Woman charged in Fort Hood-related hate crime:

[rebeccajo 14]

I didn't read the entire thread before my last comment & it seems to me that several people are jumping to an incorrect conclusion: that because this incident has been labeled a hate crime & the proposed sentence seems excessive that hate crimes shouldn't have more severe penalties.

For example if 10 black kids beat the bejesus out a white kid simply because he is white that is a hate crime (or vice versa). The fact that a person is singled out due to their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. does aggravate the crime because it is not only a crime against that person but a crime against whatever group is being targeted. The selective enforcement of hate crimes is certainly a topic of debate, but whether or not there should be a legal distinction between hate crimes & "normal" crimes is not the debate here (IMO).

There are maximum sentences with any given crime. It's jumping to a conclusion that this woman would receive the maximum.

[nowhereman 1]

In the criminal justice system, why do you think we have the sentences 'manslaughter'. 'murder 1', 'murder 2'?

Because of intent.

I can't understand why anyone would be confused as to how intentional hatred of a category of persons should play no part in justice. It has clearly played a major role all along in sentencing.

Well to be honest the same people who scoff at the idea of hate crimes are the same people with negative stereotypes of the individuals often targeted by hate crimes.

[nowhereman 1]

I didn't read the entire thread before my last comment & it seems to me that several people are jumping to an incorrect conclusion: that because this incident has been labeled a hate crime & the proposed sentence seems excessive that hate crimes shouldn't have more severe penalties.

For example if 10 black kids beat the bejesus out a white kid simply because he is white that is a hate crime (or vice versa). The fact that a person is singled out due to their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. does aggravate the crime because it is not only a crime against that person but a crime against whatever group is being targeted. The selective enforcement of hate crimes is certainly a topic of debate, but whether or not there should be a legal distinction between hate crimes & "normal" crimes is not the debate here (IMO).

There are maximum sentences with any given crime. It's jumping to a conclusion that this woman would receive the maximum.

I know that... I have a degree in criminal justice. My point is that hate crimes do exist & this crime seems to be motivated by hate (religious intolerance) but disorderly conduct seems to fit the crime (which is a misdemeanor with a max sentence of one year or six months). I could even see simple battery, but I don't see a felony.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

In the criminal justice system, why do you think we have the sentences 'manslaughter'. 'murder 1', 'murder 2'?

Because of intent.

I can't understand why anyone would be confused as to how intentional hatred of a category of persons should play no part in justice. It has clearly played a major role all along in sentencing.

It is only a hate crime though where the victim's connection to a larger group of people plays a role in the conviction.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Sousuke

[rebeccajo 14]

I didn't read the entire thread before my last comment & it seems to me that several people are jumping to an incorrect conclusion: that because this incident has been labeled a hate crime & the proposed sentence seems excessive that hate crimes shouldn't have more severe penalties.

For example if 10 black kids beat the bejesus out a white kid simply because he is white that is a hate crime (or vice versa). The fact that a person is singled out due to their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. does aggravate the crime because it is not only a crime against that person but a crime against whatever group is being targeted. The selective enforcement of hate crimes is certainly a topic of debate, but whether or not there should be a legal distinction between hate crimes & "normal" crimes is not the debate here (IMO).

There are maximum sentences with any given crime. It's jumping to a conclusion that this woman would receive the maximum.

I know that... I have a degree in criminal justice. My point is that hate crimes do exist & this crime seems to be motivated by hate (religious intolerance) but disorderly conduct seems to fit the crime (which is a misdemeanor with a max sentence of one year or six months). I could even see simple battery, but I don't see a felony.

In case I wasn't clear - I was trying to add another thought to boost your argument.

I'm at the office and don't have time to be flowery......

Edited November 23, 2009 by rebeccajo

[rebeccajo 14]

In the criminal justice system, why do you think we have the sentences 'manslaughter'. 'murder 1', 'murder 2'?

Because of intent.

I can't understand why anyone would be confused as to how intentional hatred of a category of persons should play no part in justice. It has clearly played a major role all along in sentencing.

It is only a hate crime though where the victim's connection to a larger group of people plays a role in the conviction.

