PDA

View Full Version : How some states cover up hate crimes



redsoxx11
07-11-2011, 10:08 AM
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/data/table_12.html

Just don't report it! Works for Georgia !!!

duane1969
07-11-2011, 10:35 AM
Where does it say that Georgia is not reporting hate crimes?

OnePimpTiger
07-11-2011, 11:36 AM
Ahh good ol' "hate" crimes...the most subjective all of crime classifications. I always have to wonder how crimes such as "robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft" can be caused by hate. "I'm a homophobe, so I'm stealing your car."

Why do Cali, NY, NJ, and Mass have the most "hate" crimes and some of the highest percentages?

sanfran22
07-11-2011, 11:38 AM
Ahh good ol' "hate" crimes...the most subjective all of crime classifications. I always have to wonder how crimes such as "robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft" can be caused by hate. "I'm a homophobe, so I'm stealing your car."

Why do Cali, NY, NJ, and Mass have the most "hate" crimes and some of the highest percentages?
Lol, exactly....

redsoxx11
07-11-2011, 11:40 AM
Becasue they have the most agencies that participate and actually report them. It's amazing how states with the most racists groups (according to SPLC) seem to have very little reporting going on.

OnePimpTiger
07-11-2011, 11:51 AM
Becasue they have the most agencies that participate and actually report them. It's amazing how states with the most racists groups (according to SPLC) seem to have very little reporting going on.

That's an easy assumption to make in order to slander others...but the official numbers don't back it up, so at this point you're just making assumptions....and you know what that does, right?

Star_Cards
07-11-2011, 02:26 PM
Who decides if it is a hate crime? I guess for me the big question is were crimes still prosecuted as non hate crimes?

To me if a crime happens, it's more important if it's prosecuted and the perp pays for his crime. If a man gets beaten within an inch of his life for money by a man of the same race should not have less penalty if a man is beaten the same way by a man not of the same race with anti racial feelings being the reason he's attacked.

I get that crimes because of the hatred of a group or race are terrible, but they are just as bad as crimes for other motives if the outcome is the same. Bottom line, in each case a man was beaten within an inch of his life.

Also, there are other factors that come into play if certain states have lower hate crime numbers. Jumping to the fact that they cover them up is probably a factor, but to say they cover them up is the main or only reason their numbers are low is pretty narrow minded in my opinion.

sanfran22
07-11-2011, 02:30 PM
Who decides if it is a hate crime? I guess for me the big question is were crimes still prosecuted as non hate crimes?

To me if a crime happens, it's more important if it's prosecuted and the perp pays for his crime. If a man gets beaten within an inch of his life for money by a man of the same race should not have less penalty if a man is beaten the same way by a man not of the same race with anti racial feelings being the reason he's attacked.

I get that crimes because of the hatred of a group or race are terrible, but they are just as bad as crimes for other motives if the outcome is the same. Bottom line, in each case a man was beaten within an inch of his life.

Also, there are other factors that come into play if certain states have lower hate crime numbers. Jumping to the fact that they cover them up is probably a factor, but to say they cover them up is the main or only reason their numbers are low is pretty narrow minded in my opinion.
Once again, my opinion is a crime is a crime. How do you add anything for perceived "hate"? It's a bunch of garbage. It's thought policing......

habsheaven
07-11-2011, 02:32 PM
I have never understood the need for a crime to be labelled a "hate" crime? Who really cares why someone perpetrates a crime?

sanfran22
07-11-2011, 03:03 PM
I have never understood the need for a crime to be labelled a "hate" crime? Who really cares why someone perpetrates a crime?
+1, a crime is a crime period.

duwal
07-11-2011, 03:09 PM
I have never understood the need for a crime to be labelled a "hate" crime? Who really cares why someone perpetrates a crime?


but there should be a difference between someone wanting to get into a fight with someone because they them off and someone wanting to get into a fight with someone just because the other person is of a different nationality or gay/lesbian

sanfran22
07-11-2011, 03:22 PM
but there should be a difference between someone wanting to get into a fight with someone because they them off and someone wanting to get into a fight with someone just because the other person is of a different nationality or gay/lesbian
Wouldn't that fall under premeditated vs in the heat of the moment?

OnePimpTiger
07-11-2011, 03:30 PM
but there should be a difference between someone wanting to get into a fight with someone because they them off and someone wanting to get into a fight with someone just because the other person is of a different nationality or gay/lesbian

So someone who beats the snot out of someone because they're gay should be more harshly punished than someone who beats the snot out of someone just cuz? Beating the snot out of someone is beating the snot out of someone, regardless of motive, and should be punished accordingly.

