Teenager Gets 25-Year Sentence in Hate Crime Killing on Long Island

[Heracles 417]

Cops are a race now? Excellent

Cleo put the White Guilt down for sec and read up on the definition of hate.

[CDAgirlMI 51]

wouldn't take 25 years, but the exact time would be for the experts to determine. i do think, however that it would take a lot less than 25 years. that amount of time in prison will completely destroy the guy and that isn't necessary.

I don't think rehabilitation is (or should be) the main focus.

He killed someone. Intentionally.

You're saying keeping this guy in prison for 25 years is un-necessary. Murder isn't necessary either.

[Fandango 1,440]

Whatever the motivation is to kill someone, the punishment should be equal. I don't buy into this whole 'terrorizing a group' as being more harsh than the fallout of what happens to the victims' families/friends/community of just a 'regular' murder/crime.

If a 'hate crime' requires harsher sentences, then what I'm saying is that the penalties for these crimes need to be stiffened up across the board. True equality will never exist with two separate sets of consequences.

As far as even the terminology 'hate crime'...I feel it's quite redundant. How can one not have hate in one's heart when one murders someone? I'm not talking mitigating circs/self defense/whatever...I'm talking bog standard murder. There have been cases of just random killings (as Cleo concluded in a prior post that they don't exist). I say that's hogwash. Ever heard of gang initiations? I am from Miami where it is not unheard of for someone to have to randomly kill someone to be initiated. I cannot see why a random killing such as that wouldn't be punished as harshly as a 'hate crime'. Did both perps not have hate in their hearts? Come on now.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Happy Bunny

[GabiandVi 34]

Whatever the motivation is to kill someone, the punishment should be equal. I don't buy into this whole 'terrorizing a group' as being more harsh than the fallout of what happens to the victims' families/friends/community of just a 'regular' murder/crime.

If a 'hate crime' requires harsher sentences, then what I'm saying is that the penalties for these crimes need to be stiffened up across the board. True equality will never exist with two separate sets of consequences.

As far as even the terminology 'hate crime'...I feel it's quite redundant. How can one not have hate in one's heart when one murders someone? I'm not talking mitigating circs/self defense/whatever...I'm talking bog standard murder. There have been cases of just random killings (as Cleo concluded in a prior post that they don't exist). I say that's hogwash. Ever heard of gang initiations? I am from Miami where it is not unheard of for someone to have to randomly kill someone to be initiated. I cannot see why a random killing such as that wouldn't be punished as harshly as a 'hate crime'. Did both perps not have hate in their hearts? Come on now.

My point exactly!!

[GabiandVi 34]

Categorize crimes as hate crimes if it makes anyone feel better. But to minimize sentences (which is essentially what we are talking about here) for equivalently violent and devastating "non hate crimes" is ridiculous! If we can increase the sentences for hate crimes, then we can increase the sentences for "non hate crimes." And anyone who can't see that is "crass."

I'm reminded of the scene in the movie, Spinal Tap. "But this one goes to eleven."

[Peikko 1,575]

Whatever the motivation is to kill someone, the punishment should be equal. I don't buy into this whole 'terrorizing a group' as being more harsh than the fallout of what happens to the victims' families/friends/community of just a 'regular' murder/crime.

If a 'hate crime' requires harsher sentences, then what I'm saying is that the penalties for these crimes need to be stiffened up across the board. True equality will never exist with two separate sets of consequences.

As far as even the terminology 'hate crime'...I feel it's quite redundant. How can one not have hate in one's heart when one murders someone? I'm not talking mitigating circs/self defense/whatever...I'm talking bog standard murder. There have been cases of just random killings (as Cleo concluded in a prior post that they don't exist). I say that's hogwash. Ever heard of gang initiations? I am from Miami where it is not unheard of for someone to have to randomly kill someone to be initiated. I cannot see why a random killing such as that wouldn't be punished as harshly as a 'hate crime'. Did both perps not have hate in their hearts? Come on now.

