Of course they are not the same. But as you acknowledged, neither are the two signs. They differ in precisely the same way. So logically, if the difference between the signs does not change the act of carrying it from a legal to an illegal one, then putting the same messages in graffiti should not make a misdemeanor a felony.
Again, there needs to be a crime first, and then a determination if it’s a hate crime.
Just like petty theft is a misdemeanor but grand larceny is a felony. Both a thefts, but the qualifier changes the degree.
That actually made me laugh out loud. Do you think those convicted of it confessed their soul in court to Perry Mason? The jury only needs to believe hate was involved. Not hard to do with a brutal mob attack on video.
This whole debate right here is why I wish they’d get rid of the ‘hate crime’ designation and leave the severity of the punishment up to the judge or jury instead of these add-ons that do nothing but inflame either side. We already have designations that include harsher sentences, which in this case the charge of rioting seems appropriate (some of those charged face up to twenty years in prison, if not more). In other words enforce the laws that are already on the books. Leave the ‘hate’ part out of it and any other crimes.
The sooner we do that the sooner we move on to the important issue of why this is happening in the first place, which as a worker in Minneapolis I wish would have more urgency and attention then what’s been happening up to this point in my city.
I see. So if this is so easy, why has the Minneapolis DA declined to pursue hate crime charges for any of the many defendants? Take all the time you need.
It is something to think about. Perhaps the designation also allows higher authorities such as the federal government to intervene when states and municipalities don’t.
Counterproductive because of politics when something is or isn’t a hate crime due to either the victims or criminals being part of group that is or isn’t convenient to have the act so labeled.
Exactly. Murder or hate murder is still murder.
Probably politics.
Just as probably, as outlined in post #23.
Let’s turn this around and look at it a different way. Whatever punishment you would envision for this as a “hate crime”, why do you think it’s too severe for this just as an “ordinary” crime of recreational violence?
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.
The jury needs to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was motivated by hate that is based on protected class.
At present, the US list of protected classes includes:
[ul][li]Race[/li][li]Color[/li][li]Religion or creed[/li][li]National origin or ancestry[/li][li]Sex[/li][li]Age[/li][li]Physical or mental disability[/li][li]Veteran status[/li][li]Genetic information[/li][li]Citizenship[/ul][/li]
“You’re not from around here” is not a protected class, so hatred based on “you’re not from around here” does not meet the legal standard for defining this as a hate crime.
The mere fact, by itself, of black assailants attacking a white victim (or vice versa) is not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the attack was racially motivated. There needs to be something else, e.g. the use of racial epithets by the assailants during the attack, or a pattern of attacking only people of a certain race despite having opportunities to attack people of other races, to serve as evidence of racial hatred.
I don’t know how often I agree with foodstuffs but Cheesesteak is right.
I used to oppose hate crimes legislation because it seemed like it was punishing the expressive conduct. Courts have rightfully rejected this view because crimes aren’t protected speech. Hate crimes legislation is small way of protecting people’s ability to participate in public, without regard to their race, color, religion, etc. It’s a fundamental civil rights issue.
This is complete nonsense. Random acts of group violence terrorize the weakest and most helpless portions of society. For elderly people who need to go to the doctor or shop, their stress levels would be through the roof.
If a group is targeting all others for violent attack except their own group then that should be enough to prove a hate crime.
Not as the law is currently written.
It’s like at work- certain policy violations come under title IX, if the person is in a protected class. Similar acts not against a protected class can be sanctioned by the employer, but not under title IX rules.
You cannot erase the history of systemic disenfranchisement that these laws are trying address, no matter how much you’d like to.
This is going to sound like etymological nitpicking, but it isn’t.
You can’t “target” all others, because to target something means to select a specific object for your attack. “Everybody but me and my friends” isn’t a specific target it’s just random violent crime.
Random violent crime is subject to punishment, but not special punishment because it isn’t special. You don’t need to create a new punishment for it, just make the normal punishment appropriate.
Targeted violent crime is special because the act of targeting serves to increase the impact of that crime on the targeted group. A group who, already, has to deal with all the same fears of regular violent crime that everyone else does.
Moderator Note
Don’t wish harm on another poster.
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.
Moderator Action
This thread has turned into more of a debate than just a call for opinions, so let’s move this over to Great Debates (from IMHO).
Every human is in at least 8 of the classes Machine Elf listed.
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.