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

[Fandango 1,440]

A thorough misunderstanding of the judicial system on display. I am sorry that you allow your emotive attachment to the victims of crime blind you to the reality of how the law actually works and why, but I can not say I am surprised.

Once again, the categorizing of crime is not to place a value on the victim, nor to assess how dead the victim is.

Then enlighten us, please.

[Peikko 1,575]

I'm sure in your "superior intelligence" you ASSume you know how the law actually works and why better than we do. Please explain how it actually works in this case, and why. I would love for you to explain it in a way that makes categorizing a murder as a hate crime actually work on any level.

I must say, you seem to have a very superficial understanding of the comments made, but then I shouldn't surprised. When a person prejudges others, they can't see beyond what they expect to see.

Superior intelligence? If you wish to ascribe that to my post, feel free.

[GabiandVi 34]

Yes, let's pretend that murdering someone simply because they belong to an identifiable group that you object to for whatever reason is no different from murdering someone for a specific set of reasons and circumstances. Exellent idea, I'm sure the jews would approve No, I can't see the reason behind identifying crimes that are perpetrated against target groups at all, what a pointless waste of time.

Nothing emotive about this nor demonstrating a subjective response to the victims. Nothing condescending either.

Superior intelligence? If you wish to ascribe that to my post, feel free.

I guess you don't understand how quotation marks actually work or why.

[Peikko 1,575]

Motive is a key element in any investigation and prosecution. If one simply refuses to acknowledge that this is true or refuse to accept that this is important, I can not really see how you can make a rational comment as to whether or not hate crimes are legitimate categorizations.

[Fandango 1,440]

Motive is a key element in any investigation and prosecution. If one simply refuses to acknowledge that this is true or refuse to accept that this is important, I can not really see how you can make a rational comment as to whether or not hate crimes are legitimate categorizations.

Sure, motive is important...but whether someone randomly stabs a stranger because (s)he felt like it, or because the victim was xyz is superfluous to the end result. Dead is dead.

I'm not saying there's not a difference between premeditated, second degree, manslaughter, etc....but this whole 'hate crime' angle, to me, is pointless. Punish them all equally.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Motive is a key element in any investigation and prosecution. If one simply refuses to acknowledge that this is true or refuse to accept that this is important, I can not really see how you can make a rational comment as to whether or not hate crimes are legitimate categorizations.

The only determination and result of finding out a motive or non-motive should be if it was pre-planned or not.

Just because someone has 'hateful' motives behind a certain group, that shouldn't make it any more worthy of a stiffer punishment.

You are making one victim worth more than another when you make the punishment different based on the actual motive. It's an unintended consequence of hate crimes statutes.

If John is white and kills bill who is white because he's mad at him for whatever reason, it should be the same punishment if Bill who's white kills Tom because he's black. Both scenarios had equal outcomes and they were either pre-planned or they weren't. If John gets 20 years for his crime, then Bill should get 20 years as well.

You're dancing around a fine line of free speech rights in hate crimes legislation as well. Just because one individual might infringe on another individuals, doesn't mean you get to infringe on his or hers. Thought is thought, words are words, actions are a completely different ballgame.

[Peikko 1,575]

Sure, motive is important...but whether someone randomly stabs a stranger because (s)he felt like it, or because the victim was xyz is superfluous to the end result. Dead is dead.

I'm not saying there's not a difference between premeditated, second degree, manslaughter, etc....but this whole 'hate crime' angle, to me, is pointless. Punish them all equally.

People do not randomly stab strangers, period. Everyone has a motive but suddenly out of the blue feeling like it is not one of them. The categorization of a crime as one motivated by hatred towards an identifiable group as apposed to a specific individual is an important distinction and is not the product of political correctness.

[Susita 175]

I actually live on Long Island and my little cousin lives in Patchogue and knows this kid plus the kids that were with him when they beat and killed Marcelo. Marcelo also happens to be the cousin of one of Luis's friends from his previous job. Small world huh?

