Whoa. WTF.

This is a terrible story. What in God's name would make these people do that to an innocent person. And two mothers were there with their kids and helped with the attack???

Besides being sexually assaulted, the victim was stabbed four times in the left leg and beaten, Porter said. Both of her eyes were black and blue. Deputies said the woman's wounds were inflicted at least a week ago

During her capture, the victim was forced to eat rat and dog feces and drink from the toilet, according to the criminal complaint filed in magistrate court. The woman also was choked with a cable cord and her hair cut, it alleges.

One of those arrested, Karen Burton, is accused of cutting the woman's ankle with a knife. She used the N-word in telling the woman she was victimized because she is black

Bail was NOT set high enough for what those animals did to her.

I hope they rot in jail...hell too for that matter.

Life WITHOUT Parole for the lot of them

Larry

Yes, LISA. When I read that article, I couldn't believe how low the bail was set. They sound like animals without a conscience.

It truly saddens me when I hear of ignorant hateful people doing horrible things to another human being. They truly deserve life in prison without parole.

Let the non-violent pot heads out of prison and give these guys extra time. Hell, I'll chip in a few bucks if you make their stay extra special.

I bet they get the coveted "Blanket Treatment" ALLOT.

Larry

More red-state family values.

Definitely qualifies for extra jail time as a hate crime.

Posted by CalifChris


Qualifies for lots of time due to the nature of the crime. I hate the entire concept of "hate crime legislation".

The instance is horrid from all angles, and if it hadnt been racially motivated, the crime would be equally horrible.. Theres no need to set up tiered levels of justice based around bias.

God, you look at the booking photos and you can hear banjoes playing. The bail seems low, but I'm guessing the bunch of them haven't got nearly enough for one bail in all their worldly possessions.

Two predictions-if the authorities start digging on these fine people's property, they're gonna solve some other missing women cases.
And Momma and her son are close, if you know what I mean.

Fortunately for the women, they're going to get to enjoy a lot more black women as sexual partners once in prison. And the boys are gonna meet some very nice black gentlemen.

Lucky for these six we have a constitution that bans cruel and unusual punishment, because I would throw them down the deepest well I could find, and once a day toss down a loaf of modly bread.
And even that would be too good for them.

But they'll get 3 squares and a warm bed and cable TV.

Until they get shanked that is....

Did Drudge Retort ever post the story about the 6 blacks who tortured and murdered two whites named Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian in Knoxville, TN?
The man was raped, beaten, had his penis cut off, set on fire and finally shot. The woman was ganged raped and tortured for days, had her tits cut off. They cut off her skin and poured bleach on her and down her throat.
Recently, the "Black Community" had a big party and parade in honor of the suspects.

Never happened Fuckyou!

Google up "Clown rally for Wife Power" and see how your KKK brothers got their asses kicked when they brought their hatred to Knoxville.

Take your hate and stuff it!

East Tennessee is not West Virginia.

Qualifies for lots of time due to the nature of the crime. I hate the entire concept of "hate crime legislation".

The instance is horrid from all angles, and if it hadnt been racially motivated, the crime would be equally horrible.. Theres no need to set up tiered levels of justice based around bias.

Posted by GustoGus at 2007-09-10 11:30 PM

I agree with you 100%. I think I was caught up with the horrendousness of this crime when I typed that out. Our DR lawyer -- JOE -- and I have had a number of debates on here regarding "hate crime laws" -- he is for them and I am against them.

I firmly believe hate crimes laws are abusive and misused for agendas other than seeking true justice for the victim. Just as you said, hate crime laws "set up tiered levels of justice" which then takes away the fact that "all men are equal under the law."

All justice for crimes committed should be based on the crime itself and no victim is more or less worthy of having the crime committed against them prosecuted any more or any less vigorously than anyone else. The perpetrator should be punished according to the laws on the books. I believe hate crime laws are abused and unfairly done on a 'pick and choose' basis.

spanky,
Most libs on the Retort cannot distinguish reality from fiction. I blame drug use and possible sexual abuse.
They are in denial about a black on white hate crime despite the fact it was reported in the local news (but it never made national headlines because the media is not allowed to portray blacks negatively) but they will believe any nonsense about global warming and 9/11 conspiracies.
All I did was mention the story about the Knoxville 6, and I am accused of being full of hate and in the KKK!

