'Are You Muslim?' Hate Crime

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Generally speaking, people who say there shouldn't be hate crime legislation are people who A) as MysticCat stated, don't realize that motivation and intent matter for most crimes and/or B) are not identified as members of power minority groups who tend to be the victims of hate crimes.

or C) People who realize that hate is in the intent for many (if not most)violent crimes, whether they be based on race or the fact that your wife is sleeping with another guy.

And I'm not sure how one defines "minority groups" since we're all minorities.

Furthermore, it's a bit difficult to discern whether or not the crime was motivated by hate for a certain group...

This is sort of unrelated, but this is an interesting story....
http://reason.com/blog/2008/03/07/pu...k-and-step-awa

It's a story about how a man was reprimanded for "Racial Harassment" for reading a book about how Notre Dame students fought the Klan in 1924 in front of African-American employees.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

And I'm not sure how one defines "minority groups" since we're all minorities.

Are you serious?

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Are you serious?

Absolutely.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Absolutely.

I was hoping that you were joking. I find it hard to believe that you're not familiar with the power majority in this country.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

or C) People who realize that hate is in the intent for many (if not most)violent crimes, whether they be based on race or the fact that your wife is sleeping with another guy.

So . . . huh? The analogy just fails everywhere - there's no 'social control' aspect to killing your wife's lover. There is a strong precedent for the law to protect the minority from the majority - hate crime laws make tons of sense from that standpoint, and seem very American (in a variety of good and bad senses).

And I'm not sure how one defines "minority groups" since we're all minorities.

Luckily, the law does it for us, so we don't have to rely on specious interpretations of "minority" that lead to things like "we're all minorities."

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

So . . . huh? The analogy just fails everywhere - there's no 'social control' aspect to killing your wife's lover. There is a strong precedent for the law to protect the minority from the majority - hate crime laws make tons of sense from that standpoint, and seem very American (in a variety of good and bad senses).

You can't prove that there isn't "social control" in that analogy. Maybe that was the guys intent. His intent was to terrorize anyone that cheats. You don't know, and the law won't know.

Furthermore, someone who kills a person and says specifically "I hate this specific race" may have no intent on social control, but simply killed the person. Even if the most obvious "hate crime" is given, there's likely no proof there's "social control" unless he says "I plan to terrorize all persons of XYZ ethnicity". And then, I agree...some form of exacerbated punishment needs to be doled out. But I'm not sure that happens much.

Let's put this one out there:
If the precedent for the law was to protect the majority from the minority, then clearly if a black person kills a white person, and says expressly that he hates white people... he should only get simple murder. Or does it apply to all? And then, what necessity is the precedence if it applies to all?

Luckily, the law does it for us, so we don't have to rely on specious interpretations of "minority" that lead to things like "we're all minorities."

I'm not sure it's a "specious interpretation", it's the interpretation of a definition of minority.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

You can't prove that there isn't "social control" in that analogy. Maybe that was the guys intent. His intent was to terrorize anyone that cheats. You don't know, and the law won't know.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, everyone else knows what "social control" means.

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Let's put this one out there:
If the precedent for the law was to protect the majority from the minority, then clearly if a black person kills a white person, and says expressly that he hates white people... he should only get simple murder. Or does it apply to all? And then, what necessity is the precedence if it applies to all?

This is when I must tell you to research. The origin of hate crime legislation does not mean that those who target the majority cannot be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It means that the legislation covers group victimization that is GENERALLY that of the minority.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, everyone else knows what "social control" means.

When using broad terms such as "social control" one can construe it into any such form.

This is when I must tell you to research. The origin of hate crime legislation does not mean that those who target the majority cannot be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It means that the legislation covers group victimization that is GENERALLY that of the minority.

Yes, I know. I was using that person's definition.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

When using broad terms such as "social control" one can construe it into any such form.

Social control is not a broad term.

It means exactly what it sounds like. It is a macro-level approach to a sense of threat. Harming someone who cheats on you because you hate cheaters (as many people do) is not a social control mechanism.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

....hate is in the intent for many (if not most)violent crimes....

Incorrect.

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

And I'm not sure how one defines "minority groups" since we're all minorities.

Incorrect.

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Furthermore, it's a bit difficult to discern whether or not the crime was motivated by hate for a certain group...

Incorrect.