Am I being racist?

[shmokes]

Well...it's state by state, but it's not like I'm saying nobody has hate crime legislation but should.  The system I'm describing is already in place, "functioning", all over the country.  I am simply in favor of it and explaining why I think hate crimes differ from, and should therefore be punished differently than non-hate crimes.

And yes, if I try to prove that you did something in court and fail to prove it I would certainly hope that you would not receive a sentence for that.

My answer to your inevitable response to the above:

I am aware that some people guilty of hate-crime would have received the same sentence even if the crime did not have a hate component.  I just don't give a ---auto-censored---.

[NoOne=NBA=]

So you would agree with me that:

1) In a state with NO hate crime legislation in place, it is only necessary to prove guilt of the actual crime in order to get the maximum sentence allowed by law?

2) In a state with NO hate crime legislation, once guilt of the actual crime is proven, the DA need only show that it is LIKELY that you committed the given crime with a hate motive, and are therefore more likely to reoffend, in order to gain a stiffer sentence from the judge?

3) In a state that HAS hate crime legislation they can STILL get the maximum penalty for a non-hate crime by only proving guilt, the exact same as the above?

4) In a state that HAS hate crime legislation, if they choose to put the person on trial for the hate crime component they must prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt" during the trial, rather than proving that it is "likely" during the sentencing phase?

5) In a state that HAS hate crime legislation, if you attempt to prove the hate component, and fail, that person MUST get a lesser sentence for the same crime he could have received the maximum for, if you had NOT tried to prove the hate component?

If you can give me yes/no to the above, I think this has pretty much played itself out.

[shmokes]

No, I don't agree with you, because hate-crime legislation makes the law view a crime with the hate component as more severe.  Therefore they increase the maximum penalty for the crime.  So, if the maximum penalty for assault with a deadly weapon is five years in prison, the maximum for assault with a deadly weapon in a hate crime might be 10 years in prison.  They aren't going to lower current maximum to make room for hate-crime penalties.  What weird logic that swims around in that head of yours.

So, if there is NO hate crime legislation, the maximum sentence is lower than it is WITH hate crime legislation.  And as with EVERY component of the crime, it must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt, according to a jury.  Sometimes a jury might believe that a crime was "hate" motivated even, when it wasn't.  But that's the system we have....jury of your peers.  And these aren't just my wild and idealistic ideas about how hate crime legislation could work.  It is how it DOES work.

A person convicted of a non-hate crime can only get the same maximum penalty as a hate crime if we are talking about the maximum penalty being the absolute maximum available, life in prison or death.  Or, of course, if we're talking about two completely different crimes.  Obviously a non-hate murder will be punished more severely than a hate-based property crime.

And yes.  In a state that has hate crime legislation, if you cannot prove the hate component the person cannot be given the extended penalty.  What's your big issue with this?  Is that not reasonable?  You know when you're watching A Few Good Men and the jury reads the verdic....something like, "On the charge of murder in the first degree we find the defendents....not guilty.  On the charge of conduct unbecoming an officer we find the defendents....guilty."  It's perfectly normal for a person to be found guilty for only some of the charges brought against them.  If the prosecutor can't prove guilt, the defendent should be found not guilty.  We are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.  Even if we ARE guilty, we should be found innocent if it can't be proven. 


The hate crime legislation does not make non-hate crime get a lesser punishment than they would have without the hate crime legislation.  In the example above the maximum penalty for a an assault was 10 years before hate crime legislation and it was ten years after hate crime legislation.  The hate crime legislation raised the maximum penalty for some of those criminals.  It did not reduce the maximum for any of them. 

Your number 5 above is being deceptive when it uses the word "lesser".  If the prosecutor is unable to prove the hate crime component the criminal can be given the EXACT SAME maximum penalty that they could be given if the hate crime legislation did not even exist. 

Would you like it in math terms?

Assault Maximum (10 years) + Hate (5 years) = 15 years maximum

Assault Maximum (10 years) +Failure to prove hate (0 years) =  10 years maximum

Assault Maximum (10 years) + No hate crime legislation (0 years) = 10 years maximum

Criminals do not serve less than the maximum if hate isn't proven.  They simply don't serve time for a crime they did not commit.  If we cannot prove that they did it, the law says they didn't do it.

[NoOne=NBA=]

OK, I think I now finally understand your position on this--yeah!!!
You are proposing that we have an EXTRA sentence for the hate part, in addition to the actual sentence.