You don't 'buy into' the idea that systemic racism still exists period, so why indeed would you bother with the idea that killing for this specific ideological reason is a different type of crime?

Gang killings are not 'for no reason' either. The rationale may not make much sense to people not embroiled in gang culture, but then the gang dynamic does not make much sense period to those outside that culture either. The last thing that motivates an initiation killing is hatred toward the victim, in many ways the motivation has no relevance to the victim whatsoever, in fact, one could go so far as to say it would be hard to find a crime that is the exact opposite of a hate crime than an initiation killing.

Once again, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a hate crime is, it is not simple rage, or anger at a particular person or event, it is the desire to subjugate, terrorise and eliminate a target group who share some perceived characteristic that the person carrying out the abuse considers renders the members of the target group subhuman and demands their persecution.

[Peikko 1,575]

Categorize crimes as hate crimes if it makes anyone feel better. But to minimize sentences (which is essentially what we are talking about here) for equivalently violent and devastating "non hate crimes" is ridiculous! If we can increase the sentences for hate crimes, then we can increase the sentences for "non hate crimes." And anyone who can't see that is "crass."

I'm reminded of the scene in the movie, Spinal Tap. "But this one goes to eleven."

Perhaps the court should dispense with the sentencing hearing altogether? After all, if you commit x crime, then your crime demands x sentence right?

Edited May 27, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Fandango 1,440]

You don't 'buy into' the idea that systemic racism still exists period, so why indeed would you bother with the idea that killing for this specific ideological reason is a different type of crime?

Gang killings are not 'for no reason' either. The rationale may not make much sense to people not embroiled in gang culture, but then the gang dynamic does not make much sense period to those outside that culture either. The last thing that motivates an initiation killing is hatred toward the victim, in many ways the motivation has no relevance to the victim whatsoever, in fact, one could go so far as to say it would be hard to find a crime that is the exact opposite of a hate crime than an initiation killing.

Once again, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a hate crime is, it is not simple rage, or anger at a particular person or event, it is the desire to subjugate, terrorise and eliminate a target group who share some perceived characteristic that the person carrying out the abuse considers renders the members of the target group subhuman and demands their persecution.

Where did I say that 'systemic racism doesn't exist'???? #######?

Do you even read what other people write, or are you just too busy with drafting a response so you can continue from your pulpit?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You don't 'buy into' the idea that systemic racism still exists period, so why indeed would you bother with the idea that killing for this specific ideological reason is a different type of crime?

Gang killings are not 'for no reason' either. The rationale may not make much sense to people not embroiled in gang culture, but then the gang dynamic does not make much sense period to those outside that culture either. The last thing that motivates an initiation killing is hatred toward the victim, in many ways the motivation has no relevance to the victim whatsoever, in fact, one could go so far as to say it would be hard to find a crime that is the exact opposite of a hate crime than an initiation killing.

Once again, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a hate crime is, it is not simple rage, or anger at a particular person or event, it is the desire to subjugate, terrorise and eliminate a target group who share some perceived characteristic that the person carrying out the abuse considers renders the members of the target group subhuman and demands their persecution.

While most actually do understand what you're saying, you're still making a 'special' treatment for hate crimes and their victims.

I mean let's be honest. Someone could hate rich people and always rob their homes and if one so happens to wake up, then the robber kills them. It's not considered a hate crime for a group.

Someone could hate severely and lash out against those on welfare. They could go into poor neighborhoods and beat up on them or even kill one. It wouldn't be considered a hate crime.

As mentioned earlier, someone could hate cops like no other and do whatever they could to take one out... It wouldn't be a 'hate' crime.

Hate crimes legislation does nothing to help or curve feelings in any way. If anything they increase it and create more animosity because of the perceived special treatment the law brings with it.

People kill people, people hurt other people. The only determination in a trial should be whether it was intentional or not. Beyond that you're putting one class above another.

