April 4, 2011

"Do you believe children should be charged with hate crimes?"

Good framing of the question. The answer is obvious.

110 comments:

Chase said...

I believe NO ONE should be charged with "Hate" crimes. Make the penalty for the crime - the actions and choices - and enforce it. Judgment of motivation is best left to God.

Freeman Hunt said...

Why are the police involved in a school bullying incident that didn't include assault?

Why not the usual go to the office, get yelled at, apologize to the person you bullied, receive a punishment severe enough to discourage future bullying?

Martha said...

I agree with Chase.
The students involved in this "hate crime" are also accused of TERRORIZING their 13 year old Muslim classmate.

Terrorizing? Really?

LawGirl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LawGirl said...

NO. No one should.

If there is a violent crime alleged, the determination of whether and how to prosecute it should be done without regard to the motivation behind it.

It completely escapes me as to why an assault on one person should be considered somehow "worse" than an assault on another based upon the ostensible reason for the attack.

Hate crimes are excuses for thought police to get inside the heads of individuals. One's outward actions against others are relevant . . . one's reasons for the actions - notsomuch.

Pogo said...

Hate crimes are like Elvis, chupacabra, and Bigfoot.

Multiple sightings, but on closer examination, not quite it.

It's make-work for multicultural thugs.

Coketown said...

Make sure you all update your dictionaries. "Hate crime" is out and "bias attack" is in. We can argue all day about how stupid hate crime/bias attack legislation is. But I don't think kids should even be charged with assault. That's what's turning our kids into a generation of authority-dependent pussies: Some kid gets shoved/punched/stomped on and they pull up their skirt and run to the police. Give me a break. Where is Crack Emcee when we need him?

bagoh20 said...

So if you do such a thing while chanting "we love you" there is no crime. Take note kids. It's only political speech that's illegal.

Phil 3:14 said...

Then all children should be charged. I mean what kid hasn't said to one of his/her parents:

I HATE YOU!! I HATE YOU!! I HATE YOU!!

Freeman Hunt said...

Just more catering to the assumed exquisite sensitivities of Muslims and the fear that they will flip out and kill people if not given special handling.

Are the people charging these children with hate crimes going to be charged with the hate crime of thinking Muslims are weak and incapable of coping with normal life?

Paul Zrimsek said...

Indeed, the answer is so obvious that FLS will turn up any minute now asserting the opposite.

bagoh20 said...

Arresting children for this is child abuse and bullying.

Good lesson for the children. That'll teach 'em.

Freeman Hunt said...

What kind of attack isn't a bias attack?

"I attacked him because I didn't like his race."
"I attacked him because I didn't like his religion."
"I attacked him because I didn't like his appearance."
"I attacked him because I didn't like his personality."
"I attacked him because I didn't like his having money I wanted."
"I attacked him because I didn't like his getting the affections of the girl I like."

Seems like any attack is a bias attack. The only way you would attack someone without bias against him would be if you did so on accident in a case of mistaken identity.

Is it the assumption of this law that attacking people for religion is somehow worse than attacking them for being nerdy or small or what have you? Why would that be worse? I doubt the nerdy kid who gets teased thinks, "Well, at least they're attacking me because they don't like me personally and not because they don't like my religion."

Dose of Sanity said...

So, I've never really considered the question of whether a "hate crime" was a bad thing - I didn't realize the opposition to it.

It (was) my understanding that hate crimes are there to add extra penalities in situations where the potential for a similiar attack is greater?

Like if you kill someone over a personal "dispute", you don't have motivation to immediately kill someone again. But if you kill someone for their race/ethnicity/religion, you may have the same motive when you get out of prison? Thus, the hate crime law helps protect society?

(Failures of prisons, prison cultures, and other external values aside.)

N J Forde said...

This story makes me think about Lee Harris' book The Suicide of Reason

http://www.lee-harris.org/books/the-suicide-of-reason

LawGirl said...

Freeman Hunt said:
I doubt the nerdy kid who gets teased thinks, "Well, at least they're attacking me because they don't like me personally and not because they don't like my religion."


'Zactly. Well said.

PaulV said...

