by Jack Lee
I was reading in the ER about a group of males that had issues with a gay group and it resulted in one of the latter being injured, (see story in today’s ER online). The Chico Police Dept. didn’t think it was a hate crime, but if they said why it didn’t make it into the paper. I found this curious because I really wasn’t sure what a hate crime was, in legal terms. So, I went looking and this is what I found:
Taken from the FBI website: “A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” This makes the crime not just against the one person, but against a whole class of society.
Calif. Penal Code section 422.55 covers the definition of a hate crimes as:
(a)”Hate crime” means a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim:
(1)Disability.
(2)Gender.
(3)Nationality.
(4)Race or ethnicity.
(5)Religion.
(6)Sexual orientation.
(7)Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.
(b)”Hate crime” includes, but is not limited to, a violation of Section 422.6.
I won’t second guess the police, but I’m curious to know what they found out that makes them think this assault didn’t rise to the level of a hate crime? It seems the elements are there, but then again we’re not privileged to the whole story.
I’m also curious to know, if you were attacked for your “political affiliation” it should be a hate crime, but it’s not listed and I wonder why? Nationality is listed and it comes close to being a persons politics. Isn’t depriving a person of this fundamental civil liberty just as important as any other qualifying sub-section of the hate crimes law and isn’t it against a whole class of people and not just one person? In some ways I think its even more important because it could undermine our political stability, but it’s certainly not less important anyway you care to look at it. If we are going to have a hate crime law then it should cover all the bases, as intended and based on our Constitutional rights. Your thoughts?
When is gay-bashing not gay-bashing?
When the police chief is an Irish Catholic.
Giggle.
Lots of work still to do, lots and lots.
I am in favor of strengthening hate crime laws, and that would include adding political affiliation to the list of protected statuses. I think such laws send a powerful statement that we are a land of equality, and no one should be suppressed simply because they are different. Extending these laws to cover political beliefs would strengthen that message.
Judges have always had a certain amount of leeway to judge the meanness of a crime and dole out the maximum sentence for particularly cruel or brutal crimes. I think these laws are unnecessary, adding confusion to laws that are already sufficient.
Leaving political affiliation out of the mix is interesting. Considering plans that OWS (DC?) allegedly has for CPAC in the near future it’s clear that if they succeed in confronting speakers or attendees with “nonviolent”…physical assault as described they will not be charged with hate crimes.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/update-occupy-plans-dastardly-cpac/362536
(The lack of tolerance and respect on the left is astounding!)
Could it be that political affiliation was left out so as not to rob the leftists of their favorite forms of agitation?
my son (16) always says, “when ISN’T a crime a ‘hate crime’?”
He wants to know, when IS it okay to assault someone? How is an assault NOT hateful?
I’ve had gay friends, including some drag queens that could throw down a cigarette and kick off their heels and administer a beating that could put somebody in the hospital.
One night I was walking down a street in Sacramento with a gay friend and a straight friend. Both of them were “punked out” – you know, wearing black clothes and safety pins in their ears, etc. Me too! One fellow was Lyon Wong – google that – from the band “Tales of Terror.” Lyon’s girlfriend was having a party, I had just finished a shift at my job, where we all worked, and joined the fellows to walk to the neighborhood liquor store for a six pack of beer. A carload of boys wearing their highschool letterman jackets sped by, they screamed “PUNK ROCK FAGGOTS” out the window. My friend Lyon held up his middle finger and yelled “F——-K YOU!” And off the car went, we thought that was the end of it.
Next thing we knew, I remember the sound of feet on the sidewalk – they ran up and jumped us. I screamed, you know, like a woman, as did my gay friend Fred, as one guy sucker punched Lyon from behind and Lyon fell to the pavement. I ran for help, Fred stayed with Lyon, the boys jumped in their car and took off. The ambulance came and took Lyon. When we called the hospital for information, the nurse told us Lyon had “expired.” We couldn’t believe it – one punch? He hit his head on the pavement.
The boys were caught – Fred had the sense to get their license plate number – and tried – the boy who admitted to hitting Lyon got about six months in jail.
I had nightmares about that experience for years. And I always have to ask myself – how was THAT not a ‘hate crime’?
I am opposed to all hate crime laws. I am in favor of prosecuting crime. If someone beats up your son, is the damage worse because your son is gay, or black, or a Democrat? No. The violence is not made worse by the hatred.
