Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: Not a hate crime.

  1. #21

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by MommyandMattling View Post
    Chicago police say authorities are considering whether an attack on a white man that was broadcast live on Facebook falls under hate crimes statutes. . .

    Hate crimes evidently dont cover the special needs group.
    They do. Speaking from experience, what's really being said there is "We're reviewing the relevant laws and determining if all the requirements for violation have, in fact, been met. We're doing this to make sure convictions can be made."

    The was the legal system works, if there are five required elements for a crime, but you can only prove four, the suspect must be found innocent.

  2. #22

    Default

    Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could be seen on Facebook, the oldest was 24, when I was 7 I new shit like this was wrong and unacceptable , there is no excuse other than the parents sucked , then again you can become a parent easier then adopting a cat , something wrong with that.

    Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

  3. #23

    Default

    Interesting, I am a victim of a hate crime from the occupant who lives one floor above me in this house. She is Chinese and possibly an illegal immigrant. I have lived here for 12.75 years and this one person above me has been the only person who still after almost 13 years hates me to the core, not due necessarily to my sexual orientation (LGBT) or my SBS disability. The sole reason she has been trying to drive me out via using her floor as the bullying medium of excessive noise like a stable above me, is because I am not (100%) Chinese like herself.

    I am predominately of northern European stock, Russian, and a touch of Japanese (as Japanese is in itself a mixture of Yomon, Ainu, Korean and indeed Chinese ) making me a Eurasian, this is what I believe to be a hate crime perpetuated against me. I am very close to contacting an attorney pro bono as to try and finally resolve my situation. I would move out (and I do plan eventually to move to Switzerland when I can save enough money). In the mean time this unnecessary stress which is making my own situation worse is totally unnecessary and MUST CEASE IMMEDIATELY!

    It has been extremely rare if at all to have come into contact with members of the Chinese Community that hold racial prejudice and hate towards those outside of their community, but this has been a real serious problem. If there are any experts who have sustained racialism from the Chinese community I would sure love to hear your story and how you have resolved the situation. Thank you kindly.
    [/I]

    (Please excuse the excessive italics here as this system seems not to be working correctly. I meant only 'pro bono' and before that; 'and indeed Chinese' to be italicised! Thank you for your understanding).
    Last edited by Electrictransportgod; 1 Week Ago at 07:42. Reason: Italics not working right

  4. #24

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Trevor View Post
    free societies are going to have hate in them. .
    Hi, Trevor,
    It's probably the idealist in me but I've always had a problem with sweeping generalizations that are rooted in defeatism. Although I'm a realist in understanding that hate will likely always exist in my lifetime, our goal as a civilized society should indeed be towards eradicating hatred. It reminds me of the bible saying that 'there will be poor with us always' and so rather than addressing potential solutions to poverty, people focus instead on providing a patchwork system of charity that continues to leave people homeless and starving. When we call people poor, we think of the person's circumstances. When we call them victims of a recession then we begin to address the economic and unemployment problems that cause them to be poor. It's the same with defining hate crimes.

    In any crime there is a motive or something of value to be gained by committing the crime. Hate crimes are quite different in that respect. A robber attacks a victim and steals their wallet or other possessions with value. An abuser kills his spouse for leaving him because he can't be with her, so he ensures no one else will have her. Drug deals gone wrong result in 'payback' where people are shot down in the middle of the street. All of these crimes have motives with something to be gained. Hate crimes don't have a cause, except for the hatred of the victim. The only real motive in a hate crime from the assailant's perspective is the pleasure derived from the violence, humiliation and possible death of the victim.

    I think it's very important to label a hate crime for what it is: a targeted attack against an individual who is a member of a vulnerable group that has historically faced discrimination. I do believe that the criteria for labelling an attack as a hate crime should come with very strict, defining criteria to ensure that the charge meets the criteria laid out in the criminal justice system. Hate is complicated, and labelling everything as hate can be easy, so it's crucial to allow the investigating officials to ensure such crimes fit stringent criteria and that the charge is not based on emotions.

    We already label crimes in a number of ways: grand larceny, aggravated assault,, crimes of passion, etc. A person who commits a violent crime can be sent for psychiatric evaluation to determine if he was criminally responsible. A label of NCR (not criminally responsible) has a significant impact in the outcome and sentencing at a hearing. It's important to call a crime or a death exactly what it is, because it informs us and tells us about the defendant and what causes the behaviour. It enables us to collect data on how to address hate and to understand it better. It allows us to learn precisely the groups who are most at risk and why. In Canada, like other countries we are seeing an increase in hate crimes against the Muslim population. This informs us not only of the trend but the societal and external environment influences which lead to it. My own 'motive' for labelling these atrocities as hate crimes would be to ensure they are treated differently than other crimes, so that we may put additional resources into defining the characteristics of each crime, determining the causes and developing preventative responses.

    I said previously, as a gay person who has attended vigils for victims of violence against the LGBT population, I can't begin to describe the sense of loss, the feeling of fear, the question that each of us asks ourselves 'Could I be next?' You can't hide from it unless you simply stop living. Identifying an act as a hate crime sends out an important message that our authorities recognize this fear, they take it seriously, and will protect the community. This is important because of the shame and the marginalization many of us have experienced in our lifetime. It sends out a message to the most vulnerable that their lives do matter.