Dreyfus Intermediate School?
j'accuse!

WV: way neo
It is way neo to accuse child of hate crime. or some such

PaulV said...

Dose, what kind of crime is not a hate crime? If you were sane you would know there are none.

PaulV said...

Are the death threats against Walker and others Rs hate crime, Dose

Triangle Man said...

@Coketown

I noticed the "bias attack" terminology too. First time I've encountered it, but I bet I see it a lot more in the future. It certainly broadens the net.

Dose of Sanity said...

@ Paul - Didn't I make that distinction in my post?

(Note: I'm not sure it makes sense to charge a child with a hate crime at any point - capacity to hate standard? ha. )

Alex said...

All this skirts the issue of why would we allow hijabs pursuant to public codes? The ummha is pleased.

Lisa said...

I see.. that is the standard of hate crime if the victim is a Muslim (attempting to remove a headscarf, calling her a terrorist and asking if she is a Muslim).

And repeatedly calling a white child a racist and physically bullying them if you are black? Nope.

Sexually harassing a Muslim teen girl, touching her and attempting to rip of her hijab if you are Muslim male teen? Nope. Both are examples of behavior I have seen in my classroom and reported to administration that were ignored and minimalized.

Dose of Sanity said...

[i]All this skirts the issue of why would we allow hijabs pursuant to public codes? The ummha is pleased. [/i]

Wow.

Dose of Sanity said...

Tag fail.

Pogo said...

'Hate crimes' and 'bias crimes' sound too Orwellian or Kafkaesque to be accorded any respect.

They're just gussied-up terms for sin, in the modern state religion.

Repent and be saved.

Dose of Sanity said...

@ Lisa both of those are serious incidents, it's a shame they were ignored. I think that there was no need to include the hate crime charge here - battery (or assault if there was no physical contact) would be just find in the circumstance.

Pogo said...

All modern sins are Caucasian.

Alex said...

DOS - the way I view it, hijabs are a direct affront to my civilization. They have no business in our country.

Dose of Sanity said...

@ Alex

Would your country be the United States? If so - we value this thing here, it's called freedom. Freedom to speak our minds, Freedom to worship (or not) whomever or whatever we choose...that sort of thing. A religious item, when worn voluntarily, should not be restricted by any of our laws.

Alex said...

DOS - Wrong. We restrict all kinds of things in this country. You do not have the freedom to do anything you wish. We say that if you go to public places you can't be covering your face. That's a law. Muslims apparently flaunt the law and you're ok with it.

Hoosier Daddy said...

When I was in 7th grade, an 8th grader would always tease me and call me a dumb Polack. One day I popped him in the mouth and for defending my ethnic heritage I was rewarded with a 3 day suspension and was informed any future infraction would result in my expulsion.

Obviously my punishment was rather backward thinking as we now know that a violent response to a personal slight is not only to be expected but the offending individual should be held accountable and chastised.

Progress.

Dose of Sanity said...

@ Alex

You know they aren't actually breaking the law, right?

Hoosier Daddy said...

If so - we value this thing here, it's called freedom. Freedom to speak our minds...

Provided of course that freedom doesn't cause murderous riots halfway around the world. Harry Reid or Lindsey Grahm want to see to it that your freedoms don't upset anyone.

bagoh20 said...

Hate crime law is exactly the same thinking as "Super Secret Double Probation" and from similar type authority figures.

Alex said...

You know they aren't actually breaking the law, right?

As far as I'm concerned it is. The hijab is a direct assault on Western civilization. But I've figured out that the left has made an alliance with the Muslims to destroy it.

edutcher said...

Anybody can be arrested for a hate crime if the local Thought Police so desire it.

You want to arrest somebody for assault, do it, but this stuff is a nice PC way of opening up the populace to any Gestapo or Stasi that some community organizer cares to create.

Michael said...

I think everyone should be charged with a hate crime and then we can proceed from there. It would at least level the playing field inasmuch as a hate crime currently is any offense committed against a protected group. The same crime committed with the same malice, violence and force by the party committing the hate crime would be an ordinary crime.

Dose of Sanity said...

@ Alex - good thing "as far as I'm concerned" isn't any legal standard.