I absolutely do not favor hate crimes for political affiliation. I listen to these whiny crybaby politicans and they are pathetic. All of them from both sides get outraged about nonsense all of the time. A Ron Paul supporter at a Newt Gingrich press event got his toes broken by Newt’s security. Is that a hate crime? Nope.
Thanks for saying that here Juanita, that was a very powerful story.
When the hate crime enhancement first came out, I thought along the same lines as your son, “When is a violent crime not a hate crime?” In reality they are all hate crimes, but this enhancement sets some standards and defines an act that goes into deep depravity and is even more destructive to moral fabric of society, than the act itself. It defines and punishes a “state of mind” or mens rea (latin term).
I recall one of the early cases of homicide that was tried as a hate crime. It involved some lowlifes from Oroville who went out drinking one afternoon. They were the kind of mental midgets that were incapable of any thought beyond their present moment. Yeah, they were truly that stupid and they proved it that night. They decided it would be fun to poach a deer, but after driving and drinking for hours they found none. Then they thought it would be fun to shoot a black guy with their high powered deer rifle. The gunman, Noor, spotted an older black man walking down the tracks inside the Chico City limits. Noor shot him in the back and killed him just like he said he was going to do. Shortly thereafter the reality of what they had done started to sink in as the booz wore off. They were all caught and convicted of murder. I don’t know about the others, but Noor got the hate crime enhancement. The hate crime enhancement set this crime apart from all other cold blooded murders and made it even worse, if you can imagine 1st degree murder being worse. But, the hate crime charge was symbolic of what we as a society detest the most…murder because of race.
Motive is an issue that is and should always be considered when passing sentence on a convicted criminal. Perhaps the most obvious example of this is the case of self-defense where man-slaughter would typically be met with a greatly reduced sentence if the killer was defending themselves. Likewise murders that are ‘crimes of passion’ would generally receive a lighter sentence than murder for monetary gain. Within this framework, hate crimes especially those that are totally unprovoked should be treated more harshly than if similar crimes were committed with less malice.
If an individual is motivated to commit their offense out of hatred for a specific group then they obviously pose an ongoing risk to people of this group and should be sentenced accordingly. If someone is motivated by a hate-filled ideology then the chances are that rehabilitation will not be easy and there is the possibility that resentment at being caught and punished will fuel their hatred of the targeted group and actually increase the likelihood of them re-offending.
Hate crimes can drastically destabilize a community, if a group feels that they are being persecuted then retaliation is likely and as groups become more isolated, the potential for more hate crime increases. Those who perpetrate these crimes should therefore be punished more severely as the effects of their actions can be so serious and people must be deterred from them.
The bottom line: This sort of hate crime is a threat to an entire class of people, opposed to the other criminal acts that are just against that one victim.
Dang Juanita, you hang with a tough crowd.
Juanita, I am so sorry for your loss. It seems clear to me that the attackers in that case should have been charged with a hate crime.
Jack pretty much nails why hate crimes are necessary. To add to that, I see hate crimes as basically a form of terrorism. It is politically motivated violence.
Tina, how do you know the “anonymous source” who claims that Occupy members are planning violence is telling the truth? If any acts of violence are committed at CPAC I will immediately denounce them. Occupy is officially calling for non-violent protest against CPAC and I hope they stick to that.
Good Chris, we should all be clear that violence is not the answer…that’s why we have the vote.
Chris: “how do you know the “anonymous source” who claims that Occupy members are planning violence is telling the truth?”
I don’t, which is why I wrote “allegedly” in the comment. I do recall that a previous CPAC convention was targeted with unruly protest.
Your explanation certainly cleared up the meaning behind the law, Jack, thanks.
I have a story similar to Juanita’s only my friend, having left a bar to catch a cab in SF (she was alone) found herself in the wrong place at the wrong time on a well lit but empty street. Some freak of nature assaulted her, dragged her off, and eventually left her for dead on the street. She was saved by luck when some good Samaritan found her and called the police. Surely hate was in that attackers heart but whom or what did he hate? His mother…all women…women who go into bars…people with redish hair…does it really matter in the end? A person violated another person in a very intimate and brutal manner. We think of it as criminal but if caught why should he have received a lighter sentence just because my friend wasn’t obviously targeted for being in one of those groups?
This country stopped the KKK because wqhat they were doing was an affront to our sensibilities as human beings.We would have felt that way no matter the race, gender, age, size, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, occupation, or dress.