[Fandango 1,440]

btw, I have to leave now, so I'll leave you all with this:

Racism is no worse a motivator than any other reason people callously murder/torture/beat/harm people. They are all horrible, and should ALL be punished to the full extent of the law*

*for the pedantics, disclaimer of 'depending on the circs, not to be confused with self defense defenses'

[Peikko 1,575]

Where did I say that 'systemic racism doesn't exist'???? #######?

Do you even read what other people write, or are you just too busy with drafting a response so you can continue from your pulpit?

I do not get why you or anyone would believe you are being talked down to. That says more about you than it does about me. However, in answer to your question, your posts demonstrate your lack of belief in systemic racism, you know, the things you write about racism against white people as if there is some kind of equivalence at work.

[Fandango 1,440]

I do not get why you or anyone would believe you are being talked down to. That says more about you than it does about me. However, in answer to your question, your posts demonstrate your lack of belief in systemic racism, you know, the things you write about racism against white people as if there is some kind of equivalence at work.

Calling people crass? Come on now. If that's not preachy, I don't know what is.

As to racism, I believe it exists. I happen to believe it also exists against whites. There's no 'reverse' about it. I've always maintained that, and have NEVER said that 'racism doesn't exist'. Don't put words in my mouth.

[GabiandVi 34]

Perhaps the court should dispense with the sentencing hearing altogether? After all, if you commit x crime, then your crime demands x sentence right?

Who said that? I'm saying quite the opposite. It seems you are the one saying that if you commit X crime, then your crime demands Y sentence.

X=hate crime.

If you didn't commit a hate crime, you only killed someone whose race or religion or sexual orientation you didn't hate, your sentence should not be as stiff.

[Heracles 417]

You don't 'buy into' the idea that systemic racism still exists period, so why indeed would you bother with the idea that killing for this specific ideological reason is a different type of crime?

Gang killings are not 'for no reason' either. The rationale may not make much sense to people not embroiled in gang culture, but then the gang dynamic does not make much sense period to those outside that culture either. The last thing that motivates an initiation killing is hatred toward the victim, in many ways the motivation has no relevance to the victim whatsoever, in fact, one could go so far as to say it would be hard to find a crime that is the exact opposite of a hate crime than an initiation killing.

Once again, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a hate crime is, it is not simple rage, or anger at a particular person or event, it is the desire to subjugate, terrorise and eliminate a target group who share some perceived characteristic that the person carrying out the abuse considers renders the members of the target group subhuman and demands their persecution.

It's just always been interesting to me that had this occurred the other way round, as has happened many times before and posted on here, your reaction to that is a yawn and you do everything you can to downplay it. Yet the second it's someone Caucasian, you go on this crusade to wrong the right. What do yo actually feel you are achieving with this?

What's bizarre to me is someone advocating that the court need not factor the severity of the crime but rely on the perpetrator's intent.

Ultimately while you are on your crusade against hate crimes, you ignore the reality of the huge disparity between minorities and Caucasians (per capita) when it comes to murders. In five years of being here, I can count on one hand home many hate crimes there have been. But hey, this is apparently an epidemic to you and should be dealt with accordingly. The weekly homicides in ghettos on the other hand, no big deal.

[Peikko 1,575]

Calling people crass? Come on now. If that's not preachy, I don't know what is.

As to racism, I believe it exists. I happen to believe it also exists against whites. There's no 'reverse' about it. I've always maintained that, and have NEVER said that 'racism doesn't exist'. Don't put words in my mouth.

Systemic racism, I said you do not believe in it, and tht is at least part of the reason why hate crimes are nothing special to you.

Who said that? I'm saying quite the opposite. It seems you are the one saying that if you commit X crime, then your crime demands Y sentence.

X=hate crime.

If you didn't commit a hate crime, you only killed someone whose race or religion or sexual orientation you didn't hate, your sentence should not be as stiff.

It doesn't work like that. You keep going back to the same argument, but the argument is nonsense.