Hate Crimes in NY Up 14%

[William Joyce]

There are, however, groups that do go out to victimize others because of their own insane hatred.

Yes, they're called "Israelis".

 

[Valerie]

Here is my analogy.

If someone burns a cross on my lawn because I'm an asshole, that is one thing.

If someone does because I'm black or a Catholic then there is a historical intimidation trying to take place.

Should that person get a bigger sentence for trying to intimidate based on religious/ethnic background? Does it amount to terrorism?

I have not decided.

You recognize that one is one thing and the other is another, with the difference based on intimidation which the argument is, if further measurable harm can be demonstrated then why shouldn't the punishment be able to meet the difference...?

 

[George Costanza]

again BULLSHIT
people can be opposed to hate crime bullshit without having ANY racism involved

Where's the harm in a law that protects certain target groups from being picked upon merely because they are members of a target group? Who gets hurt by such a law? Only one type of person - the person who makes the attacks on the innocent victims.

Most of the time, there is a rational reason for an assault on another person. The other guy insulted the perp's girlfriend, or kicked the perp's dog, etc. There are as many reasons as there are human situations. And in all of them, the victim did SOMETHING to antagonize the attacker. Not so with a hate crime. The only thing a hate crime victim did was be born into the protected group.

Someone who attacks another solely for a reason such as that, is a superhuman jerk, and deserves extra punishment. I don't understand people who do things like that, nor do I understand those who would protect them from the punishment they deserve.

but the eyes of the law are supposed to be blind to that and treat the CRIME and not the reason

Do you agree that the worse the crime, the harsher should be the punishment? I think you, or anyone, would have to agree with that. Murder deserves a harsher punishment than petty theft. With me so far?

Well, the law imposes harsher sentences for varying DEGREES of the SAME CRIME in many cases. The law of homicide is probably the best example. The punishment for first degree murder is harsher than for second degree murder. Why? Because first degree murder is considered MORE CULPABLE than second degree murder.

And the "reason" a person commits a murder is very much considered by the law. It is, in fact, the one thing that differentiates a first degree murder from a second degree murder. "Willful and deliberate premeditation" makes it murder one. And where does "willful and deliberate premeditation" take place? In the perp's MIND. In other words, what he is THINKING determines the degree of the crime.

Now the law of homicide has been around for several centuries, and it hasn't changed very much. I doubt that you are going to get very far, arguing that all murderers should be treated the same, regardless of the degree of the crime.

OK, instead of murder, let's talk about the crime of assault. Hate crimes operate on the assumption that there are DEGREES of assault, just as there are degrees of murder. In other words, some assaults are "worse" than other assaults. An assault committed because the victim is of a certain race, ethnic group, or sexual orientation, is considered MORE CULPABLE than an assault committed for some other reason.

Why? Because the victim in a hate crime did absolutely nothing to provoke the attack except to be a member of the group despised by the attacker. The victim is totally innocent, as opposed to the victims of "regular" assaults, who generally are not totally innocent and who generally did something to provoke the attack.

There are numerous other examples of the law imposing harsher punishment for varying degrees of the same crime. Robbery, burglary, sexual assaults all involve this concept.

So don't say that the law should ignore the "reason" (motivation) behind the crime and impose the same punishment regardless. An analysis such as that flies against both the reality of our criminal justice system as well as common sense.

 

[DiveCon]

Where's the harm in a law that protects certain target groups from being picked upon merely because they are members of a target group? Who gets hurt by such a law? Only one type of person - the person who makes the attacks on the innocent victims.

Most of the time, there is a rational reason for an assault on another person. The other guy insulted the perp's girlfriend, or kicked the perp's dog, etc. There are as many reasons as there are human situations. And in all of them, the victim did SOMETHING to antagonize the attacker. Not so with a hate crime. The only thing a hate crime victim did was be born into the protected group.

Someone who attacks another solely for a reason such as that, is a superhuman jerk, and deserves extra punishment. I don't understand people who do things like that, nor do I understand those who would protect them from the punishment they deserve.

but the eyes of the law are supposed to be blind to that and treat the CRIME and not the reason

Do you agree that the worse the crime, the harsher should be the punishment? I think you, or anyone, would have to agree with that. Murder deserves a harsher punishment than petty theft. With me so far?