I agree with CC et al on the hate crime thing. Motives should not be a factor when charging a person with a crime. Charging someone with a hate crime is basically bringing in the thought police. A person is being charged for his beliefs. I believe a person should be able to think whatever he wants without persecution. But there is a well defined line between thoughts and actions.

Anyone ever see "A Clockwork Orange"?

SPANKY

Actually, it did happen.

Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian were victims of a horrific crime at the hands of 6 black people. Just because it is inconvenient does not mean you should ignore reality.


Well aware of that case and it was discussed at length in a thread awhile back. Definitely a hate crime and definitely ignored by the media because the victims were white and the murderers were black. That's what I meant about hate crime prosecutions being done on a "pick and choose" basis so just get rid of the hate crime allegations altogether. They are not prosecuted evenly, fairly, nor without bias.

holy shit I actually with califchris!
CC must have walked away from his computer while still logged onto the Retort and now his roomate is posting stuff under his account.

holy shit I actually with califchris!
CC must have walked away from his computer while still logged onto the Retort and now his roomate is posting stuff under his account.

errr, yeah, that's the ticket, that's what happened

Chris

I was waiting around in the 'Petaeus Oath' thread.....

Another time perhaps then.

typo. I meant to say I AGREE with CC.

Chris

I was waiting around in the 'Petaeus Oath' thread.....

Another time perhaps then.

Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2007-09-1

Sorry, AU. I was just doing some drive-by posting on my way thru the kitchen with those other posts. Didn't know you were waiting on me. Shouldn't be much longer but I didn't want to get in a discussion of the article until I was done with everything and ready to sit down. Don't want to keep you up if you need to get your sleep. I can either discuss it tonight or catch you manana -- your choice. should be another 20 minutes or so but if I don't see you on here I'll figure you needed your shuteye tonight

The reason this is in the news...

Is probably more to due with the extreme length of time involved, than any race issue. Let's BE HONEST HERE, murder in America is so common that it takes an "extra special" type of case to even get the attention of the MSM.

There have been quite a few school shootings you likely didn't hear much about, since that's so common too.

AU

Okay, I'm back. Don't see your name on the front page so I guess it's manana then. Sorry, again, didn't know you were staying up. I forget sometimes about being 3 hours earlier than everyone back East. Not sure what state you're in but so many people on here on on EST . I 'll catch up to you tomorrow on the Iraq Swindle article if you're back on here and feel like discussing it. Thanks so much for turning me on to it. I might have just given the article a cursory look when it definitely requires a mandatory read.

What is this world coming to.
Does anyone have any idea how frail a 95 year old woman is? You can knock over my 85 year old next door neighbor lady with a strong breeze and the guy in this article below stomps on this 95 year old lady with his boots to steal her purse. Why the extra violence after he's knocked her down. She's hardly going to jump up swinging.

NEW YORK It's happened again, an elderly woman has been beaten over a lousy purse. This time, the victim is 95 years old.

Police on Monday were looking for a man they say beat and robbed the woman right outside her 17th floor apartment. The incident happened around 2:15 p.m. at the East River Co-op on the Lower East Side. The victim's friends are shocked by the attack.

"He just came out after her and pushed her down and stepped on her," one resident said. "There are marks on her chest and on her back that he stepped on her with his boots."

Added friend Beverly Dubrino: "This woman goes to Pathmark. She goes to the temple. She's always on the bus. So I said to my mother how's her spirits now? She said she's a fighter. But ... terrible."

A building manager says the elderly woman entered a locked side door and allowed the suspect into the building. Police have produced a surveillance picture of the suspect, who they say followed the victim to her floor, knocked her to the ground and kicked her. He then took off with the woman's pocketbook.

"If I was 95 years old and on my own ... you're really not in a position to keep someone from following you into the building," O'Hurley said. "That's why we have security and they should be doing their job.