@ Edutcher - Puh-leeze.

Note the paranoia in your posts. We're not trying to take over the world guys, I swear.

Alex said...

Note the paranoia in your posts. We're not trying to take over the world guys, I swear.

No you're simply chiseling away at Western civilization piece by piece. I realize it's a century-long struggle and you guys are patient.

Hoosier Daddy said...

If we're going to be arresting 12 year olds for school yard fights then we're going to need to raise taxes to pay for a lot of juvenile detention centers.

Henry said...

Thus, the hate crime law helps protect society?

The hate crime law helps prosecutors get convictions.

How good prosecutors are at judging motivation -- as opposed to judging conviction rates and media publicity -- is up to you to decide.

Dose of Sanity said...

@ Henry a possible external variable, true.

p.s. I am thinking of changing my name to Liberal Boogeyman, just for you Alex.

Pogo said...

Hate crimes are made just to give Law and Order something to get morally indignant about.

Dose of Sanity said...

I think the news takes care of that, Pogo.

PaulV said...

Dose, is any hate crime really different from any other crime against a person. All involve hate.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)




I certainly believe they ought to be charged! This sort of Counter-Revolutionary Hooliganism must be stopped, with the Iron-Boot to the Head! I say charge them their families, and their neighbors! Charge them all! They are ALL equally guilty! The child harbours such anti-social attitudes because of the parents, and the neighbors MUST have known, but remained silent…If we ALL are not vigilant, then such anti-social behavior and thought can become the norm! Only by vigilant actions, by neighbor watching neighbor, parents watching the child, the child watching the parents, can we move forward as a society!

X-Ray Tetra said...

No. You should change your name to Dose of Stupidity instead.

Alex said...

Joe - you're dead on. The informer-based society is what they want the most. Total distrust and rot.

Dose of Sanity said...

That was clever. I'm sure that's never been said before.

@ Paul - I understand what you are trying to say. I tried to spell it out in my first post. Don't get hung up on the word "hate". It's meant to be treated like an aggravating factor - something that extends sentencing on a crime.

Laura said...

So the old adage that they only tease you because they like you (or want your attention) can finally be laid to rest? As a survivor of childhood "hate crimes," I am pondering the statute of limitations...

Alex said...

DOS - notice that whenever you come in here is to defend the indefensible, the indecent, the immoral.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


It's meant to be treated like an aggravating factor - something that extends sentencing on a crime.

Were it that alone it would be a Sentencing Guideline…INSTEAD it’s a crime…it’s worse to beat a white guy for being JEWISH, than simply to beat a white guy…To break a Gay/Lesbian Leg is WORSE, than to simply break someone’s leg…In short, we say beating some people is worse than beating others. Beyond that travesty, the arrow only points one way, four Blacks, kidnap, rape, torture, and kill a White couple, No Hate Crime, imagine had it been the Reverse…White-on-Black=Hate, Black-on-White= NO Hate.

Hate Crimes are about “Reparations” for Past Wrongs. We are saying, “Some Animals Are More Equal, Than Other Animals.”

Bottom-Line: beating Simon Bar Kochba is wrong, not because he leads the Jewish Transgendered Jewish Alliance for Gay Marriage, but because beating ANYONE is wrong….whether the beat-down came from members of Storm Front or simply from aggrieved Pre-Op Trans-Sexual who felt Mr. Kochba hadn’t fully abandoned his Oppressive Heteronormaity.

Joe said...

In the boy's case, why is battery not sufficient?

DADvocate said...

We are truly becoming a sick society, led by those who claim to be making things better.

Methadras said...

The concept of a hate crime is repugnant, since the operative word 'crime' in and of itself implies that a wrong was committed regardless of it's intent.

Pogo said...

"...why is battery not sufficient?"

Because that only addresses the crime.

The sin must also be penanced.

DADvocate said...

Paul - Didn't I make that distinction in my post?

No.

It (was) my understanding that hate crimes are there to add extra penalities in situations where the potential for a similiar attack is greater?

Never heard this rationalization before. You could use the potential for a similar attack arugment in nearly any crime. Robbing a store puts the idea in someone else's head who might rob a store. Statistically when you commit suicide one of your relatives is more likely to commit suicide.

