Hate Crime or not? Obama Effigy on noose racist - Palin Effigy on not even sexist.
 

You may not like her, but why is even perceived violence against a woman okay and versus a black man not? Women have been oppressed, not to the degree of blacks, but still oppression and equal rights have been fought by women.

This is one of the reasons why I don't agree with any sort of hate or bias crime legislation. First, the officer is the one who is determining if it is a hate crime. He's not supposed to determine any thing, that's the judge's job.

Why is one an acceptable hate crime and the other gets a pass?

Sarah Palin was not effigied because she's a woman, she was effigied because of her stance on homosexual marriage.

The two most public instances of Obama being effigied, the persons doing it admitted it was because he's black.

Also, up to the early '70's thousands of black men were hung because they were black. It was a hobby for many white southerners.

Not shot.

Not stabbed.

Hung.

They did it so as to leave a message that the noose was the best way out of this world for blacks in America. It was genocide.

Palin's effigy was similar to my high school hanging a hornet because of our belief that the Forst Hill Hornets suck at football.

deleted

i don't think we're dealing with rocket scientists in any of these situations.
given the speed and intensity of the streams of bullshit pseudo-information that characterizes the sorry state of affairs that is this campaign at this point, anyone deciding to undertake such an action has to be a fucking idiot.
so now we have a great little fake issue, the pseudo-equivalence of effigies hanging from a rope in the days immediate prior to halloween.
obviously, if you're conservative and have been alarmed by the nature and intensity of the populist rage being manipulated and stoked by the increasingly desperate mc-cain campaign machinery as it feels itself sliding into the ant-heap and you want to make this bothersome turn of events seem less bothersome without going so far as to deny anything is happening outright, the best move is to generate a false equivalence.
and since anyone who is awake at this point would know that something like this is possible--again--you'd have to be a fucking idiot to make a palin effigy.

do they mean the same thing? no.
are they the same thing? in a way. but if you want to play this game, you'd also have to find outrageous the hanging man in a deck of tarot cards.
i think the superficiality of the equivalence is obvious: you have two body-shaped objects hanging from rope. therefore these situations are the same.
but in the united states, the symbolic resonances are not at all the same, now are they? lynching is a very particular tradition in petit bourgeois resentment land, now isn't it?
is there really any need to go through this?
the op is shallow, the equivalence is shallow, it's all a function of the noxious character of the presidential election charade 2008 style.

It doesn't matter what the "reason" you're posting is. If someone is offended, they are offended.

If someone was to put up Obama in the same position and say it's not because he's black, but because of his stance or position on a topic people would still say, "No, it's because of institutional memory of blacks being suppressed."

i don't buy that argument, cyn.
you based the op on it and now you're restating it.
the whole of my post above was directed against that argument, so it hardly makes sense to simply repeat it as if that's a response.

so let me put it this way---the comparison that the op is based on is, i think, false, except at the most superficial possible level.

The photoshopped picture of her in a bikini holding a gun is sexist, but if they photoshopped Obama in a speedo would that be considered sexist?

They should've had Palin being shot by a moose or eaten by a bear. ;)

my response was directed at poppinjay not your response.

ah. mea culpa then.
{doffing my hat, bowing out stage center}

RB's response still stands, though. You're trying to re-state your op and add a theory that is based on a hypothetical situation.

What has happened, one effigy of Palin, and two of Obama. The one of Palin was done because of her stance on homosexual marriage. The two of Obama, because he's black.

Either find us the non-racist effigy of Obama, or don't assume what people will think.

Really? How? Because she actually has done swimsuit modeling and she likes to hunt.

I think that whoever put up those effigies is lacking intelligence and also probably an asshole. Sexist, I don't know--he included McCain, too--does that make him ageist??? But I find the whole thing reprehensible, and the excuse that it's "just part of a Halloween display" to be weak sauce and not funny or condonable in any form, given the tenor of this election so far.

That doesn't change the fact that if it were Obama being hanged and Biden in the chimney, then it would be even MORE offensive, and would certainly classify as being a hate crime--hands down.

And that's what the problem is. You CANNOT nor WOULD NOT find a non racist effigy of Obama, because ANY hanging effigy of Obama will be instantly classified as racist, all because he's black and the baggage that entails.
-----Added 28/10/2008 at 12 : 23 : 36-----

and that's where there is disconnect for me. WHY? why is it MORE offensive?

