The Hate Crime/Racism double standard has to stop

[seycyrus]

Imagine the public outrage there would be if a mob of white people beat up a black family while shouting pro-white statements.

http://www.ohio.com/news/50172282.html

 

[rootX]

What are you talking about?

From the link:

Akron police say they aren't ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation.

Akron police are investigating. Right now, the case is not being classified as a racial hate crime. There were no other reports of victims assaulted by the group that night.

The department's gang unit is involved in the investigation, police said.

''We don't know if it's a known gang, or just a group of kids,'' police Lt. Rick Edwards said.

Repeating what it says in the article:
They are still investigating and they haven't reached any conclusion yet. That does not mean they are denying anything.As for media, yes I agree had it been some white kids on black/brown/yellow/purple/red, this would have been on all newspapers (I haven't confirmed this yet). And some groups of black/brown/yellow/purple/red community asking for apologies and other BS.

On other note, I believe that in about 20/50 yrs from now, there would be no majority in the US because about 50% of children produced in 2008 were non white and minority birth rate is much higher than the majority. So that would change things a lot.

 

[seycyrus]

What are you talking about?

From the link:




Repeating what it says in the article:
They are still investigating and they haven't reached any conclusion yet. That does not mean they are denying anything.

Why does it not need to be investigated as a hate crime? What qualifies this decision? If it was the other way around, they would be investigating it as a hate crime from the get-go.

As for media, yes I agree had it been some white kids on black/purple/red, this would have been on all newspapers (I haven't confirmed this yet). And some groups of black/purple/red community asking for apologies and other BS.

It would be ALL over the place. Sharpton and Jackson would be camped out.

 

[junglebeast]

On other note, I believe that in about 20/50 yrs from now, there would be no majority in the US because about 50% of children produced in 2008 were non white and minority birth rate is much higher than the majority. So that would change things a lot.

Population majority is irrelevant. What matters is where the wealth is. If 10% of the population has color X but they own 90% of the wealth, then there's an obvious class difference that's highly correlated to race, and this fuels race related anger.

 

[CRGreathouse]

On other note, I believe that in about 20/50 yrs from now, there would be no majority in the US because about 50% of children produced in 2008 were non white and minority birth rate is much higher than the majority. So that would change things a lot.

1. I think it will take more like -2 years than 20 or 50.
2. I don't think that will change things at all, let alone a lot.

 

[leroyjenkens]

If someone were to beat up somebody because they were a certain race and it was ruled a "hate crime", would they get a harsher punishment than if they just beat up somebody chosen at random?

As much as I think racism is pointless, I can't think of a reason for why there should be different penalties for the same exact crime, depending on if you're racist towards the person or not.

 

[mgb_phys]

would they get a harsher punishment than if they just beat up somebody chosen at random?

Yes - what makes it more interesting is that if it was a minor crime the police might not bother investigating unless it was a race crime. So B beats up A = minor disturbance ignore it, A beats up B = race crime = prosecution

I can't think of a reason for why there should be different penalties for the same exact crime, depending on if you're racist towards the person or not.

Politicians wanting publicity ?

Then it gets more entertaining deciding who is a 'race'. In Britain there was until recently laws against racial hatred but not religous hatred, under the existing laws Jews and Sikhs counted as races but Muslims and Hindus counted as religions.
So in a fight between a Jew and Muslim the muslim is committing the hate crime, and similarly between Sikhs and Hindus. As you can imagine this led to a great improvement in race relations and harmony in the community.

 

[junglebeast]

As much as I think racism is pointless, I can't think of a reason for why there should be different penalties for the same exact crime, depending on if you're racist towards the person or not.

Well that's just because you're not racist. Racism is socially and culturally lauded in this society. Just look at how every institution and corporation gives preference to race in their acceptance/hiring procedures.

 

[Office_Shredder]

If someone were to beat up somebody because they were a certain race and it was ruled a "hate crime", would they get a harsher punishment than if they just beat up somebody chosen at random?

As much as I think racism is pointless, I can't think of a reason for why there should be different penalties for the same exact crime, depending on if you're racist towards the person or not.

