Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I would be fascinated to read about both cases.

Here's the one I was talking about. Not sure about Frazzled's source.

It seems in that case the defendant was jailed for failing to post a bond, which isn't a hate crime.

There must be some documented cases, the hate crime legislation has been around for over 45 years.

I'm not really buying the "pre-internet" argument. Plenty of historical stuff happened "pre-internet" and we can still look it up on line.

How about Frazzled has issues with California now and will not voluntarily go back nor look up anything there, ever?

There are no drop bears in California, as far as we know...

On Topic... I would be genuinely interested in seeing if the 2 offenders are ever tried and charged for more than simple assault. Afterall, reverse-racism doesnt really play back well in the media. Assault is threatening violence. battery is what they did. Don't worry statically Minorities get harsher sentences for crimes. Besides it's not like anybody is defending their actions.

Kilkrazy wrote:It seems in that case the defendant was jailed for failing to post a bond, which isn't a hate crime.

Now you're just being pedantic.

Link

A pair of 16-year-old girls face hate crime charges after they allegedly handed out anti-gay fliers targeting a classmate at their northern Illinois high school.

(Had a link to another story on the topic, but the website blew up my browser)

Here's another case.

A pair of 16-year-old girls face hate crime charges after they allegedly handed out anti-gay fliers targeting a classmate at their northern Illinois high school.

Yeah that's a crime, you can't hand out hate literature in "public" schools. Just like you can't wear a swastika and hand out anti jewish propaganda.

sexiest_hero wrote:May have been because she is transgender.

I think it was more the fact that they knew it was a man (you know, with male bits) and that he was trying to enter the Ladies' room, not that that is any excuse for what happened.

Just saying I don't think they decided to beat him solely because of the fact that he's transgendered. I think hate crime laws are kind of silly; I'd be fine with them just adding the extra Hate Crime penalties to all violent crimes. Why not punish all acts like this extremely harshly, regardless of the motivation?

Anyway, I'll be interested to see more of the details of this case.

Kilkrazy wrote:There are no drop bears in California, as far as we know...

We do have chupacabras though. You'll want to watch out for those.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:It seems in that case the defendant was jailed for failing to post a bond, which isn't a hate crime.

Now you're just being pedantic.

Pedantic but correct.

biccat wrote:
Link

A pair of 16-year-old girls face hate crime charges after they allegedly handed out anti-gay fliers targeting a classmate at their northern Illinois high school.

(Had a link to another story on the topic, but the website blew up my browser)

It would be interesting to know the result of the trial.

In fact it seems the charges were dropped.

http://mchenrycountyblog.com/category/hate-crime/

biccat wrote:
Here's another case.

That wasn't charged as a hate crime.

Monster Rain wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:May have been because she is transgender.

I think it was more the fact that they knew it was a man (you know, with male bits) and that he was trying to enter the Ladies' room, not that that is any excuse for what happened.

Just saying I don't think they decided to beat him solely because of the fact that he's transgendered. I think hate crime laws are kind of silly; I'd be fine with them just adding the extra Hate Crime penalties to all violent crimes. Why not punish all acts like this extremely harshly, regardless of the motivation?

Anyway, I'll be interested to see more of the details of this case.

Kilkrazy wrote:There are no drop bears in California, as far as we know...

We do have chupacabras though. You'll want to watch out for those.

Cali also has mountain lions. I don't get the goat sucker hate. Chupacabra's are just misunderstood.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yepo definitely investigating as hate crime now that there was a rally. Judge asked why she wasn't being charged with attempted murder.
Witness and lady who stopped it.

The one employee there -- I think it was the manager -- said to me, 'You do know that's not a woman. That's a transvestite.' And I said, 'So? She's human,'" Thoms said.

http://www.wbaltv.com/r/27665011/detail.html

Yup, see all is well.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There are no drop bears in California, as far as we know...

Frazzled wrote:We do have chupacabras though. You'll want to watch out for those.