When you think of lynching in American history, do you think of a black man or a white woman?

If it was an actual photo of her from a swimsuit contest then it wouldn't be "it is what it is". I got that photo in an e-mail under the title "VPILF", so yeah I thought it was funny but also it was sexist. Am I all torn up about it? No I have a sense of humor...

I was just making an example.

It may be as offensive, it's just not sexist-offensive. It's kind of odd, one is effigied because she opposes certain civil rights, another because he represents the success of certain civil rights.

Which kind of person has America had a history of rebelling against? Both. But always against oppressors.

Let me reframe the OP a bit better clarified.

I am not a support of hate/bias crime legislation. A crime is a crime.

Why is a hate crime worse than another crime?

If a person is murdered versus a person murdered because he's black?
If a person is assualted versus a person who is assualted because of sexual orientation, race, creed?

Why is a HATE/BIAS crime worse than a regular crime? What makes it worse? Why?

I just watched the South Park episode dealing with that precise issue, and it said it far better than I could. Now I just need to find the youtube of it.

you can't escape history: you can't escape that glorious tradition of lynching---one of the ironies is that many lynchings were carried out to "protect the honor" of white women...because you can't escape history, you cannot control the resonances that it generates.
that's one problem.

the other is that you are presupposing that the palin effigy is in fact a "hate crime"---on that, i am not sure at all.
i think it's stupid, like i said above, and i think the folk who put it up were and probably still are stupid for having done it.

is any effigy hung by the neck from a rope a hate crime?
why would that be true?
isn't what's at issue here really a question of resonances, and so a question of differential echoes with the past?
because unless i am mistaken, hanging a dummy is not in itself a crime--i mean, dummies aren't alive, right?

I wonder how this would play out if these were gallery pieces in an art show rather than public Halloween adornments. Freedom of speech is of course respected in either setting but I can't help but to wonder what exactly pushes people beyond causing controversy and being offended to the pressing charges.

I find all of these effigies, despite their connotations to be rather ineffectual.

Growing up and the whole Maplethorpe NEA controversy is something that I have a hard time digesting as well, for the same reasons.

and yes, rb, I agree with your first statement.

A hate crime is a systematic crime based on a belief that others who are different should not exist. That leads to genocide, should the right person get into power.

I think it's good legislation. Certainly a lot smarter than 3 strikes you're out, or harsh drug penalties.

Just shooting somebody for fun or to take their stuff only oppresses the victim.

So you're saying that if someone assaults you it's not as bad as if someone assaults you because you're a dumb zebra (example from your avatar), and should carry a stiffer penalty than if it was just a simple assault. Am I understanding that correctly?

Three strikes is addressing a different thing completely.

I'm sorry the genocide is a stretch in that vein of what someone else is thinking as you put it earlier.

I'm also of the mindset that a crime is a crime.. as far as hate crime vs regular crime.

I think the reason the Palin effigy isn't so offensive is because of the historical nature of the noose. It's really become a symbol much like the swastika. It was once a peaceful symbol then the Nazi's turned it into a hate mongering symbol.. the same could, in a way, be said for the noose.

take a noose to a predominately black area and see what happens. it won't be pretty.

Wait, so the thread is about why hate crimes exist as a different classification? That's simple.

Motive, whether you want to admit it or not, absolutely plays a part in the measure of wrongdoing. It's the difference between involuntary manslaughter and murder 1. Hate crimes, or crimes motivated by bigotry, do more damage to society because of their intent.

No, I'm saying it's worse if someone assaults you due to your skin color or other qualities about your life that were not chosen. Not exactly worse for you, but for people like you who feel they can't enjoy the same rights and freedoms because there are people in the area who would kill you because of your ethnicity.

will..

if I kill someone.. no matter the motive.. greed, jealousy, hatred, just because they were brown, just because they looked better than me, just because it was a hooker.. the person is still dead.. a murder still occured..

why would a hate crime make the murder worse? Bigotry?? Is bigotry in a racial sense any worse than a murder committed for fun? Is it any worse than a murder committed for some sexist reason?

you compare involuntary manslaughter to murder 1. dude..they aren't even close. Involuntary is an act out of negligence or blindness. Me walking up to you and shooting you because I just don't like you is not negligence or blindness.. it's murder.. so is murder for skin color.

