Have you ever been the victim of a hate crime?

[lindalove]

Yes, a few times. I am a caucasion. I grew up in an area that was predominantly african american and latino. I was called all kinds of derogatory racial names, etc. I was "jumped" several times because I was "white". My family endured so many incidents because we were who we were. My mother called the police and was told there was nothing they could do, they referred her to the "human rights council" of our city and got no where with them as well. Basically I learned to endure it and ignore it. Eventually we moved but it was a long hell.

[flat5]

In 1967 I was shot in the ass during a small race riot in San Francisco.

[Glory's Sun]

I have an issue with "hate" crimes. Aren't most crimes against another person "hate" crimes? I think when people start convicting or judging others on what they think and not the actual crime, it starts a decent down a very steep and dangerous slope. That's not a slope I intend to slide down.

[Antikarma]

My wife is Metis, and has had to deal with everything from comments about her being a "snow nigger" to people saying that she shouldn't have a job and only has one because of her colour. Take outta that her ten years experience and stellar work reviews of course, thats all biased because of colour as well.

Of course there's a lot of tension in my community. I get comments right on the street about how I'm a white devil, and people should steal my children the way the white man stole the aboriginal children here. I had someone knock on my car window and say they were going to steal my daughters and raise them dene, so they'll hate me too.

What a wonderful world we live in. The generalizations, the rascism, people being raised from birth to believe in outdated notions.

[itch vaccine]

Originally Posted by flat5

In 1967 I was shot in the ass during a small race riot in San Francisco.

Ouch, that's something to share with the grandchildren

[Dilbert1234567]

Back in high school I prominently displayed a Darwin fish patch on my back pack. It was vandalized several times, as I was walking in the halls. The first time, some one walked behind me with a knife, razor or scissors, and slowly cut it off. The second time, several people grouped up, I was bumped and in the fray it was ripped off. The last time, I was walking in the hall, and some one walked up behind me and lit it with a match or lighter, I did not notice my backpack was on fire until I mad it to my next class. It was singed but no serious damage to the back pack. In all instances no one around saw a thing, and I knew no one would say a thing if I did report it. That was a long time ago, and I don’t really care, I just feel sorry for the people who are so intolerant.

[maximusveritas]

Originally Posted by guccilvr

I have an issue with "hate" crimes. Aren't most crimes against another person "hate" crimes? I think when people start convicting or judging others on what they think and not the actual crime, it starts a decent down a very steep and dangerous slope. That's not a slope I intend to slide down.

The thing that makes hate crime different is that people are attacked, not for who they are as individuals or for something they did, but because of something they cannot control such as the color of their skin.

While I've never personally experienced a serious hate crime, I'm old enough to have witnessed such crimes and I'm grateful for the fact that such laws are in place.

[flat5]

Thanks for the thought, itch vaccine :-)

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

The thing that makes hate crime different is that people are attacked, not for who they are as individuals or for something they did, but because of something they cannot control such as the color of their skin.

And as a rational person I think the punishment for a crime should be the same reguardless of the motivation. If I kill you because you were (insert victim designation) or I kill you for your wallet you are still dead and both should be punished equally harshly.

[Glory's Sun]

It doesn't matter if a person kills someone because they are white,black, mexican etc. The fact is they still killed someone. Due to certain freedoms a person can believe what they want.. even if it's ignorant or un-PC.

You start punishing people for what they believe or think, and there will be chaos in the judicial system. I can take someone to court because I had an argument with them and I didn't like their thought process.

[maximusveritas]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

And as a rational person I think the punishment for a crime should be the same reguardless of the motivation. If I kill you because you were (insert victim designation) or I kill you for your wallet you are still dead and both should be punished equally harshly.

Hate to break it to you, but that's not rational. Do you seriously think a lady who intentionally kills her husband because he was emotionally abusive should receive an equally harsh sentence as a guy in a white robe who intentionally kills a random black person on the street for fun?
The motivation for a crime can make a difference in terms of predicting whether or not that person will commit the crime again. The criminal justice system isn't just responsible for punishment for the sake of punishment, it's responsible for the prevention of crime as well. Hate-crime laws help to do just that.
Finally, this is not thought crime. You're free to be a racist/supremacist if you want. Just don't go around hurting people in the name of that belief and you'll be ok.

[genuinegirly]

i have never personally been a victim of a hate crime. Nor have a i observed one.

i've lived in relatively peaceful suburbia most of my life. unfortunately i daily deal with a family that is less than accepting of homosexuality and non-mormons. it is exhausting. intolerance is everywhere. unfortunately too many people allow stereotypes to govern their behaviors.

