Hate Crimes

[lovebug]

Note: this may (or may not) spark up some debate.

Okay, so I was recently accepted into one of the more advanced Criminal Justice courses offered at my college, which just so happens to be Hate Crimes (yes, that's the actual name of the class). Anyway, we had to answer a few questions here and there on Blackboard regarding hate crimes in general. That being said, I'm a bit curious to hear your guys' input when it comes to the following questions:

1) Explain how hate crimes differ from non-hate crimes?

2) Discuss whether crimes motivated by bias against a group should be punished more severely than otherwise similar crimes that were not motived by bias?

3) What concerns do hate crime laws raise in regard to freedom of speech?

Spoiler: My Personal Opinion

Hate crimes differ from non-hate crimes among a variety of attributes, the first and most significant claim being that hate crimes are almost always far more agonizing than those crimes that are more "typical" and "everyday." After all, completely innocent individuals may be both targeted and/or attacked simply because of their race, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity etc. Secondly, by enacting hate crime laws, hate crime offenses may decrease slowly, but surely (or even drastically depending on how severe punishments of hate crimes become), whereas the more "normal" and "usual" crimes will most likely either decrease, remain, or increase at the pace which they are now going. Finally, our society is more than likely to learn from these particular laws that are being passed and understand that hate crimes are, in fact, unacceptable. After all, our community of people living in America is exceptionally open-minded, whereas the majority of other regions (i.e. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and other countries located in the Middle East) diverge from that discrete quality of ours substantially. Crimes motivated by bias against a group should definitely be punished more severely than otherwise similar crimes that were not motivated by bias. Imagine a world where people insulted, assaulted, physically harmed, and murdered others not because of love, money, jealousy, revenge, or any other ordinary aspect that could easily spark growing anger, but just because of something that a person (or group of people) could not control, such as their ethnicity. Though our country does have its unfavorable past where life consisted of just that for those who merely appeared as "different" (i.e. those who happened to be of the African American race), our nation has thankfully modified its ways. Unfortunately, there is still a large number of people who beg to differ over the fact that hate crimes should not be punished more critically than "regular" crimes, which is rather silly because those individuals who believe that are most likely not a part of the minority and therefore do not understand what it is like to be bashed because of a certain group that he or she belongs to. As for the concern that hate crime laws raise in regard to freedom of speech, many critics believe that laws that expand the strictness of discipline on the grounds of the influences of the criminal establish a treacherous authority for government conflict regarding to the freedom of expression and thought. Defenders of hate crimes, on the other hand, dismiss those concerns, convinced that the laws which cope with corrupt and unlawful conduct and are implied to address the statement that inequity revolving around various groups will not be admissible. Critics of hate crimes also argue that additional compensation for those sentenced of hate crimes would be useless because if, for example, a person who is convicted of a hate crime is truly filled with prejudices, further time spent in prison is not expected to help invalidate their outlook in relation to their beliefs; it may instead, however, do the exact opposite of that and intensify them. Despite that, defenders of hate crimes feel that hate crimes laws, like other criminal laws, are directed at forestalling catastrophic acts. Thus, instead of concentrating on discriminating preferences and viewpoints, the focus is more steered at prohibiting detrimental results of hate crimes. As a matter of fact, even the critics of hate crimes themselves cannot argue against the fact that hate crime violence is generally more ruthless than crimes that are not bias-related. Defenders then argue that increasing the penalties for this nature of behavior is accordingly rationalized.

 

[Captain-Heather]

You said it yourself: this is a debate topic, so I am moving it there

 

[gravebound]

Hate crime laws are definitely necessary. Freedom of speech does not mean attacking people unjustly.
we won't need hate crime laws when unarmed black teenagers are shot and killed, and we won't need them when transgender people are being murdered and dismissed. we won't need them when people are given electric shock therapy against their will to fix something that cannot be changed.
hate crimes do carry more weight, and if not addressed, give more encouragement to those with nonviolent prejudices. and who knows, they might even inspire them to do the same crime.

 

[Lost]

I think hate crimes are still a huge problem especially worldwide.

