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

[Fandango 1,440]

I can't help myself soemtimes, so I'm back to say one more thing before I go, heheh.

The irony is, and this is gonna be awkward to explain without someone taking it the wrong way...but the thing is, racism is not illegal in this country. You are allowed to hold racist beliefs, as much as I don't like it, you have the freedom to do so, and the gov't cannot have any say in it. To make the punishment more severe based upon something which is NOT illegal kinda doesn't make sense to me.

PS - I'm NOT saying that to kill/maim/torture someone based on racist beliefs is OK. I'm saying that there shouldn't be special provisions to make the punishment worse because of it. Make the punishment worse across the board for all offenders found guilty. It's not like 'oh that murder is more tolerable, so we'll give him/her less severe punishment because of it.' Once you are found guilty, there should be NO tolerance for any perpetrator. Why would we, as a society, try to diffuse one motivator of crime, but not the other? Whether you kill someone for hate, for greed, for personal gain, for revenge, etc...that person is dead, and that's what matters. Again, not talking about special circs where there might be legitimate mitigating circs...

Cleo - you're right, but not for the reasons you may think. I don't think there's anything particularly 'special' about hate crimes. I find them just as deplorable as 'good ole run of the mill' crimes and feel they are equally horrific and unnecc.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Happy Bunny

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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."

What about criminals that murder police officers? They're sentencing is determined based on who they targeted. Sentencing based on targeted victims is nothing new. We have recent newer penalties for those who target children as their victims. There is a logic to the concept of hate crimes in that sense.

[Heracles 417]

Guys the irony is this, had the punishment of hates crimes been equal in nature, more minorities would be in jail for longer because of it.

Why you may ask.. Quite simple.

When a minority murders a Caucasian, it's classed as murder.

When a Caucasians murders a minority, it's classed as a hate crime.

To some of you, this reality is no big deal. To the rest with a shed of common sense, this is a two-tiered legal system. And ironically racist.

In the five years of being here, not once have I heard a minority being convicted of a hate crime. Or are people going to tell me that regardless of the reality of the murders reported on the news having a ratio of about 20 to 1, minorities just don't commit hate crime. Sorry, wasn't born yesterday, what that illustrates is the double standards of the classification of crimes.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Booyah!

[GabiandVi 34]

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.

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

You seem pretty thick about this. If categorizing a crime as a hate crime does not imply harsher sentences than not categorizing it as a hate crime, what's the point? If it does imply harsher sentences, then it is reasonable that people will disagree with reserving harsher sentences for crimes that are no more violent or devastating but happen to have been perpetrated on a person from a particular group because that person comes from that group. (A HORRIBLE, DESPICABLE ACT!)

Is that person really any more dangerous than the person who takes your life for your shoes? Is it any less terrorizing to society to have the shoe-killer realeased sooner? Does it take any less time to rehabilitate such a person? Does a hate crime sentence really deter future hate crimes any more because the sentence is harsher than if they just committed a crime? And if so, then why wouldn't we want to equally deter other crimes?

I'm all for "throwing the book" at perpetrators of hate crimes. I'd just like to see the same book thrown at anyone who commits an equally violent and devastating crime.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If the whole "hate" crime angle is bogus, why is there a whole special subclass of special charges for people who commit terrorist acts?

It's not really all that dissimilar.

[Heracles 417]

If the whole "hate" crime angle is bogus, why is there a whole special subclass of special charges for people who commit terrorist acts?

It's not really all that dissimilar.

It's not bogus. Rather, what's bogus is how the law is applied. It's also a crime that is very hard to prove.

I'd like to know how many times the two minorities in this country have had the book thrown at them for hate crimes. Or do they not commit such crimes?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's not bogus. Rather, what's bogus is how the law is applied. It's also a crime that is very hard to prove.

I'd like to know how many times the two minorities in this country have had the book thrown at them for hate crimes. Or do they not commit such crimes?

That's your perception. As I know quite well, that isn't something you will deviate from or indicate any desire to prove.

Hate crimes are specifically about the intent to commit a criminal act against a person not because you hate the individual, but because it is your specific intent to single them out on the basis of their race, ethnicity or religion with the result that it causes fear among members of that community.

Generally speaking, most of these "hate crimes" are not murder cases but crimes that range from vandalism (e.g. spraypainting "paki go home" on the house of an indian family) to violent assaults (e.g. "let's kick that #######'s head in!".