There are laws that allow harsher punishments if a crime is fueled by racism. I agree to an extent that it makes sense to punish these crimes harsher, but don't think it should be racism only that triggers this. Attacking someone because you are having trouble with them in some way (they owe you money, you have a dispute over a tree or something) is obviously wrong, but more likely an isolated incident. Attacking someone you don't know for reasons that don't benefit you should surely be punished more harshly than these types of crimes. Also, in the case of racism, the attack is almost surely done with an eye towards terrorizing a community or a family, and even if not intended will have this effect, so the crime is larger than just the incident involved

 

[leroyjenkens]

There are laws that allow harsher punishments if a crime is fueled by racism. I agree to an extent that it makes sense to punish these crimes harsher, but don't think it should be racism only that triggers this. Attacking someone because you are having trouble with them in some way (they owe you money, you have a dispute over a tree or something) is obviously wrong, but more likely an isolated incident. Attacking someone you don't know for reasons that don't benefit you should surely be punished more harshly than these types of crimes. Also, in the case of racism, the attack is almost surely done with an eye towards terrorizing a community or a family, and even if not intended will have this effect, so the crime is larger than just the incident involved

So you're advocating punishing people for crimes they haven't yet committed?

Both attacks, whether fueled by racism or not, are isolated incidents.

 

[Pupil]

There are laws that allow harsher punishments if a crime is fueled by racism. I agree to an extent that it makes sense to punish these crimes harsher, but don't think it should be racism only that triggers this.

I disagree. I don't think *any* reason for attacking someone is justified in in giving them a harsher punishment. If you attack someone, I don't care if it was because he was pink, gay, white, ugly, or stupid. You committed a violent crime, you get a punishment based on the extent of the violent crime, not also based on the fact that you dislike certain features about him. And if we must have our current system of discrimination toward hate crimes, we better stop having, as the OP said, a double standard of what to call a hate crime. This was *obviously* a hate crime. If the situation was the exact same, but white on black, there would be a march somewhere and black celebrities would be shaking their heads at the horror.

 

[Evo]

Imagine the public outrage there would be if a mob of white people beat up a black family while shouting pro-white statements.

http://www.ohio.com/news/50172282.html

Is there any article that explains what provoked the incident?

 

[turbo]

Is there any article that explains what provoked the incident?

If you google on beating, Akron, and the guy's name, you will find at least 20 pages of wall-to wall repetition of the article in the OP, along with breathless pronouncements of racism. Strangely enough, the other two adult while males in the group were not beaten. Could there be more to the story? Are the Akron police privy to information than we don't have?

Perhaps they should be allowed to investigate the incident.

 

[Huckleberry]

Is there any article that explains what provoked the incident?

One of the men involved in the incident claims that his friend was hit from behind, unprovoked.

The wife of one of the men claims that she homeschools their children because she doesn't feel they are safe at their local school. Also, there was more than one person assaulted here, at least 2 men and the duaghter. I can't say for certain, but it would seem very foolish for these men to provoke a mob of teenagers while their family is present, regardless of the race of the perpetrators or the views of the victims.

This seems to me to be a display of authority by a small group of violent teenagers with a large group of unconscientious teenage observers. If the words that are claimed to be said, such as 'This is a black world" are true, then I think the victims were chosen as a matter of convenience, vulnerability and race.

Here's an interview.

http://www.breitbart.tv/this-is-a-black-world-teen-mob-attacks-akron-family/

 

[Cyrus]

Main Entry: spec·u·late
Pronunciation: 'spe-ky&-"lAt
Function: verb
Inflected Forms: -lat·ed; -lat·ing
intransitive verb 1 : to theorize on the basis of insufficient evidence
NOTE: A jury is not permitted to speculate on a matter about which insufficient evidence has been presented in reaching its verdict.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/speculate

 

[Huckleberry]

The mayor of Akron is considering the possibility that this is a hate crime. The FBI has been called into make that determination. This article also has several other interesting points if anyone cares to read it.

In a letter to the FBI dated today, Mayor Don Plusquellic asks the federal agency's local office to help determine whether any civil-rights violations or hate crimes occurred during the attack last month on Marty Marshall and his family.

''This ruling must, by law, be made by federal authorities, and therefore we are asking for their assistance in this matter. Make no mistake, most important is that the perpetrators are caught and brought to justice. I know that our police department is doing everything it can to aggressively pursue the investigation into this horrible incident.

http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/50495622.html

 

[Evo]

There seems to be a lot missing here, like the entire part that led up to what happened. I don't consider violence to be an answer, but what provoked this?

 

[Pengwuino]

There seems to be a lot missing here, like the entire part that led up to what happened. I don't consider violence to be an answer, but what provoked this?