And yes, I enjoy saying "beating the snot out of someone."

redsoxx11
07-11-2011, 03:50 PM
That's an easy assumption to make in order to slander others...but the official numbers don't back it up, so at this point you're just making assumptions....and you know what that does, right?

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,001.htm :cheer2::cheer2:

AUTaxMan
07-11-2011, 04:36 PM
http://www.framingthedialogue.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/thought-police.png

Star_Cards
07-11-2011, 04:44 PM
Once again, my opinion is a crime is a crime. How do you add anything for perceived "hate"? It's a bunch of garbage. It's thought policing......

I think sometimes you can look at crime and see if there was hate in the person's motive by how it was carried out, but the crime is a crime. I think it's okay to set a criminals motive, but the motive shouldn't really define your sentence. The end result of what you did should.

theonedru
07-11-2011, 04:45 PM
So someone who beats the snot out of someone because they're gay should be more harshly punished than someone who beats the snot out of someone just cuz? Beating the snot out of someone is beating the snot out of someone, regardless of motive, and should be punished accordingly.

And yes, I enjoy saying "beating the snot out of someone."

America is so full of stupid double standard type laws its ridiculous, I agree a crime is a crime whether it be the spur of the moment or some type of hate motivation. But then this is a country where I could shoot someone in the head and get 25 to life or I could just throw back a couple of drinks run them over and maybe MAYBE do 5 years max; I stilled murdered someone but one is deemed more socially acceptable the other.

OnePimpTiger
07-11-2011, 04:48 PM
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,001.htm :cheer2::cheer2:

So they don't report them because they're not required to...hardly a cover up. Aside from the fact that you linked to an obviously biased source who performed their own "investigation" and made assumptions to reach their conclusions, that whole article simply proves that nothing wrong is going on based on federal guidelines. Perhaps GA would have as high or higher reporting, it's very possible, but abiding by federal regulations is hardly "covering up" hate crimes.

And the broader issue here, as everyone else has noted so far, is that crime should be considered crime..."hate" crime is a pointless and nonsensical classification to begin with.

OnePimpTiger
07-11-2011, 04:51 PM
America is so full of stupid double standard type laws its ridiculous, I agree a crime is a crime whether it be the spur of the moment or some type of hate motivation. But then this is a country where I could shoot someone in the head and get 25 to life or I could just throw back a couple of drinks run them over and maybe MAYBE do 5 years max; I stilled murdered someone but one is deemed more socially acceptable the other.

I agree, but it's the latter situation that needs to be fixed, which it sounds like you and I agree on.

redsoxx11
07-11-2011, 05:01 PM
I think sometimes you can look at crime and see if there was hate in the person's motive by how it was carried out, but the crime is a crime. I think it's okay to set a criminals motive, but the motive shouldn't really define your sentence. The end result of what you did should.

I think some of you don't really understand the idea of "hate crime"
Lets put this into perspective of another crime motivated by bias/hatred

Terrorism -
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

You could try and say that blowing up a building or a car bombing is just "another" crime.. but really it's not, there is a clear motivation and that is to create fear in a populace

---------------------------------------

Hate Crime - noun
: a crime that violates the victim's civil rights and that is motivated by hostility to the victim's race, religion, creed, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender

The main idea is that it is an act with the intent to cause fear & take away a persons civil rights based on a bias.

What does killing a Jewish person and then slapping a swatzika on the nearest wall do the the Jewish community...

So the idea of having Hate crime's be stricter senctencing makes sense, becasue the cime is intended to be biased in it's motivation and at the same time can cause a general state of fear withinn a community.

House get burned down ... Arson
House gets burned down and a cross is burning in the front yards- hate crime

Go out drinking @ gay bar get beat up - assualt
Go out drinking get beat up by 5 guys calling you every gay slur - hate crime

It's pretty simple logic, taget the victim based on bias = hate crime

redsoxx11
07-11-2011, 05:04 PM
So they don't report them because they're not required to...hardly a cover up. Aside from the fact that you linked to an obviously biased source who performed their own "investigation" and made assumptions to reach their conclusions, that whole article simply proves that nothing wrong is going on based on federal guidelines. Perhaps GA would have as high or higher reporting, it's very possible, but abiding by federal regulations is hardly "covering up" hate crimes.

And the broader issue here, as everyone else has noted so far, is that crime should be considered crime..."hate" crime is a pointless and nonsensical classification to begin with.

You have not linked 1 source yet, so I would say anything I post, I'm ahead of the game. You just don't want to believe that southern states are under reporting hate crimes. You're either being ignorant to the facts or or you're a homer for the south and won't listen to any evidence anyway.

And I can easliy show you pages and pages or reports that show under reporting. I just choose that one so you wouldn't get confused by the numbers and math.