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Not all violent crimes are equal and the law never regards them in such a way, even though mandatory sentences have become popular in recent years. There are mitigating circumstances to crimes of violence to which the degree of heinousness is determined and consequently the sentencing reflects that. There is an historical angle to why we've passed laws against hate crimes. There were times where someone was beaten or killed simply over the color of their skin and judges would sentence the perpetrator as if it were any beating or killing. Now judges are required to determine whether the victim was targeted based on impersonal factors such as skin color or ethnicity and factor it into the sentencing. Sentences are measure by many mitigating factors - in cold blood, etc. If violence was committed against someone simply because of the color of their skin, their sentence should reflect that, as that makes the crime more heinous just as other factors traditionally do.

Edited May 27, 2010 by El Buscador

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Not all violent crimes are equal and the law never regards them in such a way, even though mandatory sentences have become popular in recent years. There are mitigating circumstances to crimes of violence to which the degree of heinousness is determined and consequently the sentencing reflects that. There is an historical angle to why we've passed laws against hate crimes. There were times where someone was beaten or killed simply over the color of their skin and judges would sentence the perpetrator as if it were any beating or killing. Now judges are required to determine whether the victim was targeted based on impersonal factors such as skin color or ethnicity and factor it into the sentencing. Sentences are measure by many mitigating factors - in cold blood, etc. If violence was committed against someone simply because of the color of their skin, their sentence should reflect that, as that makes the crime more heinous just as other factors traditionally do.

BS. It makes it no more heinous than killing someone in cold blood who catches you robbing their house. You're never forced to kill anyone and have the option to run away.

Also as I've mentioned before, you're treading a fine line on first amendment rights here as well. You cannot punish opinions, that in itself in inherently wrong here as well. You can punish actions based on whether it was pre-meditated or not, but punishing the actual reasoning is quite wrong in many ways as well.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

BS. It makes it no more heinous than killing someone in cold blood who catches you robbing their house. You're never forced to kill anyone and have the option to run away.

Also as I've mentioned before, you're treading a fine line on first amendment rights here as well. You cannot punish opinions, that in itself in inherently wrong here as well. You can punish actions based on whether it was pre-meditated or not, but punishing the actual reasoning is quite wrong in many ways as well.

You need to widen the argument beyond murder to see how ridiculous your position is.

If I spraypaint "West Ham Forever" on the side of a building, I am guilty of vandalism.

If I spraypaint "Kill all N!ggers" on the building I am guilty of vandalism with the intent of advocating violence against a racial group.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You need to widen the argument beyond murder to see how ridiculous your position is.

If I spraypaint "West Ham Forever" on the side of a building, I am guilty of vandalism.

If I spraypaint "Kill all N!ggers" on the building I am guilty of vandalism with the intent of advocating violence against a racial group.

It's an opinion of an individual. It's not the fault of an individual if another takes that opinion seriously and acts upon it. Both are simple vandalism with different messages.

"Hate crimes" are silly in the sense that they are inherently trying to hold one individuals actions responsible for other's actions or possible actions.

As noted as well, it cannot be defined as a 'hate crime' (legally anyway) unless the individual so happens to have a history of this sort of opinion...

[Heracles 417]

I agree with both sides and my qualm is not with the hate crime specifically. Rather, it's how and why so many Caucasians in America (not the case in other countries) are accused of hate crimes yet seldom the other way round. Or are you guys going to expect me to believe that while minorities commit a higher degree of crimes, they just don't commit hate crimes.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Booyah!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You need to widen the argument beyond murder to see how ridiculous your position is.

If I spraypaint "West Ham Forever" on the side of a building, I am guilty of vandalism.

If I spraypaint "Kill all N!ggers" on the building I am guilty of vandalism with the intent of advocating violence against a racial group.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's an opinion of an individual. It's not the fault of an individual if another takes that opinion seriously and acts upon it. Both are simple vandalism with different messages.

"Hate crimes" are silly in the sense that they are inherently trying to hold one individuals actions responsible for other's actions or possible actions.

As noted as well, it cannot be defined as a 'hate crime' (legally anyway) unless the individual so happens to have a history of this sort of opinion...

Then as I say, why are there separate classes of offence for those who plan or commit terrorist acts. The reasoning is much the same.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I agree with both sides and my qualm is not with the hate crime specifically. Rather, it's how and why so many Caucasians in America (not the case in other countries) are accused of hate crimes yet seldom the other way round. Or are you guys going to expect me to believe minorities with higher crime rates, just don't commit those sorts of crimes.

There was a recent case of a hate crime committed by a black person who targeted someone for being white. The law is color blind on the matter.