Why should someone have special status under the law that supposedly grants them greater legal "protection?" Is another's life more valuable than mine simply because they're a different sexual persuasion, race, religion or gender? What happened to equal protection under the law?

I find it scary that you never thought about hate crime legislation more deeply than a superfical thought or two.

Dose of Sanity said...

Just being honest. I've never had to defend it before. Why is that everyone focuses on the victim's status? Isn't the person who committed the crime the one the law focuses on?

If you kill a gay person during a robbery it's not a hate crime. If you kill him because he's gay, it is. I understand the "he's equally dead" style argument, but I think the point about repeat offenders exists, no?

I also see your point about "the ideas" for a crime. That's not really what we are saying here though, is it? It's about the likelihood of re-offending? Don't we (court cases pending) do the same to sex offenders?

[Note: These were and are my presumptions on why hate crime laws exist. I'm sure there are other reasons.)

Phil 3:14 said...

So we had a Muslim father convicted of running over his daughter here in AZ.

He felt that his daughter's now westernized ways dishonored him. Is that a hate crime against western society?

(Does his daughter care whether it was a hate crime?)

Browndog said...

Not getting behind hate crime prosecutions is a hate crime.

haters!

Freeman Hunt said...

If you kill him because he's gay, it is. I understand the "he's equally dead" style argument, but I think the point about repeat offenders exists, no?

No, I don't think that stands. I don't even think that has been used as a justification for these laws.

Crime is most commonly committed for money or due to gang involvement or drugs. The guy who mugs people for money is still going to want money when he gets out of prison. Gang members and people involved with the drug trade are notorious repeat offenders.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Dose of Sanity said...

Just being honest. I've never had to defend it before.

I suspect that's because until you came here, you've lived in a bubble of liberal academic groupthink, where "hate crime" legislation is presumptively a good thing.

For the rest of us, the standard is simple: you try actions, not thoughts, because actions can be objectively judged. Also because of equal treatment before the law: the same actions get the same punishments, no matter who you are. Because after all, when we start trying to judge thoughts, how do we tell "what you thought" from "what my prejudices about you convince me that you thought"?

I was raised a liberal. The last straw that led me to give up the liberal label was when all the so-called liberals got behind the obscenity of "hate crimes" legislation. That leads to Thought Police, no matter what your good intentions may be.

Smilin' Jack said...

Well, I think "hate" crimes are kind of silly, but on the other hand society takes intent into account all the time. A charge of "X with intent to Y" always carries a stiffer penalty than merely X, even if the result is the same.

Why are the police involved in a school bullying incident that didn't include assault?

It was assault; "hate" was an aggravating factor. And these kids sound like they could profit from some aggravation in their lives--what they did was more despicable than a simple schoolyard fight. So I'm fine with throwing the book at them--sometimes the ends justify the means.

rhhardin said...

A lot of bias crime is really variance crime.

Freeman Hunt said...

It was assault;

Nothing in the article indicates that the girl who has been arrested so much as touched the victim. The girl bully said mean things. That's assault now?

Dose of Sanity said...

I understand your arguments, and I see what you are guarding against. I'm trying to have a honest debate here - no need for the attacks against me.

To you then, no amount of aggrevation/punishment/extra sentencing should be determined based on the motive of the criminal?

(What are the other reasons you've heard to defend the law then?)

Dose of Sanity said...

@ Freeman

Assault doesn't involve touching at all. Battery does.

Carry on.

Freeman Hunt said...

Justification for hate crime laws:

Penalty-enhancement hate crime laws are traditionally justified on the grounds that, in Chief Justice Rehnquist's words, "this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."

And the reasoning in there that wouldn't apply to, say, gang violence is...?

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Dose, I made no attack on you, and I'm sorry you misunderstood my point as an attack.

I just know that if you've never heard any objection to "hate crime" legislation before, it can only be for one of two reasons: you're not engaged and paying attention to the discussion; or else the objections never came up in any discussion near you.

Since you do engage and pay attention, that left me assuming the latter was the case. And that means by definition you're in a bubble. Objections to "hate crimes" legislation have been around at least since I started paying attention in the early 1990s.