Well, the law imposes harsher sentences for varying DEGREES of the SAME CRIME in many cases. The law of homicide is probably the best example. The punishment for first degree murder is harsher than for second degree murder. Why? Because first degree murder is considered MORE CULPABLE than second degree murder.

And the "reason" a person commits a murder is very much considered by the law. It is, in fact, the one thing that differentiates a first degree murder from a second degree murder. "Willful and deliberate premeditation" makes it murder one. And where does "willful and deliberate premeditation" take place? In the perp's MIND. In other words, what he is THINKING determines the degree of the crime.

Now the law of homicide has been around for several centuries, and it hasn't changed very much. I doubt that you are going to get very far, arguing that all murderers should be treated the same, regardless of the degree of the crime.

OK, instead of murder, let's talk about the crime of assault. Hate crimes operate on the assumption that there are DEGREES of assault, just as there are degrees of murder. In other words, some assaults are "worse" than other assaults. An assault committed because the victim is of a certain race, ethnic group, or sexual orientation, is considered MORE CULPABLE than an assault committed for some other reason.

Why? Because the victim in a hate crime did absolutely nothing to provoke the attack except to be a member of the group despised by the attacker. The victim is totally innocent, as opposed to the victims of "regular" assaults, who generally are not totally innocent and who generally did something to provoke the attack.

There are numerous other examples of the law imposing harsher punishment for varying degrees of the same crime. Robbery, burglary, sexual assaults all involve this concept.

So don't say that the law should ignore the "reason" (motivation) behind the crime and impose the same punishment regardless. An analysis such as that flies against both the reality of our criminal justice system as well as common sense.

thing is, george, none of those degrees depends on the race, nationality, sexual orientation of the victim

 

[George Costanza]

Here is my analogy.

If someone burns a cross on my lawn because I'm an asshole, that is one thing. If someone does because I'm black or a Catholic then there is a historical intimidation trying to take place.

Should that person get a bigger sentence for trying to intimidate based on religious/ethnic background? Does it amount to terrorism?

I have not decided.

Let me help you decide. If you are black, you have done nothing wrong. You have done nothing to deserve being attacked. Any attack on you would be irrational. If you are an asshole, on the other hand, you have done something wrong. An attack on you, while still illegal, is much more understandable than an attack on a black person merely because he is a black person.

Victims of hate crimes are much more innocent and vulnerable than victims of "standard" assaults, since they did nothing to provoke the attack. Therefore, people who attack members of minority groups deserve to be punished more for their actions.

 

[George Costanza]

but the eyes of the law are supposed to be blind to that and treat the CRIME and not the reason

Do you agree that the worse the crime, the harsher should be the punishment? I think you, or anyone, would have to agree with that. Murder deserves a harsher punishment than petty theft. With me so far?

Well, the law imposes harsher sentences for varying DEGREES of the SAME CRIME in many cases. The law of homicide is probably the best example. The punishment for first degree murder is harsher than for second degree murder. Why? Because first degree murder is considered MORE CULPABLE than second degree murder.

And the "reason" a person commits a murder is very much considered by the law. It is, in fact, the one thing that differentiates a first degree murder from a second degree murder. "Willful and deliberate premeditation" makes it murder one. And where does "willful and deliberate premeditation" take place? In the perp's MIND. In other words, what he is THINKING determines the degree of the crime.

Now the law of homicide has been around for several centuries, and it hasn't changed very much. I doubt that you are going to get very far, arguing that all murderers should be treated the same, regardless of the degree of the crime.

OK, instead of murder, let's talk about the crime of assault. Hate crimes operate on the assumption that there are DEGREES of assault, just as there are degrees of murder. In other words, some assaults are "worse" than other assaults. An assault committed because the victim is of a certain race, ethnic group, or sexual orientation, is considered MORE CULPABLE than an assault committed for some other reason.

Why? Because the victim in a hate crime did absolutely nothing to provoke the attack except to be a member of the group despised by the attacker. The victim is totally innocent, as opposed to the victims of "regular" assaults, who generally are not totally innocent and who generally did something to provoke the attack.

There are numerous other examples of the law imposing harsher punishment for varying degrees of the same crime. Robbery, burglary, sexual assaults all involve this concept.