[Gatorade Frost]

I've been harassed my whole life for being overweight, but I'm not sure if I'd consider that to be a hate crime or not. Generally the extent of any kind of hate crime, which in this case really isn't, is just the intolerance in my family. Gays, minorities, non-baptists, etc. are bad to them. It's embarassing to be in a restaraunt and have your grandmother refer to some one as a negro.

While I've yet to actually see a hate crime, here at Texas A&M there's a lot of hate speech towards blacks and Muslim/Muslim looking people. Occasionally a person will be assaulted, but that's not too terribly common these days.

[blahblah454]

I don't know if this counts but I got jumped and called a faggot because I have long hair. I was in a seriously bad mood that night as my then girlfriend just cheated on me and I was in no mood to be treated in such a way. I ended up smashing the guy who jumped me in the kidneys about 30 times and made him spit up blood and I ripped his shirt off his back. I ended up with a bruised head (he was punching me in the top of the head for some reason) and he tore up my arm and ripped out some chunks of hair. All in all I think I got the upper hand and him and his friends picked the wrong person to have some fun with.

[FoolThemAll]

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

Hate to break it to you, but that's not rational. Do you seriously think a lady who intentionally kills her husband because he was emotionally abusive should receive an equally harsh sentence as a guy in a white robe who intentionally kills a random black person on the street for fun.

I imagine that Ustwo would treat crimes differently based upon level of justification. But killing for a wallet has just as much justification as killing motivated by bigotry.

[Willravel]

Morality isn't rational, that's why man has a duplistic nature.

Have I ever been the victim of hate crime? No. I have been in situations where racist people treated me like crap, but it was never criminal. I do worry that if I ever were a victim of a hate crime, my case would not be considered a hate crime because I am white.

[maximusveritas]

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

I imagine that Ustwo would treat crimes differently based upon level of justification. But killing for a wallet has just as much justification as killing motivated by bigotry.

I don't think he would, at least not according to what he wrote above. Also, I'm not talking about justification so much as the likelihood of the individual re-offending. Either way, however, you would need to look at the motivation in order to make a judgement.

As far as anti-white hate crimes, yes they do occur, though not as often (at least, not as commonly reported) as anti-black hate crimes.

[Rodney]

Originally Posted by blahblah454

I don't know if this counts but I got jumped and called a faggot because I have long hair. I was in a seriously bad mood that night as my then girlfriend just cheated on me and I was in no mood to be treated in such a way. I ended up smashing the guy who jumped me in the kidneys about 30 times and made him spit up blood and I ripped his shirt off his back. I ended up with a bruised head (he was punching me in the top of the head for some reason) and he tore up my arm and ripped out some chunks of hair. All in all I think I got the upper hand and him and his friends picked the wrong person to have some fun with.

When I was young, I was told I "looked gay." Gay enough for angry young men to scream gender insults at me from passing cars and, once, in my face.

That latter incident didn't go anywhere, I think, because when they got close enough they realized I was a lot bigger than they were. And I stood my ground.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

Hate to break it to you, but that's not rational. Do you seriously think a lady who intentionally kills her husband because he was emotionally abusive should receive an equally harsh sentence as a guy in a white robe who intentionally kills a random black person on the street for fun?.

The crime is the crime, its up for the jury to determine the motive. There should not be harsher penalties on the books based on that motive as its quite stupid. An UNJUSTIFED murder is just that, reguardless of motive.

I'm glad you know the minds of whites and blacks to know that more whites commit hate crimes than blacks, thats very good to know that you know what lurks in the hearts of men, much like the shadow.

[Gatorade Frost]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The crime is the crime, its up for the jury to determine the motive. There should not be harsher penalties on the books based on that motive as its quite stupid. An UNJUSTIFED murder is just that, reguardless of motive.

I'm glad you know the minds of whites and blacks to know that more whites commit hate crimes than blacks, thats very good to know that you know what lurks in the hearts of men, much like the shadow.

I agree with you in regards to hate crimes. An unjustified murder like that is murder regardless of the motive.

You almost had a good point until you threw in that inflammatory comment that just wasn't needed. You know he was using a common knowledge group as an example, and not saying that more blacks are hurt by hate crimes than whites. There's no need to be an ass when you've already made your point.

[MSD]

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

Hate to break it to you, but that's not rational. Do you seriously think a lady who intentionally kills her husband because he was emotionally abusive should receive an equally harsh sentence as a guy in a white robe who intentionally kills a random black person on the street for fun?
The motivation for a crime can make a difference in terms of predicting whether or not that person will commit the crime again. The criminal justice system isn't just responsible for punishment for the sake of punishment, it's responsible for the prevention of crime as well. Hate-crime laws help to do just that.
Finally, this is not thought crime. You're free to be a racist/supremacist if you want. Just don't go around hurting people in the name of that belief and you'll be ok.