"The cameras aren't enough. They're here they're walking the streets. They should pay more attention." Said building resident Rafael Rosario: "The policy is you don't let anyone in that you don't know, but you know how it is. Reality is something else."

Charging someone with a hate crime is basically bringing in the thought police. A person is being charged for his beliefs.

Posted by goatman at 2007-09-11 03:02 AM |

You got right to the legal crux of the argument as to why hate crimes are not fair and can easily be manipulated by various outsiders with different agendas. Best to just follow the laws on the books for the crime committed without trying to add all the additional labels and guesses as to motive.

The story about Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian in Knoxville, TN passed the snopes test and is listed as true, and I haven't found any articles that stated it was an urban legend.
I don't know if it was ever posted on this site.

I read about the Newsom and Christian case around the time it happened. Black on white crime isn't all that rare but then white on black crime isn't either. There is plenty of hate to go around. I doubt really that her "blackness" was the real motivation for these psychos, if there were no black people they would still have found someone to torture and murder. I think race is an excuse for sociopaths to put their crimes in to a context they consider rational.

Unless it is a Negro, Terrorist, Mexican or Muslim "victim" there is not much news in it here.

Posted by BeadyScooper at 2007-09-11 08:06 AM

Heh..

Because every kidnap victim in America is a young, white, attractive woman....

The story about Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian in Knoxville, TN passed the snopes test and is listed as true, and I haven't found any articles that stated it was an urban legend.
I don't know if it was ever posted on this site.

According to Snopes, the attack happened, though there is some conflicting evidence as to the veracity of the abuse/desicration involved.

That having been said, if the crime was racially motivated (I don't know from the evidence I've read), than it SHOULD be prosecuted as a hate crime.

I can't recall if the attack was reported here on the Retort.

Living in Tennessee, I can tell you that it was news here, and the stories about the crime and the nature thereof were wildly speculative...and hugely sensationalized as to details.

One radio reporter said the woman was forced to eat the man's genitals, another denied this. Some reports claim the torture was while the couplle were still alive, others claim it was post-mortum. Why the reports varied so widely is a bit beyond me.

That having been said, if the crime was racially motivated (I don't know from the evidence I've read), than it SHOULD be prosecuted as a hate crime.

Posted by RevDarko at 2007-09-11 08:42 AM

I understand how, when we read somethign this horrid, our first instinct is to want to throw everything we can at them, includign the proverbial "kitchen sink" , its just sad that we have so quickly adopted "Hate Crime Legislation" as said sink..

IF our normal laws aren't sufficient to prosecute somethign this dastardly to the fullest extent that it should be, its those laws that should be changed/updated, not establishing a whole new tier of laws for only "special motive cases"

Sorry to disagree, Gus.

My view is that hate crimes laws are important, though I disagree with how they are prosecuted. I feel that any crime motivated strictly by a person's race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or whatever, needs to be punished far more severely. Society CANNOT tolerate crimes of this nature.

I would prefer they were treated merely as aggravating factors, but, sadly, that's not going to be the case most of the time these days. In the future, perhaps, but right now, I think it is necessary to have them labelled as seperate in the criminal code.

Actually, it did happen.

Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian were victims of a horrific crime at the hands of 6 black people. Just because it is inconvenient does not mean you should ignore reality.



www.snopes.com


All except all the torture and mutilation stuff.
www.snopes.com.

Ya really need to read the whole article guys...

Society CANNOT tolerate crimes of this nature.

Posted by RevDarko at 2007-09-11 10:09 AM

Which presents the question, how would this crime be MORE tolerable if it wasn't racially motivated?

They locked a woman in a room and tortured her for a week, does it somehow become a little bit better if she was white?

Also, let me add, I can understand, from a social conditionign perspective, how hate crime legislation may be appealing.

It says "If you hate someone based soley on their gender/race/sexuality we find you to be even more disturbing then other criminals"

But it also has other effects, it has the Affirmative Action effect of not only highlightign our disdain, but keeping the differences front and center. It also has the effect of saying "If you were victimized, but not because of your race/gender/sexuality, your pain isn't as important"

In the end it's simply a double standard, and shouldnt be allowed to exist in a justice system.