Take gay people for example. I could go back a long time but I guess I'll start at WW2. Jewish people weren't the only people sent to concentration camps, it was also disabled people, gay people and more. All put into a group of people who were deemed worthy of life or freedom. Gay people were lynched in america just like black people and "witches", all of which suffered from pre-meditated thoughts against those groups. Take 20-30 years back where it was a lot more common for "Gay bashing" to occur.
You may think the world has come a long way but even nowadays up to 85 countries either have the death penalty for being gay or up to life imprisonment.
If we feed into the culture that those things are ever acceptable in any society, we are feeding into hate crimes being okay. Some of the things like gay bashing still occur today and should definitely be held at a standard where the punishment should be harsher in my opinion.
Hate crimes show the lack of freedom many groups of people still have in today's world. Where things they can not change (colour of skin, sexual orientation, beliefs i.e. religion, gender, where they live etc) all cause them to be targeted from people to either refuse rights, hurt or even kill. If we don't give higher punishment for these crimes then freedom in the most basic sense will never been attainable for those groups. Girls being shot in the head in countries for wanting to have an education, rac ist groups still around today who attack people on colour of their skin, wars over religion, etc are all things happening in our world right now.

 

[Whispered]

Hate crime laws are definitely necessary. Freedom of speech does not mean attacking people unjustly.
we won't need hate crime laws when unarmed black teenagers are shot and killed, and we won't need them when transgender people are being murdered and dismissed. we won't need them when people are given electric shock therapy against their will to fix something that cannot be changed.
hate crimes do carry more weight, and if not addressed, give more encouragement to those with nonviolent prejudices. and who knows, they might even inspire them to do the same crime.

We wouldn't have a lot of troubles if people didn't take sides before knowing all of the facts based on race and supposed "good kid" status of a "victim".

 

[gravebound]

We wouldn't have a lot of troubles if people didn't take sides before knowing all of the facts based on race and supposed "good kid" status of a "victim".

i'm sorry, but i don't quite fully understand the last segment? would you mind rephrasing?

 

[Whispered]

i'm sorry, but i don't quite fully understand the last segment? would you mind rephrasing?

When people talk about hate crimes and racism, they fail to realize that making assumptions, in the case being referred to (not by you, but by most mainstream media), that because it was a white officer and a black teenager, then the officer must have been in the wrong. There are multiple accounts that say that the teenager involved was abusive to the officer both verbally and physically. The teenager was also caught on video robbing a convenience store beforehand - giving the teenager a motive to resist confrontation by any officer - EVEN if the officer didn't know the teen was involved, the teenager would have been under the assumption it was due to the crime committed.

Overall, you cannot have "public justice" like this while there is racism - in BOTH directions. Honestly, in the specific case referred to, there is more racism by black people against white people where they IGNORE the facts in the case because they don't suit their personal scenario of what must have happened, and say that it must have been the officer's fault, just because it is "one of their own" against "the white officer".

 

[gravebound]

When people talk about hate crimes and racism, they fail to realize that making assumptions, in the case being referred to (not by you, but by most mainstream media), that because it was a white officer and a black teenager, then the officer must have been in the wrong. There are multiple accounts that say that the teenager involved was abusive to the officer both verbally and physically. The teenager was also caught on video robbing a convenience store beforehand - giving the teenager a motive to resist confrontation by any officer - EVEN if the officer didn't know the teen was involved, the teenager would have been under the assumption it was due to the crime committed.

Overall, you cannot have "public justice" like this while there is racism - in BOTH directions. Honestly, in the specific case referred to, there is more racism by black people against white people where they IGNORE the facts in the case because they don't suit their personal scenario of what must have happened, and say that it must have been the officer's fault, just because it is "one of their own" against "the white officer".

While I agree with you in that hypothetical scenario that the teenager was in the wrong, the amount of racism and violence there is especially from white cops to black/other poc children that they get away with? i don't trust police officers because of this, because of the stories of police abusing their power and covering up their trails to get away with it. i'd be doubtful at first the officer is telling the truth, but if it's proven he is, then i will agree the teenager was wrong.
however, i fail to see any excuse to shoot a minor, even if they were fighting with a police officer. tasers exist, and unless that teenager also had a gun and was shooting, and proven to be shooting, then the officer would have the right. guns should only be used in extreme cases.
there has been a black person killed by a white officer for carrying a fake sword. he was cosplaying. in broad daylight. (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/09/15/3567345/why-was-this-black-man-killed-by-cops-in-utah/ )
yes, the situation you described could exist, but take an honest look and tell me which version of the story happens more often. people have every right to be suspicious, especially since police are known and proven to give false reports that conflict with autopsy results and witness accounts.