My problem with designating hate as a seperate crime, and then listing classes or segments of the population it covers, is that it furthers the notion that humans beings are different. That they are made different by their designation under the law. I don’t mind criminals being given harsher sentences when hate can be proved as the motive, just as judges sometimes give death rather than life in prison for very heinous crimes, but I think that murder or assault and battery far outweighs whatever feelings or thoughts a person might have had as motive.
And if we are going to make special crimes of emotion why not others? We don’t have special jealousy crimes or coveting crimes. If I nsteal something from my neighbors house do nthey worry whether jealousy or covetousness was the motivation. I could be wrong but I don’t think so. Theft is theft…a crime aganst another human being.
We are entering a tricky area with hate crimes. In 50 years will we be prosecuting people for simply saying unpopular things or things that sound hateful? There was a time when being offensive was shrugged off, Oh that guys just a nut.” Now the words, “that’s offensive to me, have been the basis for taking someone to court.In Canada it was Mark Steyn.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/item_6dD0aACtm0IHKpZ76wqqaM
In this country it has been something as simple as the Pledge of Allegience or a simple prayer.
I’m in favor of zero tolerance for physically harming others but for the simple reason that they are human and as such deserve to be treated with decency and respect regardless one’s emotions, thoughts or beliefs.
We don’t teach this all inclusive value anymore. Instead we have divided into groups, giving some special status, and nearly every group has attitude.
Is it any wonder we have so much trouble?
Hate Crime prosecution is, by definition, unequal treatment under the law. It is Political Correctness gone mad that makes the crime depend on the who is the victim, not the evildoer. Certain groups, like Blacks, Gays, Muslims, and Latinos, are designated as protected species, usually after intense lobbying by their victimhood activist advocates. A white, male, Republican, heterosexual, Protestant person could never be the victim of a Hate Crime. So Jack, even though some people might hate you, and some might even try to murder you, at least you would have the consolation of knowing that you are not a victim of a Hate Crime.
Well, my point was, isn’t every crime a hate crime? Why have special enhancement, a crime’s a crime.
I don’t like the idea that if a guy in a dress is attacked it’s a hate crime, but an old white lady, well, that’s just an old white lady.
Soaps, point well taken and it’s one share by many. I originally held the same opinion and to some degree I still do. However, after reading the pro’s and con’s on this it seems like it was intended to send a special rebuke, castigation or public loathing to the perpetrators of a hate crime as defined. They are getting the [special enhancement] because because of fear. Our legislators are saying they [fear] that the bias that motivated the crime will cause similar crimes and that could work like an infection spreading throughout society. I get it, but I don’t accept this theory carte blanche. I also don’t share this fear, but I do understand it.
Bottom line: I think the hate crime enhancement is here to stay. I don’t know how we could reverse it without having a scandal and all sort of outrageous accusations. This is why such things should be thoroughly vetted before being passed as some [feel good] legislation.
Soaps: “Certain groups, like Blacks, Gays, Muslims, and Latinos, are designated as protected species, usually after intense lobbying by their victimhood activist advocates. A white, male, Republican, heterosexual, Protestant person could never be the victim of a Hate Crime.”
Someone should let the FBI know. According to FBI statistics, in 2010, “17.7 percent [of hate crime victims] were victims of an anti-white bias,” “3.0 percent were victims of an anti-Protestant bias,” and “1.4 percent were victims of an anti-heterosexual bias.”
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-victims
But thank you, Soaps, for displaying the ignorant ideas that you and many others hold about hate crime laws. Contrary to your claim, no one is a “protected species” (nice wording there, not at all dehumanizing) under these laws. They protect everyone equally. If you are ever victimized BECAUSE you are white, male, Christian, or heterosexual, you should report it as a hate crime.
juanita: “I don’t like the idea that if a guy in a dress is attacked it’s a hate crime, but an old white lady, well, that’s just an old white lady.”
What you’re not getting is that if the old white lady is attacked BECAUSE she’s an old white lady, then yes, it is a hate crime under most hate crime laws. On the flip side, if a guy in a dress is attacked for reasons not related to the fact that he is wearing a dress, or not related to any other factors listed by Jack in the article, then it’s not a hate crime.
These laws have less to do with WHO is attacked, and more to do with WHY they are attacked. A black guy getting attacked by a white guy isn’t enough for it to be a hate crime–there must be evidence that the white guy was motivated by anti-black bias. Likewise for black-on-white crime, or any other possible combination.