And it's not something only discussed in conservative circles, since at that time in my life I got almost all of my news from NPR. So if you never heard the discussions, that tells me you've been seriously insulated on this topic.

I know that "bubble" is sometimes thrown around as a smear; but in this case, I used it very intentionally as an accurate description. I'm sorry that sounded like a smear, but it's not. "Hate crimes" legislation is pretty controversial except in a small bubble where it's considered presumptively a good thing.

Freeman Hunt said...

Assault doesn't involve touching at all.

If we're going to arrest kids for saying hateful things to each other, we may as well turn all buses that stop at middle and junior high schools into prison transport vehicles.

I'm not arguing that these kids shouldn't be in big trouble. They should. Schools should crack down on bullying. But to arrest them? And for "hate crimes?" Yow!

former law student said...

I can't picture a crime against the person that involves love for that person.

Why are the police involved in a school bullying incident that didn't include assault?

Freeman would wait till the victim suffered the physical injury required for criminal assault. The bully did commit the tort of assault: harmful or offensive touching, with intent to do so, perceived by the victim.

She also said the 12-year-old boy tried to rip the hijab, a religious head covering, off of her.

former law student said...

All this skirts the issue of why would we allow hijabs pursuant to public codes?

WWGD? (What would Givenchy do?)

http://www.life.com/gallery/35032
/image/50529440#index/15

former law student said...

So the old adage that they only tease you because they like you (or want your attention) can finally be laid to rest?

They pick on you to establish your place in the pecking order -- get pecked enough and you bleed to death.

Freeman Hunt said...

FLS, I specified the girl, who did not touch the victim.

Would you like to arrest every kid who pushes another kid at school?

Andrew said...

South Park already addressed this issue in season 4...
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s04e01-cartmans-silly-hate-crime

former law student said...

Sorry, Freeman, I was still working off your first comment, which seemed ambiguous to me.

WPIX says they both attacked the girl. From the victim's statement:

"They kicked me on my leg, and punched my face," the victim told PIX 11 News. "When I started to get up, they said 'You're a Muslim', and hit me again, and then they called me a terrorist a few times."

During the alleged attack, Osman attempted to remove the teen's religious head wrap but failed as she fought back, police said.

"At that time, I was feeling terrible," the girl, whose family is from Pakistan, told PIX 11 News. "I was trying to hold it so it doesn't come off."

The victim suffered minor bruises and a cut lip, the New York Post reported.


Dunno why the Daily News report was so sketchy.

Freeman Hunt said...

FLS, in that case, the linked article is garbage. What is wrong with crime reporters?

Yes, if you jump someone at school and beat them up, you should be arrested.

Though all of my "hate crimes" comments still stand.

Lucius said...

Yes these kids are bullies-- but "bias attack"?!? What is this, Terry Gilliam's "Brazil"?

One episode of bullying I endured in school was some punk spitting in my hair in the cafeteria line. Is grabbing at a precious hijab so terrible an offense? What, was the girl going to have to be honor-killed if her head gets exposed for five seconds?

And btw, just as a question about subtext: what is up with the accompanying photograph (purporting to be the girl?) It's lit and framed like a Vermeer, but in nightmare reverse: where there should be a creamily lit face studying us, there's the blackness of the back of a girl's head.

I actually find that image rather disturbing. Does not endear me to the hijab.

former law student said...

Would you like to arrest every kid who pushes another kid at school?

Pushing minimizes what happened so I'm not sure how it's relevant here.

How should physically violent students be treated? Teachers are supposed to teach, counselors to counsel. There's always reform school, juvenile hall, boy's ranch, but you pretty much have to be processed by the juvenile justice system to get there.

Freeman Hunt said...

FLS, see my comment after you posted the additional details.

former law student said...

Is grabbing at a precious hijab so terrible an offense?

What type of manhandling would you find acceptable for your daughter to undergo in school, and how would you draw the line? Being "pantsed" all right with you?

former law student said...

Sorry, Freeman, you type faster than I do.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Freeman and former law student,

I'm not surprised we're getting different stories from different viewpoints and different news outlets. In that situation and given the severity of the allegations, it's good to get the police investigating and charges filed.

