What's more reprehensible? Pummeling for fun or pummeling for racism?

Great Debates
1

OK, First let me just say that this was not provoked by the hate crime legislation. I’m not concerned with that right now. I am more interested in some personal experiences.

Recently I witnessed two guys beat the shit out of another guy in a bar where I work. I wasn’t currently working. They were all three drunk. One of two brothers lost a pool game by double-kissing the eightball into the pocket. He then claimed to have called it that way and when the winner said, “No way”, he dove across the table into his opponent, his brother joined in and they held him down and kicked him repeatedly. Both brothers were pretty strong guys and they managed to continue kicking him for a bit while others tried to pull them away. Once they pulled away the guy got up and tried to stagger out the back door, but the brother broke away again grabbed him and threw him down the stairs into the basement. Then the cops arrived (lucky they came fast for once) and the brothers disappeared out the door. The cops escorted the victim home.

Now, I had seen a lot of disgusting racial violence in this place, both white on black and black on white. It’s not a nice place and there is a fairly even racial mix. It’s inevitable. The racial violence disgusts me but for some reason this incident disgusts me more. I think because there was no motivation at all. Partially, it was because I think that they would have killed the guy if no one had stopped them.

BTW, the most morally reprhensive act of all came the next day. The brothers are sons of a friends of the bar owner. The bar owner came in the next day and threatened the bartender saying, “You saw nothing. You were in the bathroom or whatever and you saw nothing! It never happened!” I don’t think he knows that I was there too. I won’t be working there any more. It was supposed to be fun.

2

I think your example is a really good one because you didn’t tell us the race of the participants. Therefore, we don’t know if it was two black guys beating up a white guy, or vice versa, or black-on-black or white-on-white. Does the act of kicking the crap out of someone become more or less reprehensible based on race? Personally, I don’t think it does.

I think the actions remain the same – i.e., an assault. If there is a racial motivation – i.e., “let’s beat this guy up solely because he’s black” --I think that can legitimately be considered when determining the punishment for the crime. But I don’t think it makes the crime any different – it’s still an assault.

3

I have to go with Jodi on this one.

Both motives being equally reprehensible. Violence for violence sake, and violence to express hatred seems inherantly equal in my book. Like Jodi, it shoud be a consideration in sentencing.

4

Jodi, I don’t disagree that motivation can, and should, be taken into account during sentencing, but I have trouble with the way it’s done currently, that is, mandating that some motivations be taken into account, but not others.

Frankly, I think that an assailant who assaults for fun, or for no good reason, is a worse threat to society as a whole than one who assaults for a reason, no matter how illegitimate society finds that reason. I disagree with hate crime legislation in general because I don’t like government mandating the message that, OK, if you beat someone up, you’ll be punished, but if you beat him up because he’s black, of if you beat her up because she’s a woman, or you beat her up because she’s gay, etc., you’ll be punished more. To me, that’s a lot like punishing the defendant for what he’s thinking, which I’ve always had a problem with.

That said, I understand the perceived need for the legislation, since courts may share the prejudices of the assailant and award a lesser sentence if the defendant can be perceived to have had an “excuse” or if the victim is found not to be worthy of protection.

Maybe this post belongs in another thread. To respond to the OP (if it’s not clear), I think it’s worse to beat someone up for no reason than for some reason. I can’t understand the former; I can understand, if not sympathize with, the latter.

Hey, whether someone beats me up because I’m Jewish or because they just don’t like the cut of my jib doesn’t matter much to me. Whatever his motivation, I think he should be drawn and quartered. Slowly. :slight_smile:

5

I am just thinking about what motivates a person or persons to assault another person.

The incident described shows brother #1 reacting poorly after losing a game of pool and the subsequent arguement. His solution was to try and kick the crap out of the winner. Brother #2 joins in to assist brother #1. Alcohol seems to have played a big role in this incident. This violence seems like it was pretty spontaneous without any forethought by the participants.

If this had been a crime where it was 2 white on 1 black or 2 black on 1 white one might think that this was something that was planned or pre-meditated by those doing the assault. Picture the two guys getting together to discuss what they will do should the opportunity arise to beat someone of an opposite race. If one could prove that there was some pre-meditation or a prior history of racially motivated assaults the penalty should be more severe than what is meted out for simple assault.

I am wondering if the races of the participants was an issue here, I wonder if they were all the same race would this have happened? It seems like an overly brutal reaction to the loss of a game of billiards and they could be more going on here than what meets the eye.

My criteria for beating the hell out of someone is based solely on how much they could pose a threat to myself or family, race is not a factor.

6

OK, Though it’s interesting to here specualtions from everyone not having given the races, I think I want to give you the complete info.

All people involved were white. There was only one black person in the room at the time of the incident. It was a slow monday night. THe Black guy was involved only in that he was close to the action and he spilled his drink getting out of the way.

As far as premeditation, these guys had been getting argumentative and trying to pick fights with several people earlier in the night, but those people all backed down and left the bar. I guess these guys just needed one more drink before they were ready to throw the first punch. So, I think they planned to have a fight and didn’t care who it was they were fighting. Too bad Chuck Norris didn’t walk in at the right moment.

7

Too bad the bartender hadn’t thrown the thugs out.
Why would s/he put up with that crap?
I never did.

8

I don’t think I would interupt 2 guys pummeling another guy like that without a gun.:slight_smile:

9

Motive matters.

You can mitigate the murder charges for an admitted killer if the victim was dying of a debilitating, terminal disease and wished to die with dignity.

You can mitigate (statuatory) rape charges against the accused if the persons involved were, say, a sixteen-year old female and her nineteen-year old boyfriend, and the sex between them was consensual to begin with.

You can mitigate the shooting death of a pregnant woman and the unborn child if the shooter were mentally retarded and it was demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court that s/he could not comprehend the wrongness of his/her actions.

You could mitigate the calculated murder of a human being if the victim was a distraught father who took the law into his own hands because he was convinced his child’s killer was never going to receive a rightful punishment.

It becomes MUCH less easy for me to mitigate sentencing of someone who can be shown to be racist, violent, hateful and who acted out against someone primarily on the basis of the color of their skin.

I can extend that same type knee-jerk distaste of violent bigotry to someone who acts out against someone’s sexual orientation, age, national origin, religious or political beliefs. I understand that wrong is wrong, but wrongful actions fueled by bigotry feels MORE wrong.

Oh, yeah. Pummeling for fun is done all the time. Sometimes it’s even done for profit. It’s called boxing.

10

Not necessarily. To beat someone just for the sake of being a bastard really doesn’t make one much better. They’re still jerks. The result is still the same.

I do think it depends…like we said, why then, isn’t attempted murder the same as murder?

11

Well, I’m not a big fan of hate crime legislation. Generally, it’s an attempt to criminalize a person’s thoughts, and that certainly sets a dangerous precedent. Is it not enough that a crime was already committed? Regardless of the motive, there was a damage done on another person and that should be punished to the fullest. But it’s a chilling effect on free speech and expression to have someone’s THOUGHTS made into a further crime, and well…that’s a little scary.