Cali also has mountain lions. I don't get the goat sucker hate. Chupacabra's are just misunderstood.

it was the manager -- said to me, 'You do know that's not a woman. That's a transvestite.' And I said, 'So? She's human,'" Thoms said.

http://www.wbaltv.com/r/27665011/detail.html

Nearly every crime is motivated by some form of hate, which makes 'hate crime' laws redundant and unnecessary.

However, both of these people should definitely be charged with aggravated battery, since they beat someone to within an inch of their life.

I assume you mean nearly every violent crime.

"Hate crime" isn't crime perpetrated because of generalised hate. It is crime perpetrated because of "-isms" such as racism, sexism and homophobia.

"Isms" lead to special groups being picked on preferentially as targets of violence. These groups become more vulnerable to violent crime than average people.

The idea of the anti-hate-crime laws is to give extra protection to members of society who are at greater risk.

Why not punish all violent crimes that harshly, though?

Its easy to think hate crime legislation is unfair and not needed- unless you're actually one of the people amongst a minority those laws were written to protect.

In essence- hate crime laws are written to add extra severity to the sentencing of the existing charges if the victim/person harmed was a target because of a difference in race, creed or religion.

Some may not agree with the hate crime laws- but I agree far less with beating someone because of thier faith, gender, color or sexual preference.

Keep in mind- with any crime, being charged does not equate to being convicted. There will be 12 people that will be far better informed than we are- who will get to determine guilt innocence and motivation.

Monster Rain wrote:Why not punish all violent crimes that harshly, though?

Its just that sort of logic that has no place here young man!

Yes people get arrested for insulting others, here
http://www.newser.com/story/112873/fashion-designer-john-galliano-of-christian-dior-arrested-after-anti-semitic-rant.html

Mistress of minis wrote:Its easy to think hate crime legislation is unfair and not needed- unless you're actually one of the people amongst a minority those laws were written to protect.

In essence- hate crime laws are written to add extra severity to the sentencing of the existing charges if the victim/person harmed was a target because of a difference in race, creed or religion.

Some may not agree with the hate crime laws- but I agree far less with beating someone because of thier faith, gender, color or sexual preference.

Keep in mind- with any crime, being charged does not equate to being convicted. There will be 12 people that will be far better informed than we are- who will get to determine guilt innocence and motivation.

of weight or age or sexual preference blah blah. I'd proffer beating someone nearly to death is indeed hate. Treat it as such.

Its funny that you think they'd be more informed. Juries by the very nature of a trial, have limited access to evidence...

I believe the hate crime aspect applies to the person being trans gender, not the color of her/his skin. And according to the article it started because the tranny was trying to use the girls bathroom and the girls didn't like it.

Monster Rain wrote:Why not punish all violent crimes that harshly, though?

I suppose that would remove the social distinction between crimes committed due to isms and other crimes.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Why not punish all violent crimes that harshly, though?

I suppose that would remove the social distinction between crimes committed due to isms and other crimes.

I'm just thinking that if someone is beaten for their money it would seem unjust to not punish their assailant as harshly as they would if they were beaten for some other reason, whatever it happened to be.

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Why not punish all violent crimes that harshly, though?

I suppose that would remove the social distinction between crimes committed due to isms and other crimes.

I'm just thinking that if someone is beaten for their money it would seem unjust to not punish their assailant as harshly as they would if they were beaten for some other reason, whatever it happened to be.

At the end of the day they still got beaten.

I may be mistaken,but I belive hate crime laws were initially passed in an effort to combat the (then) rising acts of Skinhead/Klan violence during the late 80's and early 90's.
IIRC Morris Dees and the SPLC along with the ADL were all strong supporters of passing the hate crime laws.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Has anyone been prosecuted for insulting someone?

Yes, in San Francisco.

And Detroit.

Although, in that case, he was jailed for threatening to insult someone.

Did he utter the words,

"Go away or I shall taunt you a second time!"

I just read something about transgender folks in the news too... hold on.... here we are

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13186958

I don't know if he could be fired for his actions though he has certainly showed a great lack of moral character.

Then again if he had not uploaded it we wouldn't all be here talking this incident...

Mistress of minis wrote:Its easy to think hate crime legislation is unfair and not needed- unless you're actually one of the people amongst a minority those laws were written to protect.

