On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:56:14 -0700, Chris Gehlker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 13, 2009, at 8:12 AM, Jared ''Danger'' Earle wrote: > >> On 10 Jul 2009, at 15:52, Charles Bennett wrote: >>> If it were reversed, the FBI would already be there looking into >>> civil rights charges against the attackers and there would already >>> be protests. >> >> >> If it were reversed, it'd be abuse against a persecuted minority. >> Until you get rid of racism in the US, you're fucked for hate-crime >> legislation. > > Hate crimes laws vary a bit from state to state but I don't believe > any contain any notion of "persecuted minority". They have the notion > of 'protected characteristics' and one of those characteristics is > race but this certainly doesn't mean that some races are protected and > not others. I think Charles is asserting that as a matter of practical > politics, the majority will not be protected by hate crime > legislation. He may be right but that doesn't mean that the law > couldn't be enforced to protect whites against blacks or straights > against gays.
This does happen - well, I've not heard of anyone being prosecuted under hate crime legislation for straight-bashing... but just a few years ago in Long Beach, CA (where I live now, but not at the time), IIRC a group of black kids attacked two white kids on Halloween, while yelling racist obscenities. I believe the ringleaders/instigators were charged under hate crime laws, as the attack was alleged to be clearly motivated by racial tensions. I'm torn on this issue; I'm inclined to support equal protections - and punishment - under the law. I also don't like thought-crime (and, afterall, that's what a hate crime is). However, at least for purposes of sentencing, considering the criminals state of mind is *not* unusual; motive/intent does often factor into the severity of sentencing in many types of crime. I'm not a lawyer though, just pondering the difference between racial hatred as a sentencing enhancer - which would seem to be consistent with other questions of intent/motive - and "hate crime" as an actual, standalone charge. On the other hand, we have a long history of race-related violence in this country, and I do see race-motivated violence as a particularly distinct form of violence, if for no other reason than it requires a different form of intervention. But mostly, I think I fall on the side of many who would abhor race-related violence, and not be familiar enough with the depth and nuance of law to find "hate crime" legislation a problem as long as its implemented consistently, and not used to favor one group over another (ie., ignoring race crimes against whites). I will say, particularly for what may amount to minor property crimes, I struggle with this idea. For instance, a decade or so ago there was a spate of anti-Semitic vandalism across Long Beach, including at the synagogue where I grew up. While on a practical level, the crimes - large swastikas and some broken windows at our temple - were no different than had someone else randomly tagged and thrown bricks, the psychological effect is radically different. It was particularly hard on older members of the synagogue... but again, is it a crime to traumatize someone emotionally? Should it be? I'm not sure - the crime certainly had a much heavier impact than a typical tagger, but I'm not sure it's the laws position to protect people's emotional well-being - but there's anti-stalking legislation; there are restrictions on the movements of sex criminals after release; it's a slippery slope, I'm sure, and I'm just not sure where to draw the line. And i had a lot of coffee this morning (and 1 meal in the past 7 days) _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