"Hate crime" charges? Not good. Ever.

wv: inerbrie. The brie in the middle of the wheel, where you don't have to deal with the wax.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

former law student said...

What type of manhandling would you find acceptable for your daughter to undergo in school, and how would you draw the line? Being "pantsed" all right with you?

Not all right, but not a police matter. Administrative punishment time.

There's no easy, bright line here; but kids have been fighting in school forever without police involvement. We simply don't have the manpower to bring the police in for every schoolyard fight. And if we don't have the manpower for that, we certainly don't have the manpower to bring them in for pantsing, hijab grabbing, or playing keep-away with some poor kid's hat.

For low-level conflict, I expect the school authorities to handle it. If it gets more severe than they think they can handle -- or if it's a recurring pattern and the kids clearly don't respond to the school authorities -- then involve the police.

I hear tell that kids fight each other in some families, too. Are we going to call the police in every time that happens?

Lucius said...

FLS, I frankly don't care how spiritually special the hijab is in and of itself: it simply cannot, and will not, be analogous to indecent exposure. The polity has no interest in dignifying it with some special regard.

If this episode involves a beating then it's a much more serious offense-- but I remain adamantly opposed to "hate crimes" legislation.

former law student said...

We simply don't have the manpower to bring the police in for every schoolyard fight.

But teachers and principals suck at resolving conflicts. HD's experience of being the blamed (and punished) victim rings all too true. Cops are trained to maintain order, and to have their lawful authority complied with.

Freeman Hunt said...

For a fight where two kids get ticked off at each other and start trading blows, I wouldn't bring in authorities unless it was incredibly severe.

An unprovoked beating with multiple assailants, however, is a different thing, and if the victim sustains injuries (as this one seems to have), calling the police is warranted.

DADvocate said...

Dose, a huge problem with hate crime law is where does it begin and end? I was a tall, skinny kid all the way through high school. Occasionally, I got bullied for no apparent reason.

Why was I bullied? Because I seemed an easy target? Because my family was relatively well off? Because I was smarter or happier than most?

Who knows. Bullies are predators. Most often they pick targets that look vulnerable. These kids probably don't have much in the way of feelings about Muslims. But, a Muslim girl wearing a hijab is probably at least somewhat of a social outcast in a typical public school, making her an easy target. Insults relevant to the girl's religion and ethnicity are used because such insults are more hurtful than saying she has big feet. Although, I'm not denying an element of hate may exist.

Ironically, blacks, one of the groups hate crime laws were intended to protect, are more likely to be commit hate crimes than whites.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Freeman Hunt said...

An unprovoked beating with multiple assailants, however, is a different thing, and if the victim sustains injuries (as this one seems to have), calling the police is warranted.

Yep. Injury (beyond scuffs and scrapes)? Call the police.

Potential for serious injury? Call the police. Big adolescent males are far more serious of a threat.

Teacher thinks he or she can't handle it? Call the police.

Weapons? Call the police.

A recurring pattern? Call the police.

And if the police happen to be very close by and it would make a good object lesson... Maybe call the police.

But as a general rule: kids fighting is a matter for the teachers and administrators, not the police.

And sorry, former law student, but I don't trust the police to be any more "fair" in this regard. Schoolyard fights are usually too murky to properly assess blame. One of the meta-lessons kids must learn, at school or somewhere: life ain't fair.

former law student said...

In my experience, bullying as a phenomenon was limited to middle school. People were tolerant of the freaks and geeks in hs.

Hoosier Daddy said...

How should physically violent students be treated?

Well from my past experience is when I got punched by a fellow classmate, I punched back twice as hard and as many times as I could until I made it clear that I wasn't to be fucked with.

Amazaingly it seemed to work as I only had to do it once or twice and after that they found someone else to pick on.

Browndog said...

If you wear funny looking clothes in grade school, you're going to get picked on.

woops-

I think I just committed a hate crime by slandering muslim attire.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Browndog said...

If you wear funny looking clothes in grade school, you're going to get picked on.