OnePimpTiger
07-11-2011, 05:13 PM
I think some of you don't really understand the idea of "hate crime"
Lets put this into perspective of another crime motivated by bias/hatred

Terrorism -
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

You could try and say that blowing up a building or a car bombing is just "another" crime.. but really it's not, there is a clear motivation and that is to create fear in a populace

---------------------------------------

Hate Crime - noun
: a crime that violates the victim's civil rights and that is motivated by hostility to the victim's race, religion, creed, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender

The main idea is that it is an act with the intent to cause fear & take away a persons civil rights based on a bias.

What does killing a Jewish person and then slapping a swatzika on the nearest wall do the the Jewish community...

So the idea of having Hate crime's be stricter senctencing makes sense, becasue the cime is intended to be biased in it's motivation and at the same time can cause a general state of fear withinn a community.

House get burned down ... Arson
House gets burned down and a cross is burning in the front yards- hate crime

Go out drinking @ gay bar get beat up - assualt
Go out drinking get beat up by 5 guys calling you every gay slur - hate crime

It's pretty simple logic, taget the victim based on bias = hate crime

No, that part is perfectly clear. In most cases, however, the situations are hardly as cut and dried as the examples you gave. Take the last example, for instance. What if the guy getting beat up instigated the fight and the 5 guys had no clue he was gay? The fact that they were spouting gay slurs make it a "hate" crime, even though they did not target the victim based on his sexual orientation and in fact did not know he was gay.

And again, regardless of the motivation, each of those crimes should be punished identically. Burning a cross in my yard does little damage...burning my house down is the big problem there. And regardless of what people were yelling while they did it, someone still got beat up. Punishing one instance more than an other is trivializing and lessening the other. "Yeah, the guys who beat you up got less jail time than these other guys because they were saying bad words while they did it."

OnePimpTiger
07-11-2011, 05:16 PM
You have not linked 1 source yet, so I would say anything I post, I'm ahead of the game. You just don't want to believe that southern states are under reporting hate crimes. You're either being ignorant to the facts or or you're a homer for the south and won't listen to any evidence anyway.

And I can easliy show you pages and pages or reports that show under reporting. I just choose that one so you wouldn't get confused by the numbers and math.

You're posting the sources for me. That source you linked specifically says the state and local agencies are not required to report the crimes. Therefore, if they do not, that is not covering it up. Covering up would be if they were required to report them, but did not. I'll admit the numbers probably are skewed because of that to a certain degree...but that doesn't mean they're "covering" anything, it simply means they're not doing something they're not required to do...shocker!

redsoxx11
07-11-2011, 05:39 PM
You're posting the sources for me. That source you linked specifically says the state and local agencies are not required to report the crimes. Therefore, if they do not, that is not covering it up. Covering up would be if they were required to report them, but did not. I'll admit the numbers probably are skewed because of that to a certain degree...but that doesn't mean they're "covering" anything, it simply means they're not doing something they're not required to do...shocker!

Theres a problem when only 2 agencies in the entire state are making reports to the UCR.

duwal
07-11-2011, 06:18 PM
No, that part is perfectly clear. In most cases, however, the situations are hardly as cut and dried as the examples you gave. Take the last example, for instance. What if the guy getting beat up instigated the fight and the 5 guys had no clue he was gay? The fact that they were spouting gay slurs make it a "hate" crime, even though they did not target the victim based on his sexual orientation and in fact did not know he was gay.



if they had no clue he was gay than why would they say gay slurs?

Star_Cards
07-11-2011, 06:38 PM
I think some of you don't really understand the idea of "hate crime"
Lets put this into perspective of another crime motivated by bias/hatred

Terrorism -
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

You could try and say that blowing up a building or a car bombing is just "another" crime.. but really it's not, there is a clear motivation and that is to create fear in a populace

---------------------------------------

Hate Crime - noun
: a crime that violates the victim's civil rights and that is motivated by hostility to the victim's race, religion, creed, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender

The main idea is that it is an act with the intent to cause fear & take away a persons civil rights based on a bias.

What does killing a Jewish person and then slapping a swatzika on the nearest wall do the the Jewish community...

So the idea of having Hate crime's be stricter senctencing makes sense, becasue the cime is intended to be biased in it's motivation and at the same time can cause a general state of fear withinn a community.

House get burned down ... Arson
House gets burned down and a cross is burning in the front yards- hate crime

Go out drinking @ gay bar get beat up - assualt
Go out drinking get beat up by 5 guys calling you every gay slur - hate crime

It's pretty simple logic, taget the victim based on bias = hate crime

I definitely get what you are saying and motive does play a part in sentencing in certain cases. I'll say that most violent crimes will produce a general state of fear. I do see your point about certain crimes effecting a community moreso than something that could be looked at as more isolated.