So don't say that the law should ignore the "reason" (motivation) behind the crime and impose the same punishment regardless. An analysis such as that flies against both the reality of our criminal justice system as well as common sense.

thing is, george, none of those degrees depends on the race, nationality, sexual orientation of the victim

That's a different issue. We are discussing here your blanket statement that the law should consider all crimes equally, regardless of degree. I am pointing out to you why that is not what the law does, and have given you a number of examples.

Hate crime legislation breaks new ground - but supported by the basic, underlying and well established principle that varying degrees of crime deserve varying degrees of punishment. There is no reason not to apply this principle to hate crimes. The fact that it involves the race, nationality or sexual orientation of the victim is irrelevant.

 

[GHook93]

Someone tell Kate Couric this because the biggest travesty to her is all the anti-Muslim bigotry!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqDDdBC0500[/ame]

Word to the world, the reason antisemitism is so high in New York is because of the large Muslim population! They cry like little girls about being discriminated against and persecuted, yet they are the biggest perpetrators of bigotry, discrimination and hatred inspired violence!

ALBANY -- Hate crimes across New York state jumped 14 percent in 2009, led by an increase in attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions, state records released yesterday show.

There were 683 hate crimes reported to police authorities across the state in 2009 compared with 599 in 2008, according to a report released by the state Division of Criminal Justice Services.

Anti-Semitic incidents, which made up 37 percent of the reported hate crimes, were up 15 percent in one year, from 219 in 2008 to 251 in 2009.

The report found anti-black crimes, 21 percent of the total, were down slightly from 147 in 2008 to 144 in 2009. Anti-white hate crimes increased from 21 to 29.

Anti-gay hate crimes were up sharply, with those targeting male homosexuals jumping 32 percent, from 62 to 82, and those aimed at lesbians up by more than 200 percent, from eight to 25.

Crimes motivated by anti-Muslim sentiment rose from eight to 11.

Read more: Hate crimes up 14 percent in New York state - NYPOST.com

Hmmm. Interesting numbers, eh?

 

[Valerie]

Someone tell Kate Couric this because the biggest travesty to her is all the anti-Muslim bigotry!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqDDdBC0500

Word to the world, the reason antisemitism is so high in New York is because of the large Muslim population! They cry like little girls about being discriminated against and persecuted, yet they are the biggest perpetrators of bigotry, discrimination and hatred inspired violence!

ALBANY -- Hate crimes across New York state jumped 14 percent in 2009, led by an increase in attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions, state records released yesterday show.

There were 683 hate crimes reported to police authorities across the state in 2009 compared with 599 in 2008, according to a report released by the state Division of Criminal Justice Services.

Anti-Semitic incidents, which made up 37 percent of the reported hate crimes, were up 15 percent in one year, from 219 in 2008 to 251 in 2009.

The report found anti-black crimes, 21 percent of the total, were down slightly from 147 in 2008 to 144 in 2009. Anti-white hate crimes increased from 21 to 29.

Anti-gay hate crimes were up sharply, with those targeting male homosexuals jumping 32 percent, from 62 to 82, and those aimed at lesbians up by more than 200 percent, from eight to 25.

Crimes motivated by anti-Muslim sentiment rose from eight to 11.

Read more: Hate crimes up 14 percent in New York state - NYPOST.com

Hmmm. Interesting numbers, eh?

I'm glad you quoted the OP cuz I meant to ask about these numbers...

What exactly is UP 14%...convictions or allegations...?






"Word to the world, the reason antisemitism is so high in New York is because of the large Muslim population! They cry like little girls about being discriminated against and persecuted, yet they are the biggest perpetrators of bigotry, discrimination and hatred inspired violence!"




They too stand to be subject to the same laws...

 

[Tank]

Anti-white hate crimes increased from 21 to 29.

I guess voting for Obama did not impress them.

 

[Synthaholic]

ALBANY -- Hate crimes across New York state jumped 14 percent in 2009, led by an increase in attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions, state records released yesterday show.

There were 683 hate crimes reported to police authorities across the state in 2009 compared with 599 in 2008, according to a report released by the state Division of Criminal Justice Services.