So you think the same sentence should apply?

If I rob you because I'm simply a thief and you have good stuff, and the sentence is 1 year, then I should receive the same sentence as someone who robbed you because you like anime and that annoys them?

[nowhereman 1]

I didn't read the entire thread before my last comment & it seems to me that several people are jumping to an incorrect conclusion: that because this incident has been labeled a hate crime & the proposed sentence seems excessive that hate crimes shouldn't have more severe penalties.

For example if 10 black kids beat the bejesus out a white kid simply because he is white that is a hate crime (or vice versa). The fact that a person is singled out due to their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. does aggravate the crime because it is not only a crime against that person but a crime against whatever group is being targeted. The selective enforcement of hate crimes is certainly a topic of debate, but whether or not there should be a legal distinction between hate crimes & "normal" crimes is not the debate here (IMO).

There are maximum sentences with any given crime. It's jumping to a conclusion that this woman would receive the maximum.

I know that... I have a degree in criminal justice. My point is that hate crimes do exist & this crime seems to be motivated by hate (religious intolerance) but disorderly conduct seems to fit the crime (which is a misdemeanor with a max sentence of one year or six months). I could even see simple battery, but I don't see a felony.

In case I wasn't clear - I was trying to add another thought to boost your argument.

I'm at the office and don't have time to be flowery......

Sorry!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

In the criminal justice system, why do you think we have the sentences 'manslaughter'. 'murder 1', 'murder 2'?

Because of intent.

I can't understand why anyone would be confused as to how intentional hatred of a category of persons should play no part in justice. It has clearly played a major role all along in sentencing.

It is only a hate crime though where the victim's connection to a larger group of people plays a role in the conviction.

So you think the same sentence should apply?

If I rob you because I'm simply a thief and you have good stuff, and the sentence is 1 year, then I should receive the same sentence as someone who robbed you because you like anime and that annoys them?

Yes 100% (does anime annoy you btw?)

[rebeccajo 14]

In the criminal justice system, why do you think we have the sentences 'manslaughter'. 'murder 1', 'murder 2'?

Because of intent.

I can't understand why anyone would be confused as to how intentional hatred of a category of persons should play no part in justice. It has clearly played a major role all along in sentencing.

It is only a hate crime though where the victim's connection to a larger group of people plays a role in the conviction.

So you think the same sentence should apply?

If I rob you because I'm simply a thief and you have good stuff, and the sentence is 1 year, then I should receive the same sentence as someone who robbed you because you like anime and that annoys them?

Yes 100% (does anime annoy you btw?)

No it doesn't. I don't like it but it doesn't bother me.

Back to the point - what if you would not have been robbed had you not been a fan of anime?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It still doesn't make a difference to me, i'm out my stuff and I want it back or I want money to get new stuff.

[rebeccajo 14]

It still doesn't make a difference to me, i'm out my stuff and I want it back or I want money to get new stuff.

All righty then.

Hope that will be enough justice for your family if, say - somebody murders you just because you like anime. You might have still been alive if you hadn't. But dead is dead - right?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I guess, but I might also have been murdered because I happen to be wearing a million dollar fir coat and they wanted the coat. If I wasn't wearing the coat I might be alive still.

Its not going to change the grief of my family. IMO a murder of anyone should get life in prison regardless. (I don't believe in the death penalty for ANYONE....even people like Göring or Sadam)

Edited November 23, 2009 by Sousuke

[Saddle Bronc 124]

i would say that there is plenty of evidence of hate crimes by muslims in the USA.

true since prior to 1965 from almost cent-percent homegrown (basic philosophy of NOI requires African-American lifestyle) Muslims of NOI. Edited November 24, 2009 by Saddle Bronc

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

i would say that there is plenty of evidence of hate crimes by muslims in the USA.

true since prior to 1965 from almost cent-percent homegrown (basic philosophy of NOI requires African-American lifestyle) Muslims of NOI.

NOI aren't Muslims, any more than the Aryan Nations or the Ku Klux Klan are Christians.

[HAL 9000 96]

That was yet another expected bit of hate. No huge surprises there. Too bad some aren't quite catching it.