However, I also see the side that defining one as a hate crime can demean the same case that wouldn't be a hate crime at least to a victim. If I am the victim of a crime and my perp gets less than one that did the same damage to another person I would wonder why my perp gets less when he did the same harm to me.

I guess the main issue for me is who defines the crime as hate or not. It's not really easily defined all the time. Some are but a lot of them aren't. Not that I really want to stick up for criminals but some may get railroaded because someone needs to "find" more hate crimes so his data is better.

Star_Cards
07-11-2011, 06:46 PM
if they had no clue he was gay than why would they say gay slurs?

some people use gay slurs as a way to demean anyone. I'd bet quite a few people that get into fights say gay slurs even if they know that the person isn't actually gay.

duane1969
07-11-2011, 06:50 PM
Theres a problem when only 2 agencies in the entire state are making reports to the UCR.

Just because they are not reporting it to the Federal government does not mean that they are not dealing with it in their state court system. You are drawing a conclusion that the data does not support.

There is nothing in the data to support your opinion. Not reporting hate crimes to a Fed data collection agency does not equate to not dealing with it or covering it up.

OnePimpTiger
07-11-2011, 09:38 PM
if they had no clue he was gay than why would they say gay slurs?

The same reason Kobe said a gay slur to a ref a few months ago. The same reason Joakim Noah said a gay slur to a fan that ticked him off. The same reason meatheads on playgrounds and schoolyards across the country use them everyday. Because they are commonly used as insults.

OnePimpTiger
07-11-2011, 09:40 PM
Theres a problem when only 2 agencies in the entire state are making reports to the UCR.

Maybe there should be more agencies reporting, but THEY AREN'T REQUIRED TO BY THE FEDERAL GUIDELINES. Do you pay taxes you aren't required to?

sanfran22
07-11-2011, 10:27 PM
A crime is a crime is a crime...If some one beats someone within an inch of their life, I don't care what he was saying while doing it. It should be punished the same way either way. We are getting into a real tricky position assuming things when we classify hate. Like was stated earlier, should kobe be in prison for calling that ref a derogatory name if in fact they found out he was actually gay? It's a bad idea.

mrveggieman
07-11-2011, 10:40 PM
I'm going to chime in. I do think that there should be stiffer penalties for hate crimes. If a guy is playing cards and has an argument and kills the guy he is playing against he goes to jail but it is not treated as bad as someone who says I'm going to go out and kill the next black/jew/gay/immigrant/etc. I also think that if you kill someone in the commission of a hate crime you should also be put to death. The reasoning is if you have no problem taking a life for what you believe in you should have no problem dying for your cause.

AUTaxMan
07-12-2011, 10:11 AM
I'm going to chime in. I do think that there should be stiffer penalties for hate crimes. If a guy is playing cards and has an argument and kills the guy he is playing against he goes to jail but it is not treated as bad as someone who says I'm going to go out and kill the next black/jew/gay/immigrant/etc. I also think that if you kill someone in the commission of a hate crime you should also be put to death. The reasoning is if you have no problem taking a life for what you believe in you should have no problem dying for your cause.

How do you determine whether the person had the requisite degree of "hate" or not to warrant it's being a hate crime?

Star_Cards
07-12-2011, 10:22 AM
I'm going to chime in. I do think that there should be stiffer penalties for hate crimes. If a guy is playing cards and has an argument and kills the guy he is playing against he goes to jail but it is not treated as bad as someone who says I'm going to go out and kill the next black/jew/gay/immigrant/etc. I also think that if you kill someone in the commission of a hate crime you should also be put to death. The reasoning is if you have no problem taking a life for what you believe in you should have no problem dying for your cause.

I your scenarios, the card game heat f the moment murder would be tried completely differently than the second murder. It's tried differently not because it was a hate crime but because one was planned while the other was something that just happened. For me I think a lot of crimes that could be argued to be a hate crime would have the proof of some sort of planning involved. Maybe not planning to kill that exact person but to kill or do harm to a person of a group. That is where the extra time would come into play without having to deem it a "hate crime". My biggest hang up is who defines a crime as a hate crime? Not all are cut and dried. Are there instances where people are tried under a hate crime when in fact it wasn't that at all.

a lot of people have discussed a scenario involving a fight where one calls out slurs while in a fight. to me that's not 100% a hate crime as I'm sure there are some instances where people fight because of a hatred towards a group and yet they don't say anything while in the fight. To me there's a lot of grey area where people can get into trouble when defining a crime as a hate crime.