You kept arguing that the hate crime should get the maximum sentence, but didn't need the hate component proven to get the maximum sentence if the crime were bad enough, and that a non-hate crime could still get the maximum sentence if IT was bad enough.
That's where you were throwing me.
Do you see where I was having a problem understanding that now?


Our positions on this aren't THAT far apart, but there are a few differences I would like to point out.

1) You think that there should be a NEW law, that the defendant must be PROVEN guilty of violating, to get the additional sentence.

I think the maximum sentences should be raised across the board; allowing judges, at minimum, to sentence whomever they feel deserves it to the higher sentence.
I would LIKE to see this changed to have absolute sentences for the crime committed, but know the likelihood of that occurring is minimal.


2) Your system requires us to prove that there is a 99% probability (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the perpetrator committed his crime with hate as a motive.
You admit that we can't ever know the true motive, so any "proof" of guilt will be at best an educated guess, based on how the jury "feels" about the defendant.

My system requires no such proof to get the new higher sentence.
If the judge believes that the circumstances of the crime warrant the new higher maximum, he can issue it--based only on guilt of the actual crime.


I know you all will miss this thread, but I've finally gotten what I wanted out of it.
Thanks for your patience Shmokes.
I really wasn't TRYING to be a pain in the butt.
I WANTED to understand your thought process, and think I do now.


Here's likely my parting shot on this subject, now that I THINK I finally understand the position that you hold on it.

According to your sentencing guidelines above for the assault case:

1) Someone who was proven to have targeted a black guy for the assault would face a MAXIMUM of 15 years. (10 for the assault + 5 for the hate crime).

The same guy, under my system, would face the 15 year maximum regardless of circumstance.

2) Suppose the same guy was just mad, had a baseball bat, and a black guy happened to be the one unlucky enough to encounter him.

This guy would face 10 years maximum under your system, but could still get 15 under mine.
If providing comfort and security to the black community when one of their own comes under attack, and protecting society, are the goals of the hate crime legislation, it falls short in the random violence arena.
I hold that anyone who would viciously and randomly attack someone for just being there, regardless of race/religion/etc..., is JUST as much a threat to society as someone that would specifically target someone from a given community.

This crime will also create the exact same fear within the black community, as it would if the person had targetted a black person.
Therefore this crime should garner the absolute maximum penalty allowed, if that penalty is to be higher for targeting a specific member of the community.

Your system would not allow this.

[shmokes]

You kept arguing that the hate crime should get the maximum sentence, but didn't need the hate component proven to get the maximum sentence if the crime were bad enough, and that a non-hate crime could still get the maximum sentence if IT was bad enough.
That's where you were throwing me.
Do you see where I was having a problem understanding that now?

I don't think I kept arguing that.  Actually, I don't mean to split hairs here, but I don't think I said that even one time.

And my system allows exactly what your saying.  We would just raise the maximum for assault to 15 years, and the maximum for assault in a hate crime would be 20.

In fact, anything you say plus 1.

[danny_galaga]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3599264.stm

This kind of crap has me riled probably as much as the American gun troubles rile you guys.

[NoOne=NBA=]

We would just raise the maximum for assault to 15 years, and the maximum for assault in a hate crime would be 20.

So you hold that, if a white guy randomly assaults a black guy in the park with a baseball bat, he should only face the maximum for assault under your system?

The terror he has inflicted on the black community with the crime should have no relevance in the charges brought against him, or in the sentence he receives if proven guilty?

[shmokes]

No, I think he should be convicted of arson too.  You know...just to give him more years.

[paigeoliver]

Isn't the whole idea of hate crime laws putting the focus on what are becoming more and more isolated incidents in western countries? Not to mention the fact that it is almost impossible to prove, and the sheer idea borders on thoughtcrime.

More food for thought.

What if I hate vietnamese people, and I beat one of them with a baseball bat, not actually because he is vietnamese, but because he owes me money?

What if I send threats to minorities in my neighborhood not because I actually hate them, but because I dislike the effect they have on my property values?

Are minority burglars, carjackers, scam artists, or beggars who specifically target white people subject to these laws? I know when I was layed over in the bus station in Chicago (overnight), I was approached by no less than 6 different people who tried to get money from me in various ways. I watched them, they slowly wandered from one white person to the next until they exhausted all of them, and then they sat down, ignoring all the black people in the terminal.