    Having said all that, I am still an idealist. I do believe there is a need for hate crime legislation and that it should be used in cases where hatred is the primary, and possibly sole motive of the crime. If a person is found to be guilty of a deadly assault against another person without any mitigating factors that caused the behaviour, then the maximum sentence should be applied. However, this should not preclude the justice system from considering all the circumstances of the defendant that lead to committing the attack and weighing them against the impact of the crime on the victim, and meting out a fair sentence. I don't believe that labeling an assault as a hate crime should automatically trigger a stiffer sentence,only that there should be a more exploratory process to establish the motive and that those factors should be considered at the time of sentencing. In my view, supporting hate crime as a factor in a hearing does not necessarily imply a 'tough on crime' approach leading to harsher sentencing.

    Whenever these issues come up, I always ask myself the question "What is the purpose of prison?"
    Is it to punish the offender?
    Is it to protect society from the offender?
    It to rehabilitate an offender?

    I think the answer is 'all of the above' but the problem with our system is that we still tend to overlook the need for rehabilitation and simply tend to close the book on the offender by locking them away so we can forget about them. The fact is that these offenders will be released someday and without getting proper treatment in prison, the offender usually becomes more anti-social and violent as a means to survive while imprisoned. The result is that they come out of prison with a harder edge than when they went into it, and there is a higher recidivism rate as a result. I think even the most conservative minded person could appreciate the fact that it costs more in taxpayers dollars to leave an inmate rotting in a prison cell rather than rehabilitate him. It's better for society and saves money in incarceration and law enforcement.
    Last edited by Starrunner; 1 Week Ago at 23:47.

  5. #25

    Default

    I am not sure I like the idea of hate crimes at all, to be honest. Not to say acts of hate are not vile, which they are, but the separate severity for hatred-motivated crime is a grey area I would like to see less of in the justice system.

    It is difficult to prove an emotionally-fueled motive because at times, there's no tangible evidence for it. (This case being a rare exception, because the idiots filmed themselves basically confessing racial agression.) Not only does this make it hard to prove something is a hate crime, it makes it hard to prove something wasn't a hate crime either. Like if a white man shoots a black man, even if there is no evidence that the crime was racially motivated, there also isn't evidence that it wasn't. That is why I think it shouldn't be a factor. There's no use legally pursuing someone for something you cannot prove. You are setting yourself up to lose that case or the defendant will be given a chance to plea down to lesser charges.

    I would rather see the same punishment for the same crime. I don't think anyone likes it when someone clearly guilty of murder can plea down to a manslaughter charge, as an example. Basically I think when you have sentences that are higher for harder to prove cases, there is a higher rate of people getting lighter charges due to lack of evidence for motive. The only exceptions I would make to this are circumstantial.

    However, I'm no legal expert and I'm sure there are situations where it would be inappropriate to simply give the same punishment for the same act regardless of motive. (i.e. if someone killed someone in complete self-defense that might warrant no punishment, or accidentally might warrant a lighter sentence)

  6. #26

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by SuperRaiUniverse View Post
    I am not sure I like the idea of hate crimes at all, to be honest. Not to say acts of hate are not vile, which they are, but the separate severity for hatred-motivated crime is a grey area I would like to see less of in the justice system.

    It is difficult to prove an emotionally-fueled motive because at times, there's no tangible evidence for it. (This case being a rare exception, because the idiots filmed themselves basically confessing racial agression.) Not only does this make it hard to prove something is a hate crime, it makes it hard to prove something wasn't a hate crime either. Like if a white man shoots a black man, even if there is no evidence that the crime was racially motivated, there also isn't evidence that it wasn't. That is why I think it shouldn't be a factor. There's no use legally pursuing someone for something you cannot prove. You are setting yourself up to lose that case or the defendant will be given a chance to plea down to lesser charges.

    I would rather see the same punishment for the same crime. I don't think anyone likes it when someone clearly guilty of murder can plea down to a manslaughter charge, as an example. Basically I think when you have sentences that are higher for harder to prove cases, there is a higher rate of people getting lighter charges due to lack of evidence for motive. The only exceptions I would make to this are circumstantial.

    However, I'm no legal expert and I'm sure there are situations where it would be inappropriate to simply give the same punishment for the same act regardless of motive. (i.e. if someone killed someone in complete self-defense that might warrant no punishment, or accidentally might warrant a lighter sentence)
    I think hate crime laws should be used sparingly, and as I stated previously, only when it has been established that hate is the primary or sole factor in a crime. Although we've had more than our share locally of brutal assaults due to racism and homophobia, the one case that frequently comes to mind globally is Matthew Shepard. Shepard was a young man who lived in Wyoming. He was lured into a truck late at night by two men, robbed, then pistol whipped, brutally beaten and tied to fence and left to die.