Oorah and Gus,

As far as hate-crimes are concerned, it works along with my views on free speech:

Anyone is free to say or think anything they want in this country as long as it doesn't cause anyone to be hurt or killed.

When it does, it stops being speech and thought and it becomes action. As such, it needs to be punished. When a crime is committed for reasons of pure hate, to me, it is far less tolerable then one committed for, say, money.

This does NOT mean I think any crime where a person is harmed is tolerable, but I think if there is a seperate motive, like money or self=preservation, or what have you, I can at least understand it.Hate is something that, I must admit, is totally foreign to me. I will admit, this probably colours my opinion on this matter.

I should qualify:

Hate in the context of "hate crimes" is totally foreign to me.

Rev, I guess another question we could ask ourselves is what kind of "Justice" do we look for from out justice system?

Are we seeking government sponsored equitable revenge?
A victim centric justice system.
No real place for HCL

Are we seeking to "Give each man his due"?
The crime stands on its own merits.
Here you could perhaps justify HCL, but it gets into the "Mind Reading" problem, we also must decide how much more Hate crime's weigh.

Are we trying to mold a social conscience?
Justice meted out on how it will affect the society as a whole.
Here would be the strongest case for HCL, but you must also consider the unknown repercussions, or how what could be percieved as "special treatment" may backfire.

Or, Is it a collection of all 3? Your on your own here :)

I firmly believe hate crimes laws are abusive and misused for agendas other than seeking true justice for the victim. Just as you said, hate crime laws "set up tiered levels of justice" which then takes away the fact that "all men are equal under the law."

All justice for crimes committed should be based on the crime itself and no victim is more or less worthy of having the crime committed against them prosecuted any more or any less vigorously than anyone else. -- CalifChris

I fully support hate crime legislation because in cases like these, (at least) 2 crimes have been committed. Robberies committed with a gun are punished more heavily than robberies committed without one, even though the victim is just as robbed either way, right?

In the case of hate crimes, one crime is the obvious. The second is a crime against our very identity as a nation -- the belief that all people are created equal, and have an equal right to full participation in our society. No one should be more or less threatened or oppressed because of their social class, skin color, gender, sexual preference, religion, whatever. In the case of hate crimes, it is not just an individual who is attacked -- it is an entire group.

As a practical matter, I honestly believe that this country's rise is attributable to our forebears' extension of education and opportunity to groups disenfranchised in other countries, and our continued preeminence depends on our insistence upon defending meritocracy -- not a hierarchy based on divine right, or class, or skin color, or sex, etc. etc.

But apart from that, do those of you who oppose hate crime legislation also want to decriminalize genocide? Do you really believe that the Holocaust and "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia, Rwanda and the Sudan are merely just a lot of murders?

The perpetrator should be punished according to the laws on the books. I believe hate crime laws are abused and unfairly done on a 'pick and choose' basis.

Why do you think this is any more true of hate crimes than of any other crime? Do you want to eliminate laws against drinking and driving because rich people are more likely to get off than poor people? Do you want to eliminate laws against theft because street criminals are more likely to do time than white collar embezzlers? Hell, why not take capital crimes off the books entirely -- there's extensive evidence that blacks are more likely than whites to receive the death sentence for the same crime.

So if you target a specific group, its no worse than a random attack? President Amnadapajamas will be glad to hear that his rants aginst Israel are considerd free speech by the Drudge rightys.
I'm sure islamacist terrorists will be glad to know that the Fighty Righty's consider whatever they say or do about hating America is considered no worse than your average criminal behavior.

But apart from that, do those of you who oppose hate crime legislation also want to decriminalize genocide? Do you really believe that the Holocaust and "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia, Rwanda and the Sudan are merely just a lot of murders?

Posted by Phoenix

How is "Thousand's if not millions of murders" less offensive then genocide?