Anti-Semitic incidents, which made up 37 percent of the reported hate crimes, were up 15 percent in one year, from 219 in 2008 to 251 in 2009.

The report found anti-black crimes, 21 percent of the total, were down slightly from 147 in 2008 to 144 in 2009. Anti-white hate crimes increased from 21 to 29.

Anti-gay hate crimes were up sharply, with those targeting male homosexuals jumping 32 percent, from 62 to 82, and those aimed at lesbians up by more than 200 percent, from eight to 25.

Crimes motivated by anti-Muslim sentiment rose from eight to 11.

Read more: Hate crimes up 14 percent in New York state - NYPOST.com

Hmmm. Interesting numbers, eh?

Very interesting, since wingnuts are always claiming there is no such thing as hate crimes, just crimes.

But wingnuts change definitions to suit their political goals almost daily.

Same old, same old.

 

[Montrovant]

There is a huge difference between determining reason and determining intent. Premeditation is not a good analogy when discussing hate crimes.

Part of my problem is that I am far more comfortable with having mitigating circumstances lessen a sentence than increase one. Further, I think that determining whether circumstances merit a change in sentence should be done, as much as is possible, on a case-by-case basis. Obviously there will be precedent, guidelines and rules which are followed, but I do not know that hate crimes cover all the possible situations. As I believe someone else said, perhaps it would be better to simply have all crimes without any apparent provocation receive harsher sentences, without the need to use any specifics about the motivation. Whether it is because of race, religion, or the cut of someone's clothes, if there is no provocation, consider it the same.

The issue is one of equality of justice. We have enough problems with unequal justice and I don't like seeing more created. If hate crimes do not cover all situations where the victim provided no provocation, that is not equal justice.

 

[Montrovant]

People who are opposed to hate crime legislation are opposed to legislation designed to help minorities. That is the definition of covert racism. Covert racists do precisely that. They support programs that impede minorities and are opposed to programs that help minorities.

I am not at all "surprised" when posters such as these fling adolescent insults. Such is to be expected from posters of that ilk.

If hate crime legislation is designed to only help minorities it is itself racist. Hate crimes can be committed against anyone, minority or not.

I don't recall anyone here supporting programs impeding minorities.

Even assuming it is perfectly reasonable to support unequal justice for minorities, hate crimes only help minorities some of the time. The minority man beat up because someone didn't like the band on his t-shirt; the minority woman who's business is vandalized because someone thought it was ugly; any of a vast array of possibilities of minorities victimized without provocation would not be covered by hate crimes from my understanding.

You wish to see racism from anyone opposing your view on this and so you do, regardless of the facts. You assume anyone who disagrees with you must support programs that impede minorities, which is utterly ridiculous. You talk about people flinging adolescent insults; are yours more adult, and therefore more palatable? Despite various arguments having nothing to do with racism or any other bigotry being put forth for why some of us oppose hate crime legislation, you have accused me and every other person opposed of being racists, apparently secure in your self-righteous ignorance that there is no possible reason other than racism to oppose such legislation. Now, if you said my opinion is wrong, or even that I'm an idiot for holding that opinion, it is one thing; making baseless accusations which are completely disconnected from the things I've posted is another. I imagine THAT is why you have seen these adolescent insults.

My opposition to hate crime legislation has nothing to do with racism. If you insist on ascribing reasons to my opposition I have neither stated nor hold, perhaps adolescent insults are all you deserve.

 

[AllieBaba]

ALBANY -- Hate crimes across New York state jumped 14 percent in 2009, led by an increase in attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions, state records released yesterday show.

There were 683 hate crimes reported to police authorities across the state in 2009 compared with 599 in 2008, according to a report released by the state Division of Criminal Justice Services.

Anti-Semitic incidents, which made up 37 percent of the reported hate crimes, were up 15 percent in one year, from 219 in 2008 to 251 in 2009.

The report found anti-black crimes, 21 percent of the total, were down slightly from 147 in 2008 to 144 in 2009. Anti-white hate crimes increased from 21 to 29.

Anti-gay hate crimes were up sharply, with those targeting male homosexuals jumping 32 percent, from 62 to 82, and those aimed at lesbians up by more than 200 percent, from eight to 25.