The scenarios of an abused woman killing an abusive husband and a supremacist killing a member of another race are not comparable in my mind. One one hand, I see a person in fear for her life defending against an attacker, and on the other I see a random, unprovoked act. I would certainly consider the abused woman's situation a legally unjustifiable escalation of force, and while sympathetic, I would not let her go free, but an act of desparation is hardly on the same level as premeditated murder against a random victim.

If I were to drive around my town and shoot the first person I see walking along the side of the road who isn't walking with a group that can get my license plate number, would it be any better than putting a cut-up pillowcase on my head and doing the same to the first black person I saw? What if I slapped on a few "America: love it or leave it" bumper stickers, changed into my "God Bless America" shirt and shot the first person I saw with Che Guevara shirt? What if I spread the classefieds of a local clothing store across my wall, threw a dart, and killed the first person wearing the piece of clothing it hit? What if a fast food employees have fucked up my order this morning and I whacked the first guy I saw walking out of McDonalds with a company shirt? How about reacting to the people who constantly attacked my group of friends in high school and getting the first guy I saw with khakis and a popped collar.

I look at my list and see six identical crimes, six premeditated acts of violence against members of a specific group. Are they all hate crimes, is there a difference because of the target? Is there difference because of the motive? What is it about one premeditated murder that makes ithe perpetrator more deserving of a long sentence than another? I'm an middle-class white male, what if I resent the existence of the racial and social class I was born into and shoot someone in a nearby neighborhood because he's just like me, is that a hate crime?

What if I killed a black man running in my direction on the sidewalk in my neighborhood (suburban, all-white,) because he gave me a strange look and made me uncomfortable? What if I did the same in front of a black friend's apartment building in the inner city, where the neighborhood is multiracial? In the first situation would you assume that I was a racist and call it a hate crime? Would you assume that I just overreacted in front of my friend's apartment? I know that the gut reaction is to claim that they look like the same thing on paper, but I guarantee that if one were printed in the newspaper wihtout the other for comparison, that anyone, myself included, would look at the first and assume racial motivation, and look at the second and assume it was a paranoid, jumpy person wiht a gun.

At what point is it acceptable to bump up my sentence because the reason I deprived a person of their life, and a lot of other people of a father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, friend, student, teacher, or whoever they were, was an unacceptable way of thinking rather than a typical motive. No matter what the reason for it was, I would still be ripping a hole in the fabric of society, and leaving it there for others to deal with. Regardless of motive, someone is dead who probably doesn't deserve to be, and that should be the deciding factor.

[maximusveritas]

MrSelfDestruct,
I purposely said "verbally abused" in order to remove any notion of self-defense or fear for her life. It's probably not the best example, but the only reason I gave it was to show that motive, which is the only difference in that case as far as I can see, should be a consideration in determining the harshness of the penalty.

As far as your six examples, I do agree that all 6 should receive equally harsh sentences. However, the reason hate crimes are specifically defined in the law is, as I said before, more for preventative reasons than punitive ones. What's the difference between the examples you listed? It's not that one crime is morally inferior to the other or even that the racists are more likely to commit the crime than the guy who kills a random person on the street.

The difference is that the crimes based on race and political affiliation have widespread social consequences beyond the murder of a single man. To see that, we only need to look back at history, not just here but around the world. When the KKK would lynch a black man, they didn't just do it to hurt a single man, they did it to intimidate the entire black population. And they usually succeeded. That's what's behind hate crime laws and that's why I'm glad they're around.

[Ample]

I’m not sure if this qualifies as a “hate crime” about eight years ago my then wife and were passing through South Bend late at night. First let me say that I am white and my ex is black mixed with another race. We stopped into a Dennys to eat. Nobody came over and greeted us. They were a little busy, but had plenty of extra tables. Every time I tried to get a waitress’s attention they blew me off and told me just a moment. We watch two or three families walk into the restaurant after us and get seated right away.

It became obvious pretty quick what was going on. She said a few choice words out loud so everyone could hear, and we walked out. I haven’t been to a Dennys since then.

[cyrnel]

Sometimes I can believe Bill Gates has it out for me. Do criminal design decisions count?

[MSD]

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

MrSelfDestruct,
I purposely said "verbally abused" in order to remove any notion of self-defense or fear for her life. It's probably not the best example, but the only reason I gave it was to show that motive, which is the only difference in that case as far as I can see, should be a consideration in determining the harshness of the penalty.

As far as your six examples, I do agree that all 6 should receive equally harsh sentences. However, the reason hate crimes are specifically defined in the law is, as I said before, more for preventative reasons than punitive ones. What's the difference between the examples you listed? It's not that one crime is morally inferior to the other or even that the racists are more likely to commit the crime than the guy who kills a random person on the street.