In essence- hate crime laws are written to add extra severity to the sentencing of the existing charges if the victim/person harmed was a target because of a difference in race, creed or religion.

Some may not agree with the hate crime laws- but I agree far less with beating someone because of thier faith, gender, color or sexual preference.

Keep in mind- with any crime, being charged does not equate to being convicted. There will be 12 people that will be far better informed than we are- who will get to determine guilt innocence and motivation.

Fair point, I guess It´s hard to really understand the necissity of such laws before you have experienced a situation like this.

Kilkrazy wrote:I assume you mean nearly every violent crime.

"Hate crime" isn't crime perpetrated because of generalised hate. It is crime perpetrated because of "-isms" such as racism, sexism and homophobia.

"Isms" lead to special groups being picked on preferentially as targets of violence. These groups become more vulnerable to violent crime than average people.

The idea of the anti-hate-crime laws is to give extra protection to members of society who are at greater risk.

This.

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Why not punish all violent crimes that harshly, though?

I suppose that would remove the social distinction between crimes committed due to isms and other crimes.

I'm just thinking that if someone is beaten for their money it would seem unjust to not punish their assailant as harshly as they would if they were beaten for some other reason, whatever it happened to be.

In an individual case that may be true, however the justice system has to consider society as a whole.

Kilkrazy wrote:In an individual case that may be true, however the justice system has to consider society as a whole.

Society shouldn't be concerned with individual justice? Interesting... I really couldn't disagree more.

These laws are applied in individual cases. If it's unjust to some individual every time it's used a law is probably bad.

And before I get called a racist by some fool I'd like to reiterate that I'm not saying that violence based on hate shouldn't be punished harshly, I'm saying that all violent crimes should be punished as harshly as those based on hate.

Either way, I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree. This line of conversation could quickly get very OT rather quickly.

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:In an individual case that may be true, however the justice system has to consider society as a whole.

Society shouldn't be concerned with individual justice? Interesting... I really couldn't disagree more.

I didn't say it shouldn't. That is something you have construed.

The hate crime laws are trying to express the concept that people who are more prone to be attacked should have greater protection.

You seem to arguing for the same penalty for all crimes regardless of circumstances. That is hardly individual justice.

Kilkrazy wrote:The hate crime laws are trying to express the concept that people who are more prone to be attacked should have greater protection.

The corollary to this is that increased punishment (for hate crimes) decreases the incidence of (hate crime) violence.

If so, why not increase punishment for all crimes, thereby reducing the incidence of all violence?

Kilkrazy wrote:You seem to arguing for the same penalty for all crimes regardless of circumstances. That is hardly individual justice.

What exactly do you mean by "individual justice"?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:In an individual case that may be true, however the justice system has to consider society as a whole.

Society shouldn't be concerned with individual justice? Interesting... I really couldn't disagree more.

I didn't say it shouldn't. That is something you have construed.

I honestly don't see how this:

Kilkrazy wrote:In an individual case that may be true, however the justice system has to consider society as a whole.

could be construed any other way. This statement seems to me to be one of those "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. And if you think I got that from Star Trek, you're very wrong mister."

Kilkrazy wrote:You seem to arguing for the same penalty for all crimes regardless of circumstances. That is hardly individual justice.

Well, I'm talking about violent crimes. I'm just saying that society saying "This person's pain is more significant than yours" to someone who was a victim of a similar crime but under different motives is illogical. Also, see below.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The hate crime laws are trying to express the concept that people who are more prone to be attacked should have greater protection.

The corollary to this is that increased punishment (for hate crimes) decreases the incidence of (hate crime) violence.

If so, why not increase punishment for all crimes, thereby reducing the incidence of all violence?

I agree.

Kilkrazy wrote:In an individual case that may be true, however the justice system has to consider society as a whole.

I fail to see how considering each and every individual case would somehow leave "society as a whole" out of consideration. By definition if you take care of the individual cases equally, you get society as a whole in the process.

Unless you are trying to use the Justice system to further a political agenda like buying votes from a particular special interest group, in which case you could substitute "consider society as a whole" with "pander to special interests".