According to FBI statistics, in 2010, “17.7 percent [of hate crime victims] were victims of an anti-white bias,” “3.0 percent were victims of an anti-Protestant bias,” and “1.4 percent were victims of an anti-heterosexual bias.”
Chris: I don’t believe that, but even if it is true, it displays selective reading or non-reading on your part. My post said “hate crime prosecution.” I did not say that hate crimes are not committed against whites and Christians, only that they are never prosecuted as hate crimes. I should know, since I worked in a criminal prosecution office for 25 years. If you can find an example of a black-on white crime, prosecuted as a hate crime–not just a routine mugging, I would like to see it.
Oh yes, the black on white non-hate crime! Glad you brought that one up Soaps.
It happens all the time, hundreds of times every day across America, hate crimes that are never charged as hate crimes because the suspect is black.
Blacks are virtually fixated on race. It comes up in their speech every day. Many of them harbor deep resentment towards all whites, based on nothing more than hand me down prejudice left over from slavery days. But, name a race that didn’t have slaves or were slaves at one time, almost every race had its problems with slavery, it was not unique to whites living in the U.S.
Based upon my experience and education in law enforcement, it appears that blacks attack whites many, many more times than whites attack blacks. When this happens its most likely to be for no other reason than they were white…thats a hate crime! But, its never charged as a hate crime.
Who doesn’t know by now that blacks pull the black power trip and try to intimidate whites. They’re a thousand times more likely to invoke a crude, insulting racist comment, often calling a white person a honky, redneck, peckerwood, white bread, white boy, cracker, etc., Its so common in ghetto areas and in high minority populated schools we almost accept it as normal…but, it’s not normal. Its all part of a hate crime. Blacks are far more likely to be the one committing a hate crime, but they are allegedly immune from prosecution because the court says a minority can’t commit a hate crime. Go figure?
Soaps: “Chris: I don’t believe that,”
You don’t believe what? The FBI statistics?
“but even if it is true, it displays selective reading or non-reading on your part. My post said “hate crime prosecution.””
This is what you said:
“A white, male, Republican, heterosexual, Protestant person could never be the victim of a Hate Crime.”
That is clearly not true according to the FBI.
“I did not say that hate crimes are not committed against whites and Christians, only that they are never prosecuted as hate crimes. I should know, since I worked in a criminal prosecution office for 25 years. If you can find an example of a black-on white crime, prosecuted as a hate crime–not just a routine mugging, I would like to see it.”
Are you seriously trying to argue that the FBI’s statistics are based on hate crimes that occurred, but were not prosecuted as hate crimes? Why on earth would the FBI do that?
I can only assume that their data is based on hate crimes that were prosecuted as hate crimes. If it wasn’t prosecuted as a hate crime, it wouldn’t be in the FBI’s statistics. Your argument makes no sense.
Are you seriously trying to argue that the FBI’s statistics are based on hate crimes that occurred, but were not prosecuted as hate crimes? Why on earth would the FBI do that?
Yes. Crime statistics are based on crimes reported, not crimes prosecuted. The FBI does not prosecute any crimes.
“Blacks are virtually fixated on race.”
Jack, this generalization is, in itself, racist.
“Blacks are far more likely to be the one committing a hate crime, but they are allegedly immune from prosecution because the court says a minority can’t commit a hate crime.”
Can you cite an actual court decision which has stated this? Or are you just making it up?
Jack or Soaps maybe you can enlighten us about the difference between a hate crime and a race crime?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111023074029AArOzDq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_th
According to the latest US Department of Justice:
The big problem I see is that hate law is based on emotions and that can become very subjective and subject to prejudice. This law is bound to create more animosity among groups. Once again, our laws should be just for human beings and not issues or emotions. Instances like the Wisconsin flash mob attack, where there was evidence of hate as motive, but was not prosecuted as such is bound to create animosity if it continues:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/concealing_black_hate_crimes.html
Heres another:
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/02/03/black-philly-teens-who-attacked-white-cabbie-passenger-not-to-be-charged-with-hate-crime/
A heinous black on white crime in Tennessee was deemed not a hate crime because:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003742824_hate11.html
(So from now on my defense of Rush as a nonracist can include that he has many good friends who are black? From now on I dont have to take crap from anyone who claims its just a racist excuse?)