By this train of logic, there should be no difference between involuntary manslaughter and murder 1. Should I get the death penalty because I left my store floor wet and someone slipped and died? Is that the same as me repeatedly stabbing someone?
...in which the perpitrator had no intent. So, again, it boils down to intent.

Edit: I'll get even more specific. Let's say that I want to hurt someone and accidentally kill them. Should that be treated the same as intent to kill?

will you're a smart guy think about it.

if you accidentally kill someone it was not your intent to do so, which is why the manslaughter charge exists. However, if you kill someone because they have blonde hair or they are black or just because you are a sick fucker.. then the intent was there to commit harm in the form of murder. That is a huge difference between the 2 laws. To associate a hate crime as a worse form of murder simply because of skin only leaves racism on the table.

So you can put out the slipping on floor/stabbing argument but that's obvious don't you think?? A murder can only be a murder if the intent was to murder. If the intent was to murder than no matter how the murder occurred or who the victim was, it was still an intent to murder and in fact a so called hate crime. If you kill a white man.. isn't there a case to say it is a hate crime even if you are white under this law? Does that make sense. Of course it doesn't. You murder someone and you are using some form of hatred.

Essentially I think the problem boils down to how much do you believe society benefits by making examples of racially/sexually/religiously-based crime versus how much you believe that highlighting differences only serves to reinforce them and encourages people to capitalize on them.

At this point, I share gucci's opinions on the matter. Murder (or rape or theft or whatever) shouldn't be based on the victim, but on the perpetrator's actions. I don't think it's a major deterrent to have an additional layer of punishment or liability for something that is a "hate crime" and, instead, only serves to make the issue racial rather than simply criminal.

I think, too, that the distinction between intent to commit a crime versus no intent and hate crimes is pretty meaningless in this case. We separate those because we feel as a society that the perpetrator can have varying levels of fault and, rightly, believe that someone who does not intend to harm should not be punished for his actions in the same way as someone who intended to harm.

Finally, if you intend to hurt someone, and kill them instead, it is murder, though it is not 1st degree murder. At common law, murder is a killing with malice aforethought which includes: intent to kill, intent to cause severe bodily injury, reckless disregard for the value of human life and a death which occurs during the commission of a dangerous felony.

This is what I'm talking about, though. You're willing to allow intent to determine degrees of punishment in one case but not another. Manslaughter and first degree murder both end up with the exact same result: someone is dead. Killing someone because he slept with your wife or because he has sexual relations with another man both end up with the exact same result, too.

In order to address the main issue, let me apply my logic to the manslaughter/murder comparison. Why do we have lesser charges for instances where there wasn't intent and the death was an accident? We want people to know that making a mistake isn't as bad as doing it intentionally. We make it clear that, despite the same outcome, we value intent and are willing to take it into account as a part of the justice system. Moreover, if you accidentally kill someone, you're probably not a risk to do it again. You're not a danger to yourself or those around you. If you actively seek to murder someone, then you may very well do it again.

Now let's transfer that over to the difference between a crime of passion and a hate crime against a homosexual (just as examples). A man walks in on his wife having sex with another man, goes into a rage and murders the man. Elsewhere, a man sees two men walking down the street holding hands and locking lips, follows them home, and beats their heads in with a tire iron. Which is more likely to happen again, and how does motive and intent factor into that? It seems simple. The man who was cheated on could possibly get a temporary insanity verdict because of the extenuating circumstances and extreme emotional distress. In addition, he's not likely to be in that situation again. The man who hates gay people may very well be exposed to more gay people because they theoretically take up something like 8% of the US population (though not evenly distributed). Moreover, the fact that his motive was "I hate them" means that he could also hate women, black people, etc. If hatred is a motive, then he's more likely to strike again.

I hope this has clarified my point.

The law doesn't function with the purpose of eliminating the perceived differences between people. In fact, in these cases, action by the law would be entirely unnecessary if those same perceived differences weren't already well established.

If a crime is committed on the basis of race then the matter is already racial. Having laws in place to address these issues ensures that the law itself remains directly applicable to the real world.