That day he saw my cuz and his friends and he says they were drinking, smoking weed and whatever else. It really was a hate crime due to the fact that they were known to run around and beat up hispanics 'just because,' and there was nothing different that night. The Patchogue/Medford/Farmingville zone had a real problem with illegal immigrants and day laborers, and there are a lot of crazies and a lot of violence against hispanics. Just a few weeks ago, we had helicopters and police cars everywhere near my house because there were a bunch of kids again, beating and robbing hispanics. Fortunately, the crimes don't happen in my area, they were just hiding out here

Apparently this kid was drunk and high when he did it and my cousin seems to think that it didn't matter, it was only a matter of time before this kid did some serious damage to someone. He had serious mental problems and was a racist, and apparently so was his father. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

[Peikko 1,575]

Allowing for longer sentencing if a crime can be proven to be hatred motivated is likely at least partially to be as a result of the fact that such a motivation is not going to go away just because one member of the target group is dead so the risk of someone repeating such a crime has to be higher than, for example a criminal killing someone because a robbery goes wrong or during the course of an argument with a specific individual.

If the culprit is known to be mentally unstable, well that adds yet another layer of complication to how such a person should be dealt with in the penal system.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[twowls 217]

Allowing for longer sentencing if a crime can be proven to be hatred motivated is likely at least partially to be as a result of the fact that such a motivation is not going to go away just because one member of the target group is dead so the risk of someone repeating such a crime has to be higher than, for example a criminal killing someone because a robbery goes wrong or during the course of an argument with a specific individual.

If the culprit is known to be mentally unstable, well that adds yet another layer of complication to how such a person should be dealt with in the penal system.

I was waiting for this to be explained.

Hate crimes are punished more severely than other crimes because they are distinctive with regard to their impact. Someone who murders another person based on his race or sexual orientation is a danger to all people in those groups. And it's not only a physical threat; hate crimes divide communities and create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation for an entire section of society. The value of the lives lost is of course the same. But laws exist to protect society, not as a form of revenge. The difference in sentencing between hate crimes and non-hate crimes is in place because of the degree of threat to society represented by a hate crime.

[Fandango 1,440]

People do not randomly stab strangers, period. Everyone has a motive but suddenly out of the blue feeling like it is not one of them. The categorization of a crime as one motivated by hatred towards an identifiable group as apposed to a specific individual is an important distinction and is not the product of political correctness.

Don't be intentionally obtuse, you're skirting around the intent of what I said.

[Peikko 1,575]

A person who's hatred of a target group motivates abuse toward members of that group has nothing in common with a person who inflicts violence on another person based on that person's individual circumstances.

With a hate crime the perpetrator has no specific reason to harm the individual, but is instead trying to eliminate or at the very least frighten and attempt to force into submission the hated group/or what that group represents. That has to demand specific consideration and to pretend somehow that there is nothing different about a person who does that is crass to say the least.

[BelleSade 3]

25 years is the max sentence? I'd just hand out the death penalty to all murderers.

[Heracles 417]

Extra punishment for hate crimes is ridiculous and pointless.

It's the perpetrator's disregard for another life and the severity of the crime that needs to be punished.

Then again, had the crime been the other way around, then it would be socioeconomics and a whole rage of other things to blame.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Booyah!

[Danno 1,228]

Of course the whole other flaw to the "hate crimes" concept is the limited groups it protects... it basically focuses on a few select groups.

When the victim is outside those parameters .. the wind goes right out of the sail to pursue the hate crime angle.

I'm wondering how many cop-killers have been charged with a Hate crime? If anyone hates a group, it is criminals hatin on cops.

And what do we use as "evidence" of hate to make a charge? Racist or homophobic words which were uttered at the time?

When these same exact words are uttered between member of the same group during a confrontation or crime, they are dismissed. If the Perpetrator is not Gay, Black etc....then the additional charge is levied.