Seems this logic may be going astray...Genocide, to me, has always been the criminal counterpart to a Class action lawsuit. If you tried these people for each indivdual murder, how many life sentences do you think you would get? Or, in Texas, Death sentences ;)


As for the "Gun" analogy, Thats easy, one is means, and one is motive.

You robbed a store "with" a gun, "because" he was black.

The because part can get rather shady.


And before this dissolves into a realm of Lefties suck, righties suck, Give me a reason why these people should be charged less harshly if the Victim had been a well to do white woman..

Give me a reason why these people should be charged less harshly if the Victim had been a well to do white woman..

Many states have a death penalty only for cop killing. Do you agree with that? Or do you accept that killing a cop is an attack on all of us, through an attack on our system.

If the victim had been a well to do white woman, the crimes should be punished the same way.
But because it was a racially motivated attack on a black woman, it is also an additional attack on all blacks. If she were a jew, and antisemitic slurs were used, it would be an attack on all jews. Beyond an act of violence, a hate crime is a threat against all members of that persons group. The KKK used lynchings not only to target specific blacks but as a means of controlling, through terror, all blacks. Is firebombing a synagogue no different than firebombing a laundramat?

When an islamacist cuts an American's head off, do you see that as merely a personal 1-1 attack, or as a threat and warning to ALL Americans?

Absolutely sickening. I say we ship em to a CIA black site in Eastern Europe.

Hmmmm

I remember Hannity ranting and raving a few weeks ago on how the 'MSM' didn't cover attacks on women of color.

If the victim had been a well to do white woman, the crimes should be punished the same way.

Posted by northguy3

Huh?

No, I don't agree with Death penalty only for police officers. And I believe in equitable justice.

If you hang a man to make a political statement, or if you hang a man because you don't like the cut of his jaw, in the end, you hung a man and should be charged accordingly.

Motive is merely a reason for a crime, not the crime itself.

The jihadist that cuts off a man's head, charge with first degree murder. Find the crime especially grim, seek the death penalty. We have systems in place already to allow for Judges/Juries to make sentencing decisions based on the facts in evidence.

To codify it as a Tiered system does no-one justice.

Seems this logic may be going astray...Genocide, to me, has always been the criminal counterpart to a Class action lawsuit. -- Gustogus

The two have very different legal bases. Class-action lawsuits involve violations of contracts.

Genocide, like slavery and racial discrimination, is recognized internationally as violating an "erga omnes" right -- a right fundamental to all human beings.

As for the "Gun" analogy, Thats easy, one is means, and one is motive.

You robbed a store "with" a gun, "because" he was black. -- Gustogus

But motive matters. Self-defense, negligence and clear intent are treated very differently. Political assassination is also put into a different category.

There's also the issue of different consequences. Hate crimes have effects beyond the reduced sense of security we all feel when we read about crime -- they threaten and denigrate members of specific groups.

And before this dissolves into a realm of Lefties suck, righties suck, Give me a reason why these people should be charged less harshly if the Victim had been a well to do white woman..

It's not skin color that makes this a hate crime. The standard is not "crime was white on black" or "crime was black on white" -- it's incorporating a specific group membership into the motive. That is an additional crime.

Motive is never a factor when charging someone with a crime...Your motives are only taken into account during sentencing. -- Joe

This isn't true, Joe. It's precisely motive that provides the distinction between whether a homicide is ruled non-criminal (self-defense or insanity), manslaughter, or murder, for example.

And there's some variance across states regarding hate crime laws. Some states do indeed have laws providing for a separate civil cause of action in the case of hate crimes.

I suppose I could have worded my statement better. My point was that you are never charged, criminally, with a "hate crime." It is a common misconception that accusations of racism are somehow taken as evidence that a crime has occurred. That is never the case and I was only trying to make that clear.