Crimes motivated by anti-Muslim sentiment rose from eight to 11.

Read more: Hate crimes up 14 percent in New York state - NYPOST.com

Hmmm. Interesting numbers, eh?

Not really. The attempt to make it look as if they are justified is pretty abhorrent, however. Jews have been moving out of France and trying to get the UN to recognize increased anti semitism for YEARS and have been ignored by everyone.

I posted reams of material about this very subject something like a year ago. So if you're implying that anti-semitism is justified, you're full of shit. I hope that isn't what you're implying.

 

[Samson]

ALBANY -- Hate crimes across New York state jumped 14 percent in 2009, led by an increase in attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions, state records released yesterday show.

There were 683 hate crimes reported to police authorities across the state in 2009 compared with 599 in 2008, according to a report released by the state Division of Criminal Justice Services.

Anti-Semitic incidents, which made up 37 percent of the reported hate crimes, were up 15 percent in one year, from 219 in 2008 to 251 in 2009.

The report found anti-black crimes, 21 percent of the total, were down slightly from 147 in 2008 to 144 in 2009. Anti-white hate crimes increased from 21 to 29.

Anti-gay hate crimes were up sharply, with those targeting male homosexuals jumping 32 percent, from 62 to 82, and those aimed at lesbians up by more than 200 percent, from eight to 25.

Crimes motivated by anti-Muslim sentiment rose from eight to 11.

Read more: Hate crimes up 14 percent in New York state - NYPOST.com

Hmmm. Interesting numbers, eh?

Not really. The attempt to make it look as if they are justified is pretty abhorrent, however. Jews have been moving out of France and trying to get the UN to recognize increased anti semitism for YEARS and have been ignored by everyone.

I posted reams of material about this very subject something like a year ago. So if you're implying that anti-semitism is justified, you're full of shit. I hope that isn't what you're implying.

No, the implication seems to be that since Obama was elected, there are more, not less, hate crimes.

 

[Ravi]

Here is my analogy.

If someone burns a cross on my lawn because I'm an asshole, that is one thing. If someone does because I'm black or a Catholic then there is a historical intimidation trying to take place.

Should that person get a bigger sentence for trying to intimidate based on religious/ethnic background? Does it amount to terrorism?

I have not decided.

if someone burns a cross on your lawn for ANY reason they should get the same punishment

They are two different crimes. One is vandalism. One is more threatening.

 

[Ravi]

Here is my analogy.

If someone burns a cross on my lawn because I'm an asshole, that is one thing.

If someone does because I'm black or a Catholic then there is a historical intimidation trying to take place.

Should that person get a bigger sentence for trying to intimidate based on religious/ethnic background? Does it amount to terrorism?

I have not decided.

You recognize that one is one thing and the other is another, with the difference based on intimidation which the argument is, if further measurable harm can be demonstrated then why shouldn't the punishment be able to meet the difference...?

Why does premeditated murder get a larger sentence...the crime is the same.

 

[manifold]

Why does premeditated murder get a larger sentence...the crime is the same.

They are not the same.

If it can be proven that a fag basher had premeditated plans to go out that night and kick a queers head in, then I would support a harsher sentence. And that does not require speculating about what resides in his heart.

 

[Annie]

Why does premeditated murder get a larger sentence...the crime is the same.

They are not the same.

If it can be proven that a fag basher had premeditated plans to go out that night and kick a queers head in, then I would support a harsher sentence. And that does not require speculating about what resides in his heart.

Yet if proven that it was premeditated the sentencing rules, as well as charges sought, already address that situation.

 

[Ravi]

Why does premeditated murder get a larger sentence...the crime is the same.

They are not the same.

If it can be proven that a fag basher had premeditated plans to go out that night and kick a queers head in, then I would support a harsher sentence. And that does not require speculating about what resides in his heart.

That's what I mean by concrete proof...it must be. Same with premeditated murder.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm half German. So maybe my attacker would receive the sentence he deserves if he were to call me a mutt Nazi piece of shit.

Assuming you're white, you could be a victim of a hate crime if you were attacked because you're white. Whites are not a minority in this country.

If you are a Christian, you could be a victim of a hate crime if you were attacked because you're Christian. Christians are not a minority in this country.