Unless it's Jolly Ranchers in your hair. Then you're going to get picked on by the teacher.

Methadras said...

Dose of Sanity said...

I understand your arguments, and I see what you are guarding against. I'm trying to have a honest debate here - no need for the attacks against me.


You are looking for the reason why a crime was committed to have it dovetail with the intent of why it was committed to begin with. Now, you threw up the 'death-because-gay' argument and I can see how that would lead you to this conclusion.

For example:

I killed him because he's gay.

I killed him because I thought he was gay.

I killed him and he happened to be gay.

See the distinctions? All lead to death, but you would parse it out further for other extenuating circumstances regardless of the outcome, which is still murder. And in this current group-think of society, all would be classified as hate-crimes when all 3 intentions are completely different. That's why hate crimes don't work outside of slapping more time onto someone who should be executed to begin with.

The same would apply to any other crime and when we start splitting the hairs of intent and lose focus on the actual crime committed, then we lose sight of what is before us. Everyone wants to know why a crime was committed, but that's not what we should prosecute crime on. It's the outcome. I can think about killing a million people, even imagine intent, but just because I thought so doesn't equate to actually doing it. Until you include hate crimes legislation into the mix. Then you crossed over into the twilight criminal psychology zone.

David said...

They should be charged, just to teach them a lesson, and then sue, have the charges dismissed and win seven gazillion dollars in punitive damages. It's the American way.

As to Freeman's question--The President is involved in school bullying now, so why not the police.

Cedarford said...

In other hate crime news....Remember the Nubian Princess that accused the Duke Lacrosse players of a vicious hate crime that had the whole PC world calling for their hating hater rapist heads??

Crystal Gayle Mangum is charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. Her stabbed 46-year old boyfriend and driver to Mangum's various entertainment engagements is in the hospital in serious condition.
She is being held without bond, and jail officials did not know If she had an attorney.

Mangum was convicted in December of several misdemeanor charges, including child abuse, in a fire that nearly destroyed her home.


Gives the idea of better living and improved humanity through eugenics a boost, IMO.

==============
The kids? No charge. 12 and 13 trying to rip a mask off a classmate?
As for masks, gang attire bandanas - schools have policies banning most face coverings and "colors". Kid walks to class with his blue Crips bandana covering his face, kid gets stopped.

Like it or not, America is a culture that recoils from strangers wearing face-covering devices because in much of it - the person trying to obscure their identity is up to no good, is seen right away as a potential threat.

In most Muslim countries there is non of that ridiculous face covering....only in the most primitive backwards lands and --sadly in the tolerant West. Even in dear old Saudi Arabia - hair covering and abiyahs (a robe) - with face uncovered. Every Muslim country that offers ID like drivers license or passport to women has women required to be photo'd with full facial feature ID.
And Muslim men who wear masks or facial covering? Same as here - suspected crooks and robbers - worse - in the sense they are arrested as bandits, robbers - and it is on them to prove otherwise at the beatings...err...Muslim police questioning..

My opinion - ban the veil and hajib and Burqua as incompatable with our values. Freedom of Religion has to be tested against our other freedoms and right now, Muslims putting women in tents with eyeslits is a form of subjugation and it is also a threat to societal tranquility.

ken in sc said...

Hey, FLS, all those kids who used to be sent to reform school, boy's ranch, and alternative school are kept in ordinary school now. It's illegal to discriminate against them. They have rights.


Retired Teacher.

Michael said...

Methradas:

Good examples. Now look at these explanations: I killed him because he said I was gay.

I killed him because he thought I was gay.

In either case is this a hate crime?

Roux said...

Total BS. The kids should be punished within the school system and maybe not at all.

Browndog said...

What if you're not gay, but just say you're gay to exact revenge?

Define "gay".

If it has legal protections, surley it has a legal definition.

Surely irrefutable evidence must exist to meet that definition.

I've asked for years on blog one simple question:

Define gay.

I have yet to get any answer.

But, I have been called a lot of names.

Feel free to weigh in.

Or, just call me names.

virgil xenophon said...