I am a liberal without a doubt but I am having a difficult time supporting hate crimes legislation. Equal protection should be our mantra. You can't have "equal protection" if crimes against on person are worse than crimes against another simply because we judge one motive to be more heinous or because of societies desire to eliminate racism, homophobia, whatever.
I think it weakens the liberals' case on many issues to have to constantly defend poorly thought out ideas like hate crime legislation.
Equal protections though does include equal enforcement which we all know has been a real problem when crimes were committed against certain groups. We like to pretend America has evolved past that stage but it isn't completely true and I think hate crimes legislation was thought to bring a better balance but I think, if anything, it makes things worse by causing law enforcement to believe that the minority is being given special treatment.

Goatman,

Anyone ever see "A Clockwork Orange"?

I suggest reading it. To those who have only seen the movie, know that the last chapter (which was excluded) contains a profound surprise! You might even call it ... a conclusion.

At any rate, I support hate crime legislation but I do not support this pedantic persuit of criminological taxonomy. If you harm someone because of their identity, you are clearly a greater threat to society and hence should be in jail longer. White, black, Christian, Jewish, gay, straight ... these distinctions are ultimately trivial. This matter of chosing which groups get protected status only serves to enforce the notion that we are different.

"Definitely qualifies for extra jail time as a hate crime."

I don't see why doing the same thing to a person of the same race is any less of a crime. And that is exactly what this hate crime bullshit infers. Most of these nutjobs are attracted to their victims for one reason or another. They don't charge sadists who like to tortue women or blonds or people wearing green shirts with hate crimes. For some reason, the legal system adds another layer of protection to certain groups that the rest of us are denied.

In my opinion, people involved in actions like this can't be rehabilitated and shouldn't be allowed back into society at any point. Wouldn't bother me if the state executed the lot of them.

"If you harm someone because of their identity, you are clearly a greater threat to society and hence should be in jail longer."

What if you just hate everyone equally and act on that hate in the same way these people did? That doesn't make one a danger to everyone? It certainly doesnt' make a person less dangerous than a violent bigot. There is no logic behind hate crimes.

"You can't have "equal protection" if crimes against on person are worse than crimes against another simply because we judge one motive to be more heinous or because of societies desire to eliminate racism, homophobia, whatever."

Hate crimes are not necessarily motivated by our desire to eliminate racism. From the legislative materials I have read, the main motivating factor behind hate crime legislation is the fact that crimes undertaken specifically because of the victim's group membership are considered more of a crime, because they affect that entire group of people. If a person gets beat up because they stole my wallet, that does not hurt anyone but that person. If a person gets beat up because they are black, it most likely makes the black population in the area the crime occurred afraid to even leave their homes. Not to mention the fact that knowing you were beat up because of your race (as opposed to knowing you were beat up for being a thief) has been shown to cause extreme psychological harm to the victim.

Basically, hate crimes have more of an effect on both the victim and the surrounding community than the average crime. The harm caused by a crime is an appropriate factor when considering sentencing.

"I don't see why doing the same thing to a person of the same race is any less of a crime."

It isn't any less of a crime. Hate crime statutes don't require the victim to be of a different race. You only need to prove that the victim was intentionally selected because of his race. So, your silly example of someone hating his own race enough to select a person of that race and beat them would still qualify as a hate crime.

Sully,

What if you just hate everyone equally and act on that hate in the same way these people did? That doesn't make one a danger to everyone? It certainly doesnt' make a person less dangerous than a violent bigot.

I disagree, the person you described is criminally insane.

"If a person gets beat up because they are black, it most likely makes the black population in the area the crime occurred afraid to even leave their homes. Not to mention the fact that knowing you were beat up because of your race (as opposed to knowing you were beat up for being a thief) has been shown to cause extreme psychological harm to the victim."

What if you get beat up because some demented individuals wanted to beat someone up and you were the wrong place at the wrong time? Anyone could have been the victim. That doesn't make the entire population, black or otherwise, in the area have reason to be afraid?

"Basically, hate crimes have more of an effect on both the victim and the surrounding community than the average crime. The harm caused by a crime is an appropriate factor when considering sentencing."

How is more harm done in the example I gave any less? I could make an arguement that beating someone up for no reason whatsoever affects more people because the next victim could be anyone - not that I believe that the punishment should be any different in that case anyway.

