?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Jul. 22nd, 2006 @ 09:33 am warning: potential flamewar
A simple comparison below this cut.



A person is killed because they are black. The murderer goes to jail for extra time because of that fact.

A person is killed because they are GLBT. The murderer gets the sentence reduced drastically because of that fact.
About this Entry
Pathiaicon
[User Picture Icon]
From:dragonrift
Date:July 22nd, 2006 02:15 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
You wanna know what I'm sick of? Whenever a white person gets attacked by a black person, it's considered assault. When a black person gets attacked by a white person? It's called a racist hate crime.

Whenever a mass amount of white people die, it's just another horrible tragic event. Whenever a mass amount of black people die? It's because white people don't care about them. Case in point? Hurricane Katrina, and the whole blaming of President Bush, when Ray Nagin was even more at fault.

And don't get me started on that whole Duke University rape case last spring. That had "bullshit" written all over it from the start.

I love how our justice system bases judgement on race, instead on who these people are. ¬_¬ This is a childish trend that has been going on for decades, and doesn't seem to be ending anytime soon...
[User Picture Icon]
From:turbinerocks
Date:July 22nd, 2006 06:43 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I think Katrina victims had a point, what with the whole being completely ignored thing, in comparison to past hurricanes in *cough* Republican controlled states during election years *cough* where aid was lickety split fast. Blaming Nagin seems a little specious, considering how few resources his already destitute city controlled. Who's got more resources at their disposal? The federal government or the mayor of Nawlinz?

Is it racism? I suspect it's more just the fact that they're disenfranchiesd people who are not critical to any political strategy. Just so HAPPENS that voter suppression happens more often in overwhelmingly black districts.

Bummer man. There's still racism in this country.
[User Picture Icon]
From:ilthuain
Date:July 22nd, 2006 08:11 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
It's only a 'racist hate-crime' if race was the motivating factor. I know it sucks that we can't kill black people/Jews/arabs/trannies with impunity, but hey, we have to make some sacrifices to the Liberal Media Elite to preserve some sense of harmony in this great country of ours.



Poor, poor white majority! When oh when will the system finally be modified to benefit us instead of all those impoverished, underrepresented, and powerless brown people?
[User Picture Icon]
From:shadowfox24
Date:July 22nd, 2006 03:09 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Since when? There must have been a serious re-writing of hate crimes legislation that nobody was told about.
[User Picture Icon]
From:turbinerocks
Date:July 23rd, 2006 11:16 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I notice no response. ;-)
[User Picture Icon]
From:bikercheetah
Date:July 22nd, 2006 05:27 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
There are no real lawyers in the system. They're glorified bullshitters, fooling the judge or jury to think how they think. Great job, USA.
[User Picture Icon]
From:turbinerocks
Date:July 24th, 2006 09:52 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
To be fair, that's sorta the way it is everywhere. :D
[User Picture Icon]
From:dorallizard
Date:July 22nd, 2006 08:56 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Whoa, wait a minute. I can't really agree with that.

You can prove hate on both incidents if you have a good-enough prosecutor. That's extra jail time in both cases.

And at the same time, you can get 'prove' gay panic defense too, and, consequently, there's a race-related "condition" following the same lines as gay panic.

It's incidental and situational. It all depends on the intricate details involved in each and every case.
[User Picture Icon]
From:pathia
Date:July 22nd, 2006 09:56 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Actually in pretty much every state, and at the federal level there is no protection for GLBT rights. Only a few select states have protection for gays.

Unless the murder was done in say CA, or MA, there is no hate crimes legislation.
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Expand
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Expand
[User Picture Icon]
From:pathia
Date:July 22nd, 2006 09:57 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Also, to give you an idea. I live in the great state of Virginia.

I am not able to get health insurance. They can legally tell me 'no insurance, period' to me because of my transgender status.

I have absolutely no legal recourse. None, I've talked to lawyers. There is nothing I can do, period.
[User Picture Icon]
From:turbinerocks
Date:July 23rd, 2006 11:17 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Find me a "race panic" case where someone got a reduced sentence because they were made crazy by the presence of a black person.
[User Picture Icon]
From:azraile
Date:July 23rd, 2006 03:29 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
*Sighs and plops down shaking hir head*
From:(Anonymous)
Date:September 6th, 2006 11:00 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Hate crime legislation is an attrocity in a free society. It's a punishment on thoughts instead of actions.

A black man killing another black man to steal his property is as much of a moral attrocity as a white person killing a black man because of his race. Both crimes should have the equivalent penalties.

Anything else represents the unequal application of the law, based on group identity, tribalism, and any sort of dilineation anyone cares to categorize their identity with. It represents an additional punishment for forms of thought that motivate crimes, as if it's a greater tragedy to lose one's life over bigotry, instead of any other unjustifiable "but more correct" motivation.

The application of the law, differently, to "protect" different people who have confessed a form of "group identity", implies that people who do not belong to this group aren't worthy of equally zealous protection from loss of life, injury, or property crimes. It's an institutionalized form of bigotry that lowers the value of protecting _individual_ rights, in favor of _group_ rights, and it's disgustingly misguided and is of dubious constitutionality.
[User Picture Icon]
From:delphshadow
Date:September 13th, 2006 04:53 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I wouldn't state it so strongly but then again, sometimes it's more true when someone mouths off to make a point. :) You and I are vaguely mindmelded on this opinon, Anonymous.