The article seems to speculate (go away Cyrus) that is was entirely unprovoked. Unprovoked racial violence is very common against whites/blacks/yellows/tyedye so don't count it out, especially with groups of people.

 

[jreelawg]

There are laws that allow harsher punishments if a crime is fueled by racism. I agree to an extent that it makes sense to punish these crimes harsher, but don't think it should be racism only that triggers this. Attacking someone because you are having trouble with them in some way (they owe you money, you have a dispute over a tree or something) is obviously wrong, but more likely an isolated incident. Attacking someone you don't know for reasons that don't benefit you should surely be punished more harshly than these types of crimes. Also, in the case of racism, the attack is almost surely done with an eye towards terrorizing a community or a family, and even if not intended will have this effect, so the crime is larger than just the incident involved

I agree. If the only motivation is racial hatred, there is something more ugly about the act.

I don't really know if the media attention on hate crimes would do anything more than fuel racism though. I think of the people at storm front, a sickening group of NAZIS and KKK, who would jump on a story like this to help them recruit, and spread hatred.

 

[Huckleberry]

There won't be any evidence of provocation until the testimonies of the perpetrators are taken. I speculate that they will not be anxious to present it.

 

[rootX]

I don't really know if the media attention on hate crimes would do anything more than fuel racism though.

1) Media attention fuels racism.
2) FACT: Crimes fueled by racism get more attention by the media
3) So, racism is on the rise.

 

[rootX]

Population majority is irrelevant. What matters is where the wealth is. If 10% of the population has color X but they own 90% of the wealth, then there's an obvious class difference that's highly correlated to race, and this fuels race related anger.

That kind of wealth distribution is not possible in a free capitalistic society (ADD: that depends on immigrants).

 

[Huckleberry]

That kind of wealth distribution is not possible in a free capitalistic society (ADD: that depends on immigrants).

Is that a fact?

I can't speak for the validity of the research but this professor of Sociology claims to have evidence to the contrary.

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 36.7% of all privately held stock, 63.8% of financial securities, and 61.9% of business equity. The top 10% have 85% to 90% of stock, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

And if you want to see how that wealth is distributed by race take a look at this report.
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v64n4/v64n4p1.html

There is a large disparity of wealth by race. It may be an underlying motivation for violence.

 

[rootX]

Is that a fact?

No.

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 36.7% of all privately held stock, 63.8% of financial securities, and 61.9% of business equity. The top 10% have 85% to 90% of stock, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.

What's the X color here?

In that original post, it was pointed or as it appears that whites have 90% of the wealth. Also that the wealth is controlled through corruption or other means (which I think is more likely to fuel race related crimes than where people themselves choose not to make money).

 

[27Thousand]

The article seems to speculate (go away Cyrus) that is was entirely unprovoked. Unprovoked racial violence is very common against whites/blacks/yellows/tyedye so don't count it out, especially with groups of people.

I agree. If the only motivation is racial hatred, there is something more ugly about the act.

I don't really know if the media attention on hate crimes would do anything more than fuel racism though. I think of the people at storm front, a sickening group of NAZIS and KKK, who would jump on a story like this to help them recruit, and spread hatred.

Yes, I agree too. If it's isolated, then no. If someone does something specifically because of hate/race, then I don't think that's right.

If someone spray paints a black's car saying, "Go back to Africa", should he only get the usual punishment of vandalism, or is there something else involved?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Imagine the public outrage there would be if a mob of white people beat up a black family while shouting pro-white statements.

http://www.ohio.com/news/50172282.html

Considering the area and its history of racial tension I am sure that they are being careful of how they approach this the same way that they would be careful in the deep south about calling white kids beating up black people a hate crime.

If someone were to beat up somebody because they were a certain race and it was ruled a "hate crime", would they get a harsher punishment than if they just beat up somebody chosen at random?

As much as I think racism is pointless, I can't think of a reason for why there should be different penalties for the same exact crime, depending on if you're racist towards the person or not.

Intent is a major component to the label of a crime and the manner in which it is punished. As already pointed out, to some degree, general crimes are considered to be singular incidents of passion or a stupid mistake. When people make the same 'mistakes' over and over they receive harsher penalties since there appears to be a pattern.
Certain crimes are considered to be part of pattern behavior on the first offense due to the nature of the intent. Terrorism, racism, and crimes connected to organized crime are a few examples. It is considered likely that any person commiting crimes for these reasons will continue to commit them so long as the cost benefit analysis works out right in their head so a stiffer penalty is instituted to make these sorts of crimes not seem worth it. Otherwise there are any number of offenses one can commit that carry rather minor punishments that most people of the above mentioned classifications will have little to no problem enduring for the satisfaction or money they receive in return. This is the reason for things like the RICO act and hate crime legislation.