[DrewKaree]

A black guy looked at me funny once.

I was dressed like a clown.

[shmokes]

Isn't the whole idea of hate crime laws putting the focus on what are becoming more and more isolated incidents in western countries? Not to mention the fact that it is almost impossible to prove, and the sheer idea borders on thoughtcrime.

More food for thought.

What if I hate vietnamese people, and I beat one of them with a baseball bat, not actually because he is vietnamese, but because he owes me money?

What if I send threats to minorities in my neighborhood not because I actually hate them, but because I dislike the effect they have on my property values?

Are minority burglars, carjackers, scam artists, or beggars who specifically target white people subject to these laws? I know when I was layed over in the bus station in Chicago (overnight), I was approached by no less than 6 different people who tried to get money from me in various ways. I watched them, they slowly wandered from one white person to the next until they exhausted all of them, and then they sat down, ignoring all the black people in the terminal.

For christ's sake.  Enough with the what if questions that you already know the answers to. 

The first one...it's not a hate crime, though you may be mistakenly charged and convicted of a hate crime because the investigation turns up all your journals that you talk about planning to start attacking vietnamese people cos you hate them so bad.  Maybe that was just venting that you never intended to act on, but tough break.  The system let you down.

#2 Maybe you'll be charged with a hate crime.  Quit targeting protected classes (race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) moron.

For specifics you'll have to check with your state.  44 states have hate crime laws and there are a lot of differences.  Sexual orientation is only protected in about half of states' hate crime laws.  I don't know if hate-crime can be attached to any law, such as burglary.  Maybe it can in some states and not in others.  But if a black person is assaulting or murdering white people out of racism than yes, hate-crime would apply.  It doesn't only protect minorities (though in practice that is nearly all it does as hate-crimes disproportionately target minorities)

[DrewKaree]

A black guy looked at me funny once.

I was dressed like a clown.

Shmokes, you never addressed my point. 

Why are you ducking me?

[DrewKaree]

Pfft   Ya say ONE THING about him taking a bath like a nancy and he's all touchy and stuff.

 

[shmokes]

A black guy looked at me funny once.

I was dressed like a clown.

He should have killed you.  All clowns should be murdered.

[ChadTower]

Don't bother with Drew.  His life is already over.  His boss, wife, and mom are all the same person.

[NoOne=NBA=]

OK, I give up--you can be Drew's retard.

Now we are supposed to USE public opinion/reaction to a crime as the entire basis to tell us which crimes ARE hate crimes, and thus deserving of stiffer penalties--EXCEPT when YOU decide they are NOT hate crimes, we are just supposed to just ignore that same public opinion/reaction, and let them all suffer in terror.....OMG!!!

Do you, or do you NOT, care how these "terrorized" people feel?
You said before that you "didn't give a @#$#@ if people got away with hate crimes that we couldn't prove against them".
That would lead me to believe that RESULTS are not really as important to you as the EFFORT.

If you DO care about these people, why would you not support using the most efficient means possible to give them back their sense of security in society?
If NOT, what is your REAL reason for supporting hate crime legislation?

[ChadTower]

You ask questions as if you expect answers.  Silly rabbit.

[shmokes]

I was really playing devil's advocate this whole time to teach all the poor BYOAC sheep how to think for themselves.  I truly encourage hate crimes.

[ChadTower]

Since, well, you know, you are so much wiser and more intelligent than everyone else here.

[shmokes]

That last post was tongue-in-cheek mimicking one of NBA's posts in the other retarded thread.

[ChadTower]

I agree about the retarded tongue in cheek.  Well said.

[shmokes]

Thanks.  I thought of it myself.

[Crazy Cooter]

What if I send threats to minorities in my neighborhood not because I actually hate them, but because I dislike the effect they have on my property values?

See topic title.   
In my 'hood... no such thing exists.  White/Green/Blue/Black/Clear... doesn't matter.  Property values are through the roof and it doesn't matter who lives where.  I don't think a C.H.U.D. family would have any effect.  If there was an area that had lower property values, people would climb over each other to get "the discount" and drive the price right back up.  In the city "slum", it'll cost you $200k+ to have a house between a brothel and a crack den.