    Although the primary motive was robbery, his death was a result of hatred and homophobia. In an interview, the primary assailant, Aaron McKinney stated:

    "Matthew Shepard needed killing. As far as Matt is concerned I don't have any remorse. The night I did it, I did have hatred for homosexuals. He was obviously gay, that played a part. His weakness, his frailty."

    http://www.denverpost.com/2009/10/01...eeded-killing/

    Although robbery was the initial motivation, Shepard's death was motivated by homophobia. When hatred is clearly the significant factor in how the crime has played out, then I would see hate crime penalties being applied.

    I agree the burden of proof would need to be high in order to secure a conviction and that is as it should be. The justice system needs to render decisions based on all the circumstances of each case, not an emotional outcry.

  7. #27

    Default

    We need to stop creating 'target groups' and recognize the seriousness of hate crimes to the general population. Hate crimes are similar to terrorist attacks in that they occur randomly and tend to be extremely violent. The sole purpose of a hate crime is to inflict as much pain, suffering, and injury as possible on another individual just for the ego satisfaction of the perpetrator. In cases that involve unprovoked physical violence the crime speaks for itself and there should be no need to identify the victim as a member of a special group in order to get an appropriate sentence handed down. People who cannot control their violent impulses are a serious threat to society and need to be dealt with.

  8. #28

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Starrunner View Post
    I think that hate crimes are different from other crimes. They target a specific group and the crime occurs not only against the individual but also against the group to which that individual belongs. I've been to several vigils in the past few years for drag queens, gay and transgendered people and I can testify to the fear such crimes send out to a community. As a gay person myself, I feel the violence against a victim of a hate crime has the ability to terrorize an entire disadvantaged group because it sends out a message of fear. It is targeted specifically towards a disadvantaged group of people for no other reason than the very fact they exist on this planet. Unlike most other crime, hate crimes are based solely on hatred and bias, with violence against the individual being its only motivation and reward.

    If there is a crime spree in a neighbourhood, you can take steps to protect yourself from it; add more security to your home, walk with a buddy, start a neighbourhood watch, but a hate crime is different in that you cannot simply stop being who you are or hide your skin colour or disability in order to avoid violence. Hate crimes are also different in that they are often inflicted upon groups who are afraid to report the incident to the police for fear of it not being taken seriously or encountering more discrimination. Only a small percentage of hate motivated crimes are ever reported to the criminal justice system.

    The violence against minority groups is often a result of very important and defining characteristics of the victim's own sense of identity, additional factors that can create feelings of vulnerability and loss. For example, a gay person who is assaulted because of his or her sexual orientation will suffer not only the physical trauma of the assault, but also the affront to their character. The difference with hate crimes is the impact they have on whole communities. Hate crimes increase the level of fear, and they heighten the level of tension between different racial and ethnic groups.
    Thank you, I never understood how a hate crime is different, from your post I now understand it to be an act of terrorism directed at a group thru one person.

  9. #29

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Starrunner View Post
    Whenever these issues come up, I always ask myself the question "What is the purpose of prison?"
    Is it to punish the offender?
    Is it to protect society from the offender?
    It to rehabilitate an offender?
    I feel like I have delved into this topic once already, and I normally hate to repeat myself. But it seems relevant here.

    In most countries, but not all, prison doesn't serve much of a reformative purpose. That is because it is designed incorrectly. The point is punishment, not rehabilitation, and the result is a population that is focused on vengeance rather than improvement.

    There are notable exceptions to this. As I have pointed out before, Norway has a rather impressive success rate in terms of crime and recidivism. They're onto something!

    I don't know whether it would be enough to prevent hate crimes, necessarily. But such an approach seems to create a low crime rate in general. Food for thought...

  10. #30

    Default

    A couple things that seem to be misunderstandings about hate crimes:
    The bar for proving Hate Crime isn't particularly low - most jurisdictions require comprehensive proof that the perpetrator had a long-standing and demonstrable dislike the targeted group. Mes re comes into play; it's not enough that statements of hate or anger were made, those statements must be proven to reflect the suspects normal attitudes and behaviors.

    Hate Crimes are considered more heinous variants of offenses because they actions are intensified or motivated solely by anger or hate for protected class of people. Because of this, they also tend to be more random and much more violent, with the follow-on effects of terrorizing a class of people and inflicting longer lasting repercussions on the victim(s).

    Having higher penalties for hate crimes compared to similar non-hate offenses is intended to discourage hate crimes as a whole. I'm not arguing that's the effect it's having, but it is the intent.

    I think in this specific case, regardless of whether hate crime charges are sustained, the offense itself is particularly vile. It appears to have been premeditated aggravated assault - all four suspects should face the maximum allowable penalties under law.

Similar Threads

  1. Let's be clear: 'This' crime is not about AB/DL!!!
    By Marka in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 2 Weeks Ago, 20:35
  2. Hate, hate, HAAATE close calls.
    By theb in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 01-Jun-2015, 22:45
  3. Why is being safe a crime?
    By Calico in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 12-Jul-2012, 19:02
  4. Why is liking your diapers a crime?
    By Calico in forum Incontinence
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 15-Jun-2012, 02:11

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.