Well, Robbie, this is true. But, we all know that the subject invites a powder keg. I’m very well aware of the Christian Newton murders because of LaShawn Barber’s blog where we had a long, long conversation about this subject and these people. These innocent young people were tortured taliban style before they were killed. It’s almost too overwhelming to read about. No hate crimes have been charged, but of, course, there are no live witnesses to attest to whether it was a hate crime or not.

After really looking into this situation, I find that hate crimes, black on white or white on black are irrelevant when it comes to the horrors endured in torturous crimes. Let’s prosecute to the max for crimes of this nature, no matter the race. I am almost tempted to once again support the death penalty for crimes like Christopher/ Newsome. These poor young innocent people suffered. What we have here is man’s inhumanity to man. It doesn’t matter the color. It does matter the severity of the crime.

I will say one other thing, however. The demise of the family is absolutely a cause of criminal activity in this country and yes, that is way more statistically significant in the black community. People can deny it all they want, but facts are facts. Now, that’s not to excuse white fatherless families where the same dang thing happens. And, it is usually coupled with poverty, which leads to gangs and all kinds of antisocial behavior but poverty does not excuse violence.

Well, fire away folks…but that’s the way I see it.

Left by Dianne on June 15th, 2007 at 8:07 pm

“The demise of the family is absolutely a cause of criminal activity in this country and yes, that is way more statistically significant in the black community.”
i wanted to agree and join the land of reality before the pc police start calling folks racists for stating facts.

the murders of these 2 people were especially sick and the perps should face the full penalties available. that said, this is no more a “hate crime” than any other assault, rape, or murder. while motive does constitute a portion of evidence, it’s outlandish to create seperate criminal offenses that are dictated by it. frankly, i have a hard time hating these 4 thugs any more, even if there is proof that they’re racists. being a bigot, while certainly undesirable isn’t and shouldn’t be illegal. killing and raping people on the other hand…

the fact is that lack of clarity about what constitutes “hate crimes” is just further evidence that the out of control pc atmosphere that america has become is completely flawed. this type of ultra liberal backlash, in my opinion, is a major contributer to the “demise of the family” that diane spoke about. hate crimes statutes were created to protect people from discriminatory violence. while this is an admirable goal, it’s simply not practical. is a white guy beating a black guy, while screaming racist remarks any more disturbing than a 25 year old beating down an old lady for the $50 in her purse? to some maybe, but not to me. i use this example because it highlights the obvious. both offenders are guilty of the same crime but have different motives.

who are the protected classes? sure hate crimes are intended to protect black people and gay people, but are their lives/wellbeing any more significant than the lives of white people or the elderly. i submit, that commiting violent assaults of any kind against any person (except in very limited circumstances), requires some degree of “hate”. let’s just stick with prosecuting the crime itself and pass on tacking on extra penalties based on perceived intentions. even prior to the existance of “hate crimes”, judges during sentencing were permitted to take the circumstannces of a crime into account before ruling. aren’t we really just hammering a thumbtack with a sledgehammer here to denounce discrimination?

Left by adam on June 15th, 2007 at 9:46 pm

The problem we have here is the fact that governments are telling us to see past colour and race and then at the same time they are telling us racism is alive and well here in the UK, and in a strange way, they are keeping the flame alive.

If I was to kill a white man (I am white myself), I would either be faced with a charge of manslaughter or murder.
If I was to kill a man of differing race, I would be charged with a ‘race’ crime. The difference between me killing a black man or a white man is about 30 years in prison.

How can that be justified?
If we are being told that all race is equal and and we need to see past the colour of someones skin, how can they then tell us that killing different races equates to different times served in prison?

Is a black man more important than a white man?
How can they tell us its equal, when the punishment suggests otherwise.

Are we soon to have ’sexist’ crimes? Crimes against thouse with ginger hair? Maybe a different class for those who kill people with a slight limp?

Man is man in my opinion, and it would do us all a lot of good if do-gooding politicains kept their baby hands to themselves.

Jonny

Left by Jon on June 16th, 2007 at 4:27 am

jon,

we’re finally together on one. well put. nice to hear from you again.

Left by adam on June 18th, 2007 at 9:41 am

I am as lukewarm on hate crime laws as all of you but it’s not like they are totally baseless. If I burn a garbage can on Robbie’s lawn I should be arrested for any number of crimes. If I burn a cross on the lawn of, say, an African American who has been registering voters there is an entirely different set of connotations and intimidation.

That said, I just can’t support hate crime laws because of what George Bush calls the soft bigotry of low expectations: the implication is there is an expectation of violence from African Americans while violence from whites must be the result of premeditation.

I think that judicial system is better served by allowing prosecuters to determine if there is a more nefarious intent in, say, the choice of object that I burn in Robby’s yard and allow them to adjust the charges based on that rather than tacking on another law that attempts to read the mind of the perp.

Left by Preston on June 18th, 2007 at 9:25 pm

i agree; they aren’t baseless. hate crimes statutes were created to protect people from discriminatory violence. while this is an admirable goal, it’s simply not practical.
in your hypothetical scenario, you suggest that the fear that you cause robbie or his family is less significant than the fear of the black voter registration advocates family. i strongly disagree and believe this is the type of ultra liberal backlash that is a major contributer to the “demise of the family”. why should we legislate additional opportunities for people to view themselves as victims? it’s counterproductive.
additionally, creating protected classes of people is a form of discrimination; doing it based on race, like in this case, is reverse racism. the scary thing about that is the offender genuinely wants to protect people that he/she feels are potential victims. in trying to do so, they become guilty of what they want to prevent.
what is wrong with allowing judges to sentence guilty convicts based on the degree of “nefarious intent”? why should we have seperate laws that do that or ask prosecutors to creatively charge people differently?
the fact is setting fires on peoples yards is at very least defacing private property, but could also be considered arson. depending upon the result, it could even be murder or attempted murder. not endangering folks and respecting their property are important in the eyes of the law, therefore these things are illegal, period. when we start looking at what was burnt or why, we divert attention from the crime.
as for the “soft bigotry of low expectations” : i think some could benefit from reading or rereading robbies quote from the tribune above. is it bigotry to have low expectations if statistics say low expectations are appropriate?