 

[Whispered]

"hypothetical scenario that the teenager was in the wrong". He robbed a store then resisted confrontation by an officer by attempting to steal his weapon before the officer was even arresting him (chances are the officer wouldn't have because the officer didn't know at the beginning that he was a robbery suspect). That doesn't really sound hypothetical to me.

More often than not, people are caught doing wrong and shot, tazed, killed, etc. and nobody cares - these cases are white on white, black on black, black on white. But whenever a black person is shot by a white officer, even if the black person does not die, there is outrage. Even if the black person was in the wrong.

I'm not saying the Utah case (and errors like it) don't happen, but you can't claim everything is due to race. Honestly, I don't see why "black" has to be added to the title. Why can't the title ask "Why was this man killed in broad daylight". Never mention race. Of the officer OR suspect.

The media perpetuates racism when they include it so prevalently in their one-sided reporting. If there's a black person involved in a role where they lost ANYTHING at all (be it money, a ticket, a traffic stop, an innocuous question, etc.), the media makes sure the public knows the "victim" was black. If the "victim" is white, it's not even in the news.

If you don't support racism, then you should not support the way the liberally-biased media perpetuates this "reverse" or non-standard racism (i.e. blacks being racist towards themselves and whites).

 

[Oreo]

I agree with all of Whispered's statements 100%!!

 

[Kirito]

Can someone explain what a hate crime is to me? I think I know but I'm not sure

 

[Captain-Heather]

It's also interesting to note, in my opinion, the only time white people do get a lot of media attention (when it's not a killing, involving another race, etc), the white person in question typically is very attractive. They also tend to be cases of kidnapping, missing persons, stuff like that.

The media obviously knows how to sensationalize things, and they do it because they are a company which needs to make money. No one is going to watch their news station if they don't have something horrific to talk about.

EDIT:

And here is an interesting example of a black woman saying she doesn't want labels and people are freaking out; "That's So Raven" Raven Symone in this case. I find this to be very interesting, and I think it kind of goes along with what some of the rest of you are talking about in this debate.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/08/opinion/jones-raven-simone-oprah-black/index.html


And I do have a legitimate question for folks in Europe: What are African Americans called over there? Do you/they have a specific race they like to be called (because obviously in Europe or anywhere else in the world, they aren't American), or is it more black/white etc? We are so into labels here in America that I am genuinely curious what the rest of the world thinks.

 

[Oreo]

Can someone explain what a hate crime is to me? I think I know but I'm not sure

A hate crime is crime committed that is fueled by hatred of a person's race, sexuality, religion, etc. A good example would be the famous Matthew Shepherd case where a young gay man was murdered by two teenagers who hated him because of his sexuality. Nowadays, America is too quick to label crimes hate crimes if they involve two parties of different ethnicities. You could also go a step further and say this is also applicable to conflicts between two different sexes or individuals with different beliefs.

Make more sense?

 

[Kirito]

A hate crime is crime committed that is fueled by hatred of a person's race, sexuality, religion, etc. A good example would be the famous Matthew Shepherd case where a young gay man was murdered by two teenagers who hated him because of his sexuality.

Make more sense?

Exactly what I thought, ty

I think hate crimes are at the same level as murder, in my opinion (even if the crime committed isn't murder). I learned that the word "hate" means that you want someone dead, and wished they never existed. Although that my exaggerate in other's opinions, that's my standpoint on what hate means. Nobody should hate anybody, if it's race, religion, sexuality, whatever. People are people, they have emotions and feelings, why does it matter if you look slightly different, or if you believe in something I don't? I never understood racism, sexism, or anything like that. I love all people no matter what you look like or what you believe in.

I don't know if anyone knows about this because it was a crime in Florida, but basically a white man killed a black teenager. The white man was said to be not guilty, even though there were many witnesses saying that he was. Later after that happened I saw a picture on the internet that showed the white man as a black man, and the black boy as a white boy, and it said "If it were like this, he would of been arrested."