[ChadTower]

That is the case in my town, too.  Wouldn't matter as anyone who could afford a house wouldn't abuse it and take the property values down.  There aren't many nonwhites in my tiny town and most of the black folks here play for the Patriots.

[DrewKaree]

OK, I give up--you can be Drew's retard.

Don't be so fast to give up....I haven't even shown you my short bus yet.

Will this change your mind?

[shmokes]

 it'll cost you $200k+ to have a house between a brothel and a crack den.

Well I should hope so.  That's a lot of convenience!!!

[danny_galaga]

A black guy looked at me funny once.

I was dressed like a clown.

how was your day, honey?

terrible. some clown tried to kill me!

[danny_galaga]

What if I send threats to minorities in my neighborhood not because I actually hate them, but because I dislike the effect they have on my property values?

See topic title.

[ChadTower]

I wonder how many people in this country understand the difference between racism and racial discrimination.

Racism is natural and part of recognizing the difference between yourself and another individual.  Any decison based on race can be called racism and is not in and of itself always a bad thing.  Mentioning that someone is black, when you are not, should be no different than mentioning that they are blonde and you are not.  It's a simple observation.

Racial discrimination is the decision that an individual is somehow inferior to yourself on the basis of their race differing from your own.  This is where the problem comes in.

[shmokes]

That's not true.  Racism refers specifically to the belief that one race is superior to another.

[ChadTower]

Not always.

Say I'm a barber.  I see a white guy and a black guy in the waiting chairs.  I am aware that I will need to use different methods to cut each of their hair.  This is a racist conclusion.

Is it discriminatory?

The main problem our society has moving forward are the competitive notions of a homogenous society (you're not allowed to mention race) vs the constant call for diversity.  How exactly are people supposed to ignore race while at the same time being sensitive to cultural differences?  If a man being black is of no relevance, how can I be sensitive to his race's history and culture?  Not many people are or will ever be intelligent enough to find a reasonable balance there if one even exists.

So, when people become confused.  When people are confused they get defensive and often angry.  How does Joe White deal with those Hispanics in that state of mind?  Unpredictable but rarely positive.

[ChadTower]

Just looked up racism in the dictionary.  You're right, it is actually listed as a synonym for racial discrimination.  That, right there, is a major part of the problem.  We don't even have a term for decisions based on race that are not discriminatory in nature, meaning that 90% of our population never considers that basic concept.

[danny_galaga]

  We don't even have a term for decisions based on race that are not discriminatory in nature, meaning that 90% of our population never considers that basic concept.

thats because it's not necessarily a decision based on race. its a matter of pragmatism. to use your example above, what is the barber considering? not the colour of the customers skin, but the type of hair. it wouldnt matter what colour the customer is if they have kinky hair. now i once went to a barber who turned over the cushion i was about to sit on because an aboriginal had just sat on it. THAT is racsist...

[ChadTower]

If my example is not based on race, but on hair, then yours is based on height, not on race.

The closest our language can come to what I was talking about is prejudice, which again is such a hot button topic that no one wants to touch it.  Few people understand it and most just shut down their brain when such a topic comes up.

I'll give an example.  I am prejudiced against stupid people.  Black, white, yellow, whatever, I dislike all stupid people for the same reason.

[Dartful Dodger]

Prejudiced is pre-judging, you can't judge a stupid person before you meet them, they need to earn the right to be called stupid.

I am prejudiced against fat people.

[ChadTower]

prej

[shmokes]

We may need, or even already have a word for what you're talking about, but the word racism differs from racial discrimination in important ways.  A racist person can go his whole life without ever racially discriminating.  I think of racism as something one is, and racial discrimination as something one does.  One is used as an adjective, e.g., our racist president, or describes a class, e.g., our president is a racist ---maternal-smurf---.  The other is usually used as a verb, e.g., "our president racially discriminates as a general rule." 

To help keep things straight I've constructed the following sentence that should be committed to memory and recited on a daily basis -- hey, maybe it could replace our unconstitutional pledge in classrooms:

Our racist president is a racist ---maternal-smurf--- who racially discriminates as a general rule.

 

[ChadTower]

...aaaaaaaaaand the thread takes the usual turn into Bush bashing.

We all agree that the guy's a total turd, but do we have to crap up every thread with it?

[shmokes]

Lighten up.....

[Dartful Dodger]

A person who types is a typist, so Bush can't be a racist.
He won't be racing again, because Bush WON!!!... twice.