There seems to be a lot missing here, like the entire part that led up to what happened. I don't consider violence to be an answer, but what provoked this?

They have gangs in TX don't they? Its fairly common for gang initiations and general gang 'antics' to choose targets for violence at random. This is probably partly why they have involved their gang unit.

 

[Cyrus]

1) Media attention fuels racism.
2) FACT: Crimes fueled by racism get more attention by the media
3) So, racism is on the rise.

3 unsupported statements in one post...

Source for these "FACT(s)" ?

Can we rename General Discussion into "Speculation Central"?

 

[rootX]

3 unsupported statements in one post...

Source for these "FACT(s)" ?

Can we rename General Discussion into "Speculation Central"?

See the post I replied to where he said that media is fueling the race crimes. I only replied what likely I should observe (#3) if that is true taking #2 as a fact and using his opinion as base (#1). Obviously race related crimes are not on the rise so media is not fueling the race crimes.

 

[Cyrus]

See the post I replied to where he said that media is fueling the race crimes. I only replied what likely I should observe (#3) if that is true taking #2 as a fact and using his opinion as base (#1). Obviously race related crimes are not on the rise so media is not fueling the race crimes.

I think it would have been more effective if you simply said he has no evidence to back his claim and left it at that.

Which leads me to ask, where is your evidence, jreelawg. I hope you have at least one source which confirms your claim, otherwise please refrain from making unsupported statements.

 

[Danger]

Alberta, where I live, has something of a 'redneck' reputation, and is probably the most racist province in Canada. We actually have a KKK chapter. One of the members is black, so they aren't taken too seriously.
There's one psychotic Jesus-freak running a compound up north (Terry something-or-other), which seems more like the US version of the KKK. Everyone hates his guts and considers him a joke, so his followers are few and stupid.
I can't even understand the basis of racism, other than perhaps fear that one's own status is at risk. W and all of my in-laws are Cree, my favourite cousin is black, one of my other cousins is Philippino, and just about any other race on the planet is represented somewhere in my family. My own racial heritage is Highland Scots, Lowland Scots, Irish, English, Spanish, and a touch of black. Unless someone on PF has posted a photo or a personal history, none of us know each other's race or religion. It doesn't matter in an intellectual or personal exchange. The only time that it even tickles a bit is when a language barrier exists. We're very lucky on PF that there are translators for most languages as full-time participants.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I can't even understand the basis of racism, other than perhaps fear that one's own status is at risk.

"I can't even understand music, other than perhaps euphonic sound."

 

[Huckleberry]

What's the X color here?

In that original post, it was pointed or as it appears that whites have 90% of the wealth. Also that the wealth is controlled through corruption or other means (which I think is more likely to fuel race related crimes than where people themselves choose not to make money).

Wish I could find information on the racial mix of people in that top 10%, but I haven't been able to. Unless you honestly believe there is an equal distribution of wealth by race at that level than I don't think it matters much. Anyway, I concede the argument for lack of being able to provide evidence for it. Also, it's relevence to this thread is minimal at best. These aren't the people that are using violence in the streets.

I disagree with you about people choosing not to make money. A poor person's choices do have much to do with their poverty, but they do not choose to be poor. They often begin life at a disadvantage because they don't have the same opportunities for investment. With an initial state of unequal wealth distribution those who have less wealth are at a socioeconomic disadvantage. The class difference motivates racial resentment.

Here is an interesting study based on a mathematical model that shows how an initial socioeconomic disadvantage affects the eventual outcome of distributed wealth and racial relations. I wonder how well it reflects reality?
http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/2/3/1/0/pages23105/p23105-1.php

 

[Huckleberry]

Alberta, where I live, has something of a 'redneck' reputation, and is probably the most racist province in Canada. We actually have a KKK chapter. One of the members is black, so they aren't taken too seriously.

You must have Equal Opportunity laws up there in Canada too, huh?

 

[Danger]

You must have Equal Opportunity laws up there in Canada too, huh?

Actually, no. We don't need them.

 

[antonyhire]

Laws are made for all of us...

we have to live it... and should have to put efforts against racism.