I'm not sure if you agree with this legislation or if you are just explaining the thought behind it. But the logic behind it is obviously flawed.

"So, your silly example of someone hating his own race enough to select a person of that race and beat them would still qualify as a hate crime."

I never said anything about hating one's own race. I just said that victims are selected for any number of reasons and that the reason is irrelevent if the crime is the same.

So your silly response is just a strawman.

"I disagree, the person you described is criminally insane."

Not necessarily. And why is it not insane to want to torture someone for being black?

"How is more harm done in the example I gave any less?"

Should have been "How is the harm done in the example I gave any less?"

Not necessarily. And why is it not insane to want to torture someone for being black?

A good point. Why is it not insane to want to torture someone for being human? Either way we're dealing with abject sociopathy and people who must be removed from society.

Well thanks Joe, That does clarify some things, but I must admit it doesn't neccessarily dissuade my opinion.
That provision enhances the maximum penalty for an offense whenever the defendant "[i]ntentionally selects the person against whom the crime . . . is committed . . . because of the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person . . . ."

Now I undertand the law can be a minefield of debates on what can appear to be minutia, but I guess my ultimate problem is, in the end, your codifying groupings of people in order to establish differing levels of justice.

The only real answer I've found is because the protected group as a whole may find the act threatening. Which to me, seems more like an over-reaching rationalization that has as much chance of backfiring as guiding the social conscience.

If the ultimate goal is equality for all, we've got to stop highlighting the differences in our laws.

Equal protection should be our mantra. You can't have "equal protection" if crimes against on person are worse than crimes against another... --Danni

HCL does not provide greater protection for one group or another -- a crime against a rich white male could be prosecuted as a hate crime.

If the ultimate goal is equality for all, we've got to stop highlighting the differences in our laws. --Gustogus

Exactly! You need instead to focus on the different consequences of crimes committed for different reasons. Hate crimes impact different groups differently, but also hurt us as a society by fostering animus between groups.

I like looking at nakked African women in National Geograpic Magazine.

On the other hand, George Bush doesn't care about black people.
What would Bill Clinton, the first Black President, have to say?

Exactly! You need instead to focus on the different consequences of crimes committed for different reasons. Hate crimes impact different groups differently, but also hurt us as a society by fostering animus between groups.

Posted by Phoenix


No, HCL Makes the focus the protected group, not the fact that a crime was commited against another Human being.

It's no longer... "Woman is kidnapped and horrendously tortured, Captors each face life in prison" it is now "Black woman kidnapped and tortured, Racist captors each face life in prison under the Hate Crime Statute"

You tell me where the focus is on each headline...

I like looking at nakked African women in National Geograpic Magazine... What would Bill Clinton, the first Black President, have to say? -- Posted by fuckyou

Couldn't say for sure, but my impression was that his tastes ran toward "big" rather than toward one race or another.

We as a country must send a message that this crime will not stand!!!!! While I'm not for the death penalty, which is probably what they deserve, I am for sending these criminals to the BLACKEST prison in the south and send all of these jerks there, and then release them to the general public..... As the Conseratives in this country always say let the Market decides what happens to thes F**ks!!!!!! But of course how long before the Conseratives, ask these poor whites were just misunderstood!!!!! Seig Heil, the Republican Party!!!!!!!

"You need instead to focus on the different consequences of crimes committed for different reasons. Hate crimes impact different groups differently, but also hurt us as a society by fostering animus between groups."

So if some kid slashes the face of a random person with a razor because he wants to join the Bloods or he orders a pizza and shoots the deliveryman because he wants to know how it feels to kill someone (both have happened), that has a worse impact on society than if he did the same thing due to prejudice? Gangs and thrill killing are more acceptable and less harmful to society than racial prejudice?

To me, such thinking sends the message that identical, senseless crimes are somehow more or less acceptable based on the absurd reasoning of the criminal. And I find that ridiculous.

Since this happened in the South, if the perpetrators were white they will get a light sentence with time off for good behavior. If they were black, they will be put on death row.

Of course, in LA they will beat the rap regardless of race if they have loys of money. Isn't Democracy wonderful?