Should we not have laws in place that protect children especially? How do the laws that protect the handicapped, the elderly, or women serve to exacerbate the issues between the aforementioned groups and those that would exploit them?

Your point about recidivism (if you want to call it that) isn't a bad one, will. I'd buy that, but to me that speaks more to the failure of our justice system to address the causes of crime and rehabilitating criminals than it does to the need to have specifically designated hate crimes. And/or the problem that we have with letting violent criminals walk to make room for people who were hanging on to too much weed on their way to a party. :rolleyes:

As to your point, manic, we have laws in place which specifically protect children, women, the elderly and the disabled because of the perception that they need more protection because they cannot protect themselves. With the possible exception of women (because that might step on some gender equality toes), I don't think anyone would argue much about the importance of the law in protecting those groups of people. Personally, I don't feel that race or sexual orientation or creed is in quite the same category as people who physically are less able to protect themselves from crimes, so that it is not a necessary classification.

I'd argue that's one of the biggest failures as a whole society, really. Rehabilitation isn't a part of our prison system.

Recidivism is at the core of intent in the legal system, by my layman's understanding. Accidents happen but are unlikely to be repeated. If an intent to murder is ongoing, the individual poses a potential long-term danger to society.

I think everyone is missing the point except you. It seems to me the whole hate crime debate should revolve around this question.

This isn't downtown Tehran. Any effigy burned or hung shouldn't be allowed. It doesn't matter what side you are on or what your political views are. I would classify it the same as making a threat against their life. After a few hours of 'interrogation' by the secret service, they probably will take it down and not do anything like that again.

If Palin saw a picture of a manequin dressed as her being hung from someone's roof, she would probably laugh about it. You're talking about a woman with a sense of humor - someone who laughed when Saturday Night Live did a skit making fun of her. She would take it all in stride and would not consider the move sexist. Most of her supporters would likely do the same.

If Obama saw a manequin dressed as him hanging by the neck from someone's roof, he would not laugh. His supporters would not laugh. No one would laugh. Lynching is serious business.

If we had a period in America's history where women were frequently and publically lynched, for trivial crimes, we might not laugh any longer.

This is not hypocrisy, and this is not an issue.

Women have not been lynched for decades at a time as a form of political suppression.

"Now let's transfer that over to the difference between a crime of passion and a hate crime against a homosexual (just as examples). A man walks in on his wife having sex with another man, goes into a rage and murders the man. Elsewhere, a man sees two men walking down the street holding hands and locking lips, follows them home, and beats their heads in with a tire iron. Which is more likely to happen again, and how does motive and intent factor into that? It seems simple. The man who was cheated on could possibly get a temporary insanity verdict because of the extenuating circumstances and extreme emotional distress. In addition, he's not likely to be in that situation again. The man who hates gay people may very well be exposed to more gay people because they theoretically take up something like 8% of the US population (though not evenly distributed). Moreover, the fact that his motive was "I hate them" means that he could also hate women, black people, etc. If hatred is a motive, then he's more likely to strike again.

I don't think the comparison is valid. You're comparing two different crimes which laws without a "hate" clause distinguished between anyway. Do you think the punishment would be different if your example of a hate crime were instead two heterosexuals walking down the street and someone follows them home and bashes their head in with a hammer? I don't see how labeling it a hate crime accomplishes anything legally. Matthew Shepard as a real world example, if he was straight and someone did that same thing to him how is one worse than the other, and why should one of those criminals be seen as any different than the other. There's a markedly different mentality between both of those examples and someone killing in a crime of passion.

Not to mention that in my opinion if you have proven you have it in you to kill another human being in a given circumstance, you have it in you to do it again in another not necessarily identical circumstance, and no innocent person should be subject to that possibility ever again.

Genuingirly, no way Palin is laughing about this. At the very least, those who are so sensitive to an effigy of Obama hanging outside someone's house, should at the very least it acknowledge that hanging an effigy of anyone, encourages those who would be inclined to do so. Fuck the rest of the worlds reaction if Obama was hung like this, what would these hollywood homeowners reaction be if their next door neighbor hung an effigy of Obama outside their own in reaction. Couldn't they see that it would have never happened if they hadn't done it in the first place. They'd have no business being offended, becuase they encouraged it.