English or you are being deliberately obtuse. Just because you read this to mean something else doesn’t mean I was being unclear or dishonest. I’m not saying they didn’t commit the crimes or that they didn’t deserve to be charged (although, I did state I feel the spirit of the law isn’t being strictly followed); just that the reality is the statisitical antithesis of what many people believe.
Yes, quite serious, and it is you that seems to lack a grasp of the English language. Again, you wrote:
Blacks are not being disproportionaly charged, they are being charged with the crimes that they commit.
What is disproportional, is the amount of crimes they commit relative to their numbers within the population.
(holmes, take note.)
I asked you a simple question. Is the method that I use to collect my data, and the statistical data I infer from it, valid? yes or no. If yes, please explain why.
A more useful exercise would be to make a list of incidents drawn from actual American history (you might even try limiting it to the history of the last 20 years) of whites racially persecuting minorities and a second list vice-versa. Which list do you think would be “virtually empty,” at least by comparison to the other?
The case in which the U.S. Supreme Court first stated that enhancement of sentences based on intentionally selecting the victim because of their race, Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993). Mitchell and some other young black men were discussing the movie “Mississippi Burning” and a scene where a white man beat a young black boy who was praying. Mitchell asked if the group was “hyped to go move on some white people.” The group moved outside and found a young white boy walking down the street. Mitchell told the group “You all want to fuck somebody up? There goes a white boy; go get him.” They beat the boy unconscious and stole his shoes. He remained in a coma for four days. Ordinarily the maximum for aggravated battery in Wisconsin would have been two years, but because he selected the victims due to their race, the maximum was enhanced to seven and he received a four year sentence. Mitchell appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, who upheld the hate crime legislation that enhached his sentence.
For the same reason nothing about a “hate crime” appeared in the capital murder indictments of the men who dragged James Byrd to death in Texas: because hate crime statutes enhance punishments (like increasing a maximum from two years to seven years), but when you’re committed a crime that already merits the harshest punishment the law allows, there’s nothing to enhance. Ferguson had a 92 count charge, including six counts of first degree murder and 19 counts of attempted first degree murder, all of which carried A-1 punishments of life in prison. He received six consecutive life sentences. There was no way to pin a hate crime on him so that he could be treated more harshly.
Wrong, being charged with a crime doesn’t mean you committed the act. I couldn’t say that blacks disproportionately commit the crimes because the statistics don’t say who has been convicted.
There is no point engaging in a semantics argument when you aren’t willing to take you head out of the sand. Not to mention that your argument has nothing to do with HCL. You keep making silly baseless arguments that make no sense. Then when someone questions you, you proceed to abandon that your previous argument in favor a a more absurd one. If you want to argue over what disproportionately means then start a new thread. If you think HCL is a bad idea, then make coherent argument stating why you think so. I would love to hear it.
No, I don’t. The victim wasn’t “hanging out among drunken pubgoers”, he was walking down a street. And in Ireland, at least, random alcohol-fuelled violence is a really, really serious problem, one that actually does instill fear in people of simply walking down the streets - so incidents like this are a crime against society.
And if I was a family member or friend of the comatose man, I would take deep offence at the idea that the crime was less severe just because it wasn’t racial.
Motive mitigates sentencing.
Crimes of passion, armed robberies, defending oneself using lethal force, sociopathic serial assaults, vehicular hit and runs and euthanasia can all result in death. Life is cheap, depending on the cricumstances. How much killing costs you often depends on documented and witnessed circumstances and what was likely your state of mind.
Examining motive is flawed, yes, but often a necessarily act of meting justice.
No, you didn’t just ask a simple question. The official crime statistics didn’t work for you, so you put up a hypothetical hoop for me to jump through. Forget it.
The “list” (regarding recent history) has been made. It was referenced in the linked FBI crime statistics. The “list” reveals that minorities, on a per capita basis, commit more hate-crimes than whites.
But yet, you followed up your claim that “blacks are being disproportionately charged” with, “Must be a result of all those ultra-liberal judges.” Do judges decide the charges? No, judges preside over the cases, and sometimes decide the guilt or innocence of those charged. When you blame judges, I can only assume that you are being critical of convictions or acquittals.
Oooooh, I’m not willing to take my head out of the sand. Gosh, you cut me to the bone.
Sure it does, as the title of the thread indicates, hate-crimes are based on one’s thoughts, or “thought-crime”.
No, I refuse to jump through anyone’s hypothetical hoop.
I already made a coherent argument, it’s “thought-crime”. Here, I’ll make another. Hate Crime Legislation is emotional feel-good-ism. It’s political correctness. Furthermore, it’s unnecessary. Judges have sentencing guidelines to use at their discretion. Dependent on the convicted’s motive or attitude, judges can either levy a more harsh sentence or a more lenient sentence.