I think weve asked for a whole load of trouble with this one and the trouble will have more lasting effects than whatever gains might be made prosecuting hate crimes subjectively.
As far as discouraging “hate” in communities goes that is where local judges can be of use making it clear in his sentencing that the harshest possible sentence is being given because of the heinous motivation of the crime. He can be specific and if they are on their toes as they should be local media and newspapers can cover the crime by reporting about the case and editorializing. People within the community can make sure that groups motivated by hate are not welcome.
Soaps, I just went over some of the FBI information again to see whether the statistics are based on crimes reported or crimes prosecuted, and the site seemed to indicate that you were right on this matter and I was wrong. However, I still found the Methodology page a bit unclear, so I did some further research which confirmed you were right. From the Anti-Defamation League:
“For reporting purposes, it does not matter whether or not the perpetrators of the crime were ever charged with a hate crime.
Example: A vandal throws a brick through the window of a Jewish persons house. The words Gas all Jews appear on the brick. The vandal is never caught. Law enforcement should properly record this act as a hate crime and it should be counted in the FBIs annual HCSA report. For reporting purposes, it does not matter that no one was ever charged with a hate crime.”
I apologize for the sarcastic tone of my earlier comment; apparently I was more uninformed than I thought.
However, I remain skeptical about your claim that anti-white and anti-Christian hate crimes are “never” prosecuted. Perhaps you were using hyperbole, and you really meant “very rarely” prosecuted. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to dig up any reliable data about hate crime prosecutions, only reports.
I do think it’s possible that hate crimes against “majority” groups are prosecuted less than hate crimes against minorities, however I’d have to see data verifying this to be sure. Do you have any? (I’m not being sarcastic this time; I really am having trouble finding data on this issue.)
If anti-white or other anti-majority hate crimes are prosecuted less frequently than others, then I think that is a problem. However, I do not think this means that hate crime laws in and of themselves are the problem. In theory, they do protect majority groups and minority groups equally. There may be a problem with how those laws are applied, however.
Jack, in another thread you said I “twisted your words” by calling your statement, “Blacks are virtually fixated on race,” racist. You said that I took issue with it because it was “politically incorrect.” But the fact is that when you make a statement that generalizes all people of one race like that, that is a racist statement.
You also said you qualified your statement by saying “virtually,” but if that’s what you meant to do, then you wrote the sentence wrong. Maybe you meant to say, “Virtually all blacks are fixated on race.” Some might still find that statement offensive, but I wouldn’t have commented on it. The word “virtually” as you used it in your sentence doesn’t qualify “blacks,” it qualifies “fixates.” So the way it is written means that ALL blacks are virtually fixated on race. Let me know if that’s not what you meant to write.
I do find the lack of information on prosecutions against black perpetrators of hate crimes troubling. I do think it’s possible that prosecutions dealing with anti-majority group hate crimes are not concurring enough, but I still want more evidence–I haven’t seen any actual statistics on hate crime prosecutions, something the FBI really should think of including in its statistics.
“A white, male, Republican, heterosexual, Protestant person could never be the victim of a Hate Crime.”
Oh, yes, the could. But they so seldom are. They are, alas, much more likely to be on the assaulting side, and aren’t you proud?
“According to FBI statistics, in 2010, “17.7 percent [of hate crime victims] were victims of an anti-white bias,” “3.0 percent were victims of an anti-Protestant bias,” and “1.4 percent were victims of an anti-heterosexual bias.”
Which leaves us to ponder the 77.9 percent … you don’t seem to feel are pertinent?
Libby the stats are skewed because they do not classify a minority attack on a white person as a hate crime. Maybe you missed that in my previous post? You can’t use the stats – they are completely misleading in this case.
Chris, what I meant to say and that I obviously said poorly earlier, is that race is a primary focus within the black community, it is not something that 100% of them focus on, but a majority definitely do and it is never that far away in any conversation dealing with white people or persons of other races.
remember,the adl,the f.b.i and the splc makes everyone who looks white a white when a hate crime is commited by a mexican or a spaniar.also a white pacifican islander.or an asian.all these people fit into the white catigory to inflate hate crimes agaist minorities.except if the so called white is attacked,then this so called white becomes a minority.pretty clever those self hating whites are in congress and the senate.inflate white hate crimes when minorities needs are not met,deflate hate crimes when actual whites are victims.what a …what country is this?