I'm firmly in the camp of those here who are anti-hate-crime in all its forms for all the "slippery-slope" thought-control reasons given. And am with Freeman "common-sense" Hunt about how to handle run-of-the-mill school-yard bullying. STILL smilin' jack makes a very valid point about "intent" and its common use in the courts. But THAT metric is commonly applied in a pretty much value/cultural--free fact-of-the matter way. Hate-Crime "intent" is a horse of a TOTALLY different color. We ALL know the PC-driven reasons behind it and the resultant uneven one-way application of this concept in the real world no matter what its merits in theory.

Mark said...

If you kill him because he's gay, it is. I understand the "he's equally dead" style argument, but I think the point about repeat offenders exists, no?

Well, no. The idea is that for whatever reason, the perp never does the deed again.

This is why we have sentencing phases in trials, and parole boards.

And how AGAIN does this relate to 12 year olds?

Methadras said...

Michael said...

Methradas:

Good examples. Now look at these explanations: I killed him because he said I was gay.

I killed him because he thought I was gay.

In either case is this a hate crime?


No. This is not a hate crime. It actually would be an even less reason to call it one because you used speech as the determinant instead of thought, which I used as a determinant.

Methadras said...

Browndog said...

What if you're not gay, but just say you're gay to exact revenge?

Define "gay".

If it has legal protections, surley it has a legal definition.

Surely irrefutable evidence must exist to meet that definition.

I've asked for years on blog one simple question:

Define gay.

I have yet to get any answer.

But, I have been called a lot of names.

Feel free to weigh in.

Or, just call me names.


You won't get an answer for the definition of 'gay' because inherently any definition will be a lie. Outside of defining what we all know homosexuality is, parsing it to genders via gay or lesbian is not only silly, but frankly stupid. Homosexuals not only want distinctions for their homosexuality, but they also would add further constraints to it by segregating it out by gender. Nonsense. Further more, the idea of being a gay man is transient since any man can assume the mantle of being gay even if they are straight for any purpose that would suit them legally.

I've always made the contention that proving ones sexual proclivities to attain the legal benefits afforded to gay should be a factor for the 'special' status one receives for being gay as a protected class. As of now not only is that silly to suggest, but would be met with such hate and ridicule from said protected class toward you for even suggesting it. I could, today proclaim I'm gay and be instantly covered by everything under the sun. I could at the point before my murder proclaim I am gay and my murderer would be accused of a hate crime. Being gay is transient. Being a homosexual may not be. Either way, the idea is stupid and should be abandoned.

Can anyone tell me what the distinct sexual segregation for a straight man or a straight woman would be?

Kirk Parker said...

Smilin' Jack,

Stop grinning and put some thought into the fact that intent and motivation are not the same thing.

DoS,

Maybe in your state. But plenty of places are like WA, where assault is any actual physical force, and the term battery simply doesn't appear in law. Can someone clarify for us poor rubes how these things are actually described in NY law?

former law student said...

Can someone clarify for us poor rubes how these things are actually described in NY law?

When I googled NYS criminal assault this afternoon, I noticed that NY law made a plethora of distinctions, but the one thing in common was the victim had to be physically injured.

dick said...

I agree with Chase. I don't believe there should even be hate crimes. If there is a crime, then make the penalty fit the crime and get rid of plea bargains. You do the crime, you do the time and ignore the rest. Hate crimes are just there so people can try to get special favors for themselves or can punish others more severely just to get even. Terrible idea to have them at all.

rhhardin said...

The hate crime charge is punishment for not falling into PC step, and so is an ordinary part of a child's political education.

Do not question the left.

Tibore said...

I don't like the concept of hate crimes laws for this reason: It enshrines the concept of "This is wrong because of who the victim is". That implies that the same act on someone else isn't the same sort of crime.

Bull.

There is one overriding characteristic of everyone that should apply: Citizen. If you are a part of society, then an assault is an assault, whether it's because the assailant was drunk and lashed out, or didn't like your race/religion/gender/whatever and lashed out. Assault is assault, and making the categorizations of assualt class/race/belief based instead of severity based is going down the wrong road.

It used to be that the whole concept of America was to erase legal distinctions between people so that everyone was equal under the law. In the name of supposedly doing good, the opposite is happening.