Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35

Thread: We're all equal, right?

  1. #1

    Default We're all equal, right?

    Cops: Teen Punched Man For Listening To Rap Music - News Story - WFTV Orlando

    So long story short a black kid beat up a white man for listening to rap music. This isn't all that big of a deal until you get to this part of the article:



    Quote Originally Posted by article
    State prosecutors said it could be one to two weeks before they decide if the 14-year-old will be charged with a hate crime charge.
    If a white kid had beat up a black man for listening to taylor swift the hate crime charges would be filed so fast it would make your head spin.

    Why do they have to even think about whether or not it was a hate crime? The kid(s) beat up the man because he was white.

    What do you guys think?

  2. #2
    Butterfly Mage

    Default

    It's a double standard for sure.

  3. #3

    Default

    Blacks beating on whites because of their whiteness essentially... depends on how the law's written
    What if he had been holding hands with a black girl and was beaten over it?

  4. #4

    Default

    Wow, no comment. I have really lost hope in todays' generation.

    Well, not that I actually have a little bit of it, now I absolutely don't.

  5. #5

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by d4l View Post
    Cops: Teen Punched Man For Listening To Rap Music - News Story - WFTV Orlando

    So long story short a black kid beat up a white man for listening to rap music. This isn't all that big of a deal until you get to this part of the article:



    If a white kid had beat up a black man for listening to taylor swift the hate crime charges would be filed so fast it would make your head spin.

    Why do they have to even think about whether or not it was a hate crime? The kid(s) beat up the man because he was white.

    What do you guys think?
    Either (a) everyone is equal, and "hate-crime" laws should apply equally--affirming that if you beat up someone outside your racial group, this is somehow worse than within your racial group; or (b) "hate-crime" laws are ridiculous, and assault is assault, and murder is murder.

    I'd much prefer (b).

  6. #6

    Default

    Poster above me is correct. Racial hate-crime laws are ridiculous. If you commit assault, it's assault, it isn't somehow worse because it was racially motivated - it doesn't mater what motivated it, it is a crime.

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Draugr View Post
    Poster above me is correct. Racial hate-crime laws are ridiculous. If you commit assault, it's assault, it isn't somehow worse because it was racially motivated - it doesn't mater what motivated it, it is a crime.
    I agree but that not the point. There should be no debate just because the person on the receiving end was white.

  8. #8

    Default

    I don't think the debate has anything to do with racial bias. I think the police in questions are simply taking their time and gathering evidence. I don't think it's as clear cut as you make it out to be. If the accused were screaming racial epithets while committing the crime, they would still take their time and decide whether or not to add the hate crime rider. While I don't like the idea of hate crime laws per se, I feel that in today's society they are tragically necessary. The idea that someone would commit a crime based on some unchangeable fact about another person is so horrible that yes, I think the punishment should be more severe if the government finds that there is more than just mens rea. But, the government needs to be very careful about what the classify as a hate crime. The hate crime element should have the same "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof that the basic crime has. It should be decided by a jury if the crime had hateful intent. It sounds like we are punishing thought-crime, and we are. I hate it, but I feel it's necessary.

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by dcviper View Post
    I don't think the debate has anything to do with racial bias. I think the police in questions are simply taking their time and gathering evidence. I don't think it's as clear cut as you make it out to be. If the accused were screaming racial epithets while committing the crime, they would still take their time and decide whether or not to add the hate crime rider. While I don't like the idea of hate crime laws per se, I feel that in today's society they are tragically necessary. The idea that someone would commit a crime based on some unchangeable fact about another person is so horrible that yes, I think the punishment should be more severe if the government finds that there is more than just mens rea. But, the government needs to be very careful about what the classify as a hate crime. The hate crime element should have the same "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof that the basic crime has. It should be decided by a jury if the crime had hateful intent. It sounds like we are punishing thought-crime, and we are. I hate it, but I feel it's necessary.
    What is the end-goal of this, then, if necessary? Is it punishment? If so, do we not already to this with criminal/civil conviction and prison time/restitution?

    I must admit that your goal here is unclear to me...

  10. #10

    Default

    It's like female pedophiles. They exist, but people refuse to see it.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-Feb-2010, 03:10

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.