The difference is that the crimes based on race and political affiliation have widespread social consequences beyond the murder of a single man. To see that, we only need to look back at history, not just here but around the world. When the KKK would lynch a black man, they didn't just do it to hurt a single man, they did it to intimidate the entire black population. And they usually succeeded. That's what's behind hate crime laws and that's why I'm glad they're around.

I should clarify that I understand your reasoning and sentiment, but still disagree. However, I thnk that we still may be able to find a common ground. I propose the following:

A lynching or series of lynchings can terrorize a racial group and an entire community or society. Equally, a random, seemingly motiveless killing or series of killings can terrorize a geographic region, as seen in the Washington "sniper" case. The motive there was not racial, nor political, but it terrorized people to the point that many were afraid to be outdoors for any period of time. Crimes like these are equally coercive and terrorizing.

We should simply try those who engage in violence or intimidation with the efect of coercing or terrorizing others, as terrorists, regardless of motive. I see those who do so as acting in a similar manner, but on a smaller scale, to those who would attack a country for failing to agree with thier ideology. On the same level, I feel that if we can justify prosecuting a 13-year-old for an act of terrorism for shooting a school bus with a BB gun, or do the same to someone who sets off a string of fireworks in a public place and causes a panic, then it follows that if someone attacks a random person in a quiet neighborhood and leaves his neighbors afraid to allow their children, then that person is no less guilty than a jihadist who screams "Death to America" and opens fire in a crowded mall and kills someone, creating panic and leaving the city in a state of fear as people anticipate future attacks.

Do you consider this line of reasoning acceptable? If not, do you consider it rational?

My personal belief regarding personal liberty, responsibility, and accountability is that while society should judge a person's action based on motives, legal action should focus strictly on the consequences of those actions. Allow me, for a moment, to beat the proverbial dead horse. While I consider shouting "fire" in a crowded theater to be idiotic, and deserving of chastisement from the community, I feel that the act itself need not be a crime, only that the legal system find the actor accountable for the results. If the result is simply an orderly evacuation, then the actor owes restitution to each evacuee for his or her cost of admission and any refreshments left behind, and the theater revenue of which he deprived the establishment, and the cost of dispatching emergency services under false pretenses. If anyone is harmed due to trampling, pushing, exhaustion, or any other circumstances arising from a disorderly evacuation, the actor who caused this disorder should be held responsible for any medical costs arising from this situation in addition to any restitution already owed to others becasue of his action. Similarly, if any property is damaged as a result of his action, he should be held responsible for paying a replacement value equal to what the owner or an insurance company would be expected to pay for such damage, in addition to anything he owes. I could go on, but I think my point has been made, and that it illustrates the thought process through which I have formed my opinion regarding "hate crime" legislation.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Gatorade Frost

You almost had a good point until you threw in that inflammatory comment that just wasn't needed. You know he was using a common knowledge group as an example, and not saying that more blacks are hurt by hate crimes than whites. There's no need to be an ass when you've already made your point.

No, he was saying blacks are more likely to be victims of hate crimes than whites. I don't know what a 'common knowledge' group is, but thanks for the lecture.

[MSD]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

No, he was saying blacks are more likely to be victims of hate crimes than whites. I don't know what a 'common knowledge' group is, but thanks for the lecture.

I think he meant a group whose victimization by perpetrators of racially-motivated crimes is common knowledge.

[Nizzle]

I was beaten up so many times for being white I don't even have a count of it. I'm not sure what the statistics are, but racially motiviated hate crimes affect both sides.

[maximusveritas]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

No, he was saying blacks are more likely to be victims of hate crimes than whites.

Actually, my exact words were: "As far as anti-white hate crimes, yes they do occur, though not as often (at least, not as commonly reported) as anti-black hate crimes." I purposely added that parenthetical disclaimer because I do realize there is a difference between the number of reported crimes and the actual number of crimes.

[maximusveritas]

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

My personal belief regarding personal liberty, responsibility, and accountability is that while society should judge a person's action based on motives, legal action should focus strictly on the consequences of those actions.

I understand what you're saying as well and I think it's perfectly rational as well, but unsurprisingly I disagree with it. What if someone (like the kid who shot a BB gun at a bus) didn't mean to incite terror? Should we still punish him as a terrorist if he was just having fun and got careless? That would seem a bit cruel.
On the opposite side of things, I don't really have a problem charging someone like Moussaoui as a terrorist even though he didn't actually kill anyone. He clearly intented to terrorize this nation and we can't just let him get off lightly because he failed. If we do, he'll almost certainly try again and possibly succeed.
In any case, that's kind of a different discussion from the hate crimes one. I've probably already derailed this thread too much, so I'll end it here, but I do appreciate you giving your take on all this. It's certainly forced me to test my own beliefs about this topic.