Another Texas Dragging

[litAKAtor]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Yes, I think we should eliminate most criminal statutes I don't agree with.

However, the point is that we don't NEED hate crime statutes nor do they provide any noticeable benefit. I'm all for reducing hate crimes, but I'm for reducing all crimes. I question the punishing of intentional crimes differently because of the identity of the victim. If there were some overriding public policy, the protection of children perhaps, I think it could have some merit.

There is some merit to the enhancement for hate crimes, but unless you potentially could become a victim of such a crime, OR have historically been a victim of such crimes, I doubt you will have an appreciation for it.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by litAKAtor

There is some merit to the enhancement for hate crimes, but unless you potentially could become a victim of such a crime, OR have historically been a victim of such crimes, I doubt you will have an appreciation for it.

Or if he has an overall social consciousness that allows him to place himself in others' shoes.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Or if he has an overall social consciousness that allows him to place himself in others' shoes.

I hope a person who commits a crime against me gets appropriately punished for that crime. If I get beat up for being white, I hope they get the maximum sentence for the appropriate crime. I don't really care whether they did it because I'm white or because I'm an asshole.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Well do hate crime statutes provide for additional punishment or just additional consideration in sentencing?

You mean, you think it's stupid but don't know what it entails? You said you knew about hate crimes and the legislation.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I hope a person who commits a crime against me gets appropriately punished for that crime. If I get beat up for being white, I hope they get the maximum sentence for the appropriate crime. I don't really care whether they did it because I'm white or because I'm an asshole.

Of course you don't care because there's no history (read: historical and contemporary trends and patterns) of heterosexual white males being victimized by others BECAUSE they are heterosexual white males.

Either case, laws don't require that you care. Lucky us.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Of course you don't care because there's no history (read: historical and contemporary trends and patterns) of heterosexual white males being victimized by others BECAUSE they are heterosexual white males.

Either case, laws don't require that you care. Lucky us.

Oh yes, white people are never attacked in black sections of town. Never happens. I guess motive here overshadows frequency. Is it more important that we stop the few white on black crimes (for example) than the much more common black on white crimes? Which would better serve the main purpose of reducing crime?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Oh yes, white people are never attacked in black sections of town. Never happens. I guess motive here overshadows frequency. Is it more important that we stop the few white on black crimes (for example) than the much more common black on white crimes? Which would better serve the main purpose of reducing crime?

You're steering all over the place now.

Motive does overshadow frequency when we're talking about hate crimes.

But crimes of violence remain overwhelmingly intraracial rather than interracial and perpetrated by people we know rather than strangers.

So you wouldn't win a debate there.

ETA: Keep in mind that I never said that heterosexual white males have never been/are/will be targeted for hate crimes. This race, gender, and sexual orientation combo is of the power majority in this country which translates to a small(er) likelihood of group victimization based on race, gender, and/or sexual orientation.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

You're steering all over the place now.

Motive does overshadow frequency when we're talking about hate crimes.

But crimes of violence remain overwhelmingly intraracial rather than interracial and perpetrated by people we know rather than strangers.

So you wouldn't win a debate there.

So what? My point is not that we should establish some sort of protection for white people (from minority inflicted crimes), rather that hate crime legislation doesn't serve the purpose of reducing crime. I value a reduction in frequency foremost. What, in your opinion, is the overriding purpose of hate crime legislation? Note, I'm not referring to charges like "ethnic intimidation," I think thats a whole other issue to tackle.