 

[Oreo]

EDIT:

And here is an interesting example of a black woman saying she doesn't want labels and people are freaking out; "That's So Raven" Raven Symone in this case. I find this to be very interesting, and I think it kind of goes along with what some of the rest of you are talking about in this debate.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/08/opinion/jones-raven-simone-oprah-black/index.html


And I do have a legitimate question for folks in Europe: What are African Americans called over there? Do you/they have a specific race they like to be called (because obviously in Europe or anywhere else in the world, they aren't American), or is it more black/white etc? We are so into labels here in America that I am genuinely curious what the rest of the world thinks.

I agree 150% with Raven and it's something I have always said and I think it's unpleasant and insulting how the media is flipping what she was really saying, especially in that CNN article.

"I get it. Raven-Symone doesn't like labels. But she is wrong to run away from her blackness..." NO. All Raven was saying was that she was BORN IN AMERICA. Just like you and me. As a person of color myself, I am very intolerant of a lot of the African American culture here in America. From my encounters, I have met numerous people of color who have only treated me with respect because of my race and treated my family like garbage. They have acted as if we are supposed to be close and connected just because of my race, even if we're complete strangers. I've even been told by other African Americans I shouldn't live WITH my family because they're "white" I find that to be INTOLERABLE. THAT IS RACISM!! There seems to be some kind of thought process Americans have that we should be extra lenient to African Americans since they were "enslaved." THIS IS FALSE. WE ARE ALL HUMANS. We ALL deserve to be treated the same way. Yes, we don't all live in a perfect world, but we should be striving towards equality for ALL races. We've all been enslaved at one point or another and NOBODY can truly trace back their ancestry so it's pointless trying to act superior because of you're race! We're continually allowing racism by supporting the difference of race! And I find that to be intolerable!

Were you born in America? Yes? Then you're AMERICAN. That's what Raven was saying. She wasn't denying her race. Her sexuality. Her "blackness" (which I find to be gross that a grown woman referred to a skin color as blackness). She was saying that she wanted EVERYBODY to start seeing each other as PEOPLE. Yes, people attracted solely to the same sex are gay. Yes, people come in all shapes, sizes, and skin colors. Those are DEFINITIONS. But she wants to be seen as Raven Symone, a PERSON. Not a lesbian. Not an African American. A "person who loves all people" as she said so perfectly. You have orange hair. Would you want everybody to go "Oh hey Susan with the ORANGE HAIR." and to have your stupid orange hair constantly define who you are and how you'll be treated? NO. Would you want to introduce your same sex partner to someone and have people go "Aww, so you're gay?" or "Oh, here's my friend Martha. She's gay." NO.

Raven is trying to get people to realize that we're being stupid for trying to cause a division in America where you're black, white, caucasian, disabled, straight, gay, etc. Martin Luther wasn't just fighting for equality of African Americans, he was fighting for equality for EVERYONE. THERE'S A LARGER PICTURE PPL! Stop trying to stir unnecessary drama!

-pants-

 

[Whispered]

It's just as rac.ist to say "you can't run away from your blackness" as it is to say "i hate you because you're black" (or any other race, just used this because of the Raven-Symone example).

We can't fix this problem until people admit that racism is not always perpetrated by whites against everyone else. It can be perpetrated within a race (white on white, black on black, etc). It's also rac.ist when persons say that you can't use certain terminology because of your race (or that it's okay because you are a certain race). This isn't just "the N word", but also different foreign language words used by other races. If it's a rac.ist word, it's rac.ist no matter who's using it.

(on a side note, interesting how rac.ist is blocked but not racism. I assume it's due to rac.ist being able to be used as a personal attack (which I hope isn't happening here))

 

[Captain-Heather]

Have to be honest, on most forms when they ask what race I am, I select "Native American". I was born in America, my relatives, family, etc all born in America. I am a native to America. Not my fault the government won't put "Native American" and "native American". People are so obsessed with race it's not even funny. If it truly shouldn't matter what race someone is, then we need to stop asking what race they are and start treating people like humans, with the same rights and privileges no matter what color, gender, sexual orientation, religion, political affiliation, etc they are.

I think people are too scared to do this right now, and so we cling to our labels, because what would we do without them to define us?