White Supremacist stabs Black man for kissing White woman

Not a hate crime?

It clearly is a hate crime.

It's also an assault with a deadly weapon.

 

Totally agree

 

So because of his motive hat somehow makes a stabbing more of a stabbing?

 

www.dictionary.com/browse/terrorism

Short Definition

 

The courts always take in account their motives. You know that. You are just being intellectually dishonest.

 

So that could go with any crime between anyone. Does that fact that he was a white supremacist make you call it terrorism? Do you call drive by shootings and store robberies terrorism?

Micheal brown terrorized that store owner. See how extreme just wildely naming shit terrorism can get.


This was flat out assault with a deadly weapon and not something more because of the motive.

 

So now you agree with the court system? Isn't that he same racist system you rail against daily?

 

Your personal opinion aside Paniro, this crime is the very legal DEFINITION of a hate crime per the statutes below.

Washington’s hate crime law is defined under malicious harassment statutes. Here are the basics from the Revised Code of Washington, section 9A.36.080:

A person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and intentionally commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap:

(a) Causes physical injury to the victim or another person;

(b) Causes physical damage to or destruction of the property of the victim or another person; or

(c) Threatens a specific person or group of persons and places that person, or members of the specific group of persons, in reasonable fear of harm to person or property.

Malicious harassment is a class C felony.

 

of course. I'm not saying that it doesn't meet the criteria of the law. I just don't agree with it that's all. Assault to me is assault. If someone assaults someone the reason it was done doesn't matter they were assaulted and should be dealt with severely no matter the the motive.

 

Interesting perspective, good interview on this issue on NPR a few years ago, I agree with the point of view of the law professor in bold below.

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/10/150351860/are-hate-crime-laws-necessary

MARTIN: The argument is that, you know, a crime is a crime, no matter what motivates it. For example, something like the killing of James Byrd in Texas. You know, an African-American man killed by two white men under some truly horrific circumstances, but in that case, both men sentenced to death.

In the Matthew Shepard case in Wyoming, also killed under horrific circumstances. Both those men convicted of those crimes. Very harsh penalties imposed and people look at that and they say, well, what's the difference? Capital punishment is capital punishment no matter what motivates it.

BUTLER: So the idea is that, in those horrid instances, it wasn't just Mr. Byrd or Mr. Shepard who was impacted, but rather - and specifically - the African-American community and the LGBT community. So when an incident is designed to send a message to a whole group, then the punishment ought to reflect that intent.

 

So what do you think is the end game here? That people see that more time is given and this will stop their idealogy? What's labeling it a hate crime vs crime supposed to send. I think as with any other crime we know that giving out more time doesn nothing to deter crime

Let's say that the guy in crime a and b in your post both got the death penalty. How does slapping hate on it help.

 

Complex issue for sure, some interesting points made on both sides in bold below. I agree that having hate crime laws on the books does increase the likelyhood of such crimes being reported and thats a good thing.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...31920/how-well-do-hate-crime-laws-really-work

In the 45 states with hate crime laws on the books, crimes committed on the basis of something like racial hatred can make a big difference in sentencing. Guidelines vary by state. In many cases they call for enhancing a sentence by adding on additional years, or changing the classification of a crime, such as from misdemeanor to felony.

The Anti-Defamation League has been a big advocate for the laws. The group has pushed for legislation at the state level since 1981, and supported the 2009 law that expanded hate crimes at the federal level to include those motivated by sexual orientation, disability and gender identity.

"If you're going to burn a swastika into the side of a synagogue or burn a cross and demonstrate your hatred that way, if you know that you're going to be doing serious time for that, then you may modify your behavior," said the ADL's Michael Lieberman. He said the fact that 45 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the laws shows most state leaders think stronger punishments make people think twice before acting on any racist or other hateful attitudes.

But trying to measure the deterrent effect of hate crime laws is difficult.

The FBI collects hate crime statistics from state and local authorities. Their 2014 Hate Crime Statistics report found about 6,000 hate crime incidents reported in 2013.

But it's likely a vast undercount; the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated almost 294,000 hate crimes in the year prior to that, based on victim surveys. The number of hate crimes has fluctuated since 2004, with most recently a sharp spike from 2011 to 2012.

So if the laws are effective, wouldn't the number of incidents be going down each year?

Not necessarily. Proponents say a stronger law means more people may be willing to report hate crimes who wouldn't have before.

"Why would you report that you were the victim of a hate crime unless you thought police were going to do something about it?" Lieberman says. "If [a city] pass[es] a strong hate crime law ... it demonstrates that city is now taking these crimes very seriously," he said.

Still, the laws have their critics, who question the usefulness of combating hate by extending prison sentences.

"I think they essentially come down to feel-good laws," said Michael Bronski, a media studies professor at Harvard who co-wrote "Considering Hate: Violence, Goodness, and Justice in American Culture and Politics."

 

The part that I put in bold here makes it feel like they are doing it just to look good and not because they really give a damn. Also if they are genuinely doing it for good then were they not serious about these crimes before?

 

There seems to be no definitive stats to prove that hate crime laws are very effective or have no impact at all when it comes to preventing crime. IMO having hate crime statutes does, as the article states, encourage more reporting of such crimes which is a very good thing.

I would also argue that for many cities/states, hate crimes, especially where nobody was physically injured (cross burnings, spray painting swastikas, ect.) were not taken all that serious, now with both federal statutes and most states (45 out of 50) having hate crime laws on the books such crimes garner much more attention, also a good thing.

 

The cross burnings etc aren't taken seriously cause usually they have no idea who did it I would imagine. What attention are you wanting to bring to it? To let people know there's still racism? People know that there's still racism. The people that "don't know ". Are willfully ignorant and won't take notice no matter what IMO

 

Not just bringing attention to it, but attaching actual serious consequences, tells everyone that as a society we reject crimes based in racial/sexual/religious, ect. bigotry.

Criminal intent is a BIG factor in the law that brings different consequences, and not only when it comes to hate crimes, for example it is the main difference between murder and manslaughter. And while per the article, there are no hard stats to back it up as yet, I think it is reasonable to assume that the additional legal consequences of hate crimes give those prone to committing them some degree of second thoughts.

 

You don't think that those people doing it know that there are serious consequences to their actions? Of course they do that why they take extra care to maintain their cover.

Some degree of second thoughts? Sure I'll give you thatbut imo def not enough to to deter a damn thing. When that dumb ass Reagan was handing out 20 years for a few rocks that didn't stop it. Plain and simple people that were going to do something we're going to do it no matter the consequences.

 

Talking about reaching

Even your fellow conservative ain't fucking with u on this one.

 

So do you want to tell me why it's a reach instead of just saying that it is? Explain.

If a person causes terror in another person then that is indeed terrorism.

 

The arguments you are making should be applied to Isis.