Left by adam on June 18th, 2007 at 10:13 pm

you suggest that the fear that you cause robbie or his family is less significant than the fear of the black voter registration advocates family. i strongly disagree

A fair point. But my point is that there is a meaning in a burning cross or a swastika that is absent from a random act of vandalism. Presumably both families feel fear from the violation of personal space but the intent of, say, a burning garbage can is decidedly more ambiguous than that of a symbol used to intimidate for generations to silence racial minorities.

I agree that judges- along with prosecutors- play a key role in determining intent. But this happens every day as it is. If I were to kill someone today you might expect me to be charged with murder. But if I kill someone by pushing them off a cliff as we’re horseplaying you wouldn’t expect a charge more than manslaughter. If I’m in a car and I run over a guy crossing the street most likely I will likely to be given a ‘failure to yield’ ticket in my town. In each case a person is dead yet the legal system treats the actions differently by intent (though not by the protected status of the victim)- that’s a system I’m comfortable with.

is it bigotry to have low expectations if statistics say low expectations are appropriate?
Yes, judging people solely by the color of their skin is bigotry.

Left by Preston on June 19th, 2007 at 6:01 am

“judging people solely by the color of their skin is bigotry.”
then i would say i more often encounter black bigots than white ones.

while historically bigotry by blacks may have been easier to justify, quite the opposite seems to be suggested by modern statistics. “… In 90 percent of those crimes, black offenders attacked white victims,” seems to be based as much on a higher likilihood of violence as it is “soley on skin color”. doesn’ that mean that acting on ones awareness of the facts is not bigotry but an informed, inteligent, & safe discrimination?

Left by adam on June 19th, 2007 at 8:49 am

If I burn a garbage can on Robbie’s lawn I should be arrested for any number of crimes. If I burn a cross on the lawn of, say, an African American who has been registering voters there is an entirely different set of connotations and intimidation

I too disagree with this.
We will never have a society free from racisim if people keep on making a distinction between different acts of criminality.
Burning a bin on Robbies lawn is as bad as burning a cross on a black mans lawn. Both are criminal and both show signs that the basis for the attack is hatred of the one you do it to.

The only difference is when it is decided that the reason for commiting an offense is not one of hatred or revenge.
But that should be all encompassing of ALL crime regardless of race.

Jonny

Left by Jonny on June 20th, 2007 at 4:36 am

We will never have a society free from racisim if people keep on making a distinction between different acts of criminality.

Jonny- I trust you mean making a distinction based on race because otherwise it happens every day.

In any case, this makes no sense to me. If I send a letter to my neighbor that says “You’re stupid” I doubt that the law would blink. If I send a letter that says “You better watch out or I’ll kill you” I’m likely to have a restraining order pretty quickly.

That is the essential difference in message in burning a cross compared to any other random object. Luckily, the law attempts to distinguish between the two.

Left by Preston on June 20th, 2007 at 5:49 am

Not quite Preston. Not sure where you live but the emphasis where I live is squared soley on the shoulders of those whos actions ‘may’ be construde as racist simply because the offended party is in a racial minority.
The race card gets called too quickly in my opinion.
I am not allowed to have an arguement with a man of differing race without somebody questioning whether the basis of the argument is racist.
This is what I am getting at. A simple can of garbage on Robbies lawn may appear to be a non descript item to you, but what if Robbie had a connection with someone being killed by a garbage truck (god forbid)?
Without knowing the history behind a reason for any specific crime, you have just fallen into the trap of ‘assuming’ that a burning cross is a racist act, whereas a garbage can isn’t.

Thats the problem we will continue to have if we think of any crimes being so different from each other based on the fact that some are ‘obviously’ racist.

Jonny

Left by Jonny on June 20th, 2007 at 8:46 am

I don’t think I’ve suggested that a prosecutor and judge could treat the burning of a trash can as harshly as a cross if it was indeed found to be an act of unusual cruelty or intimidation.

I’m not a lawyer but I don’t believe I am proposing anything new. As it stands charges and sentencing vary based on the circumstances of the crime. In fact I am just suggesting that this continues rather than adding on addition ‘hate crimes’ charges.

Left by Preston on June 21st, 2007 at 5:46 am

We have what we call the reasonable man standard in the US. Would a reasonable man think a burning trash can was a racist act? Would a reasonable man, more specifically, a reasonable black man think a burning cross on his lawn was a racist act?

Left by kma on June 21st, 2007 at 10:35 am

Be careful KMA, you look like your agreeing with a left wing euro weenie here (AKA Preston!)

I was one of those at one time I think - those where the times

My point Preston, is that it is automatically thought that a burning can is nothing more that a vandal act whereas a buring cross is racist.

I agree that that is what history dictates us to think, and you are answering my point perfectly by suggesting the same fact.

So how do we move on? If a burning cross is to be an effigy for a racist attack, then every burning cross the police encounter will be more important than a burning trash can.

And then in spirals.

We will never get past the point of a racist or non racist attack.
Every attack will be one of the two, but the fact they have had to be screened by either makes it a little strange.

What is the trash can was full of magazines of naked black women?

What if the cross was nothing more than a support stick for a white scarecrow the farmer just wanted to get rid of.

You see my point?

The instant response to consider something ‘racist’ is holding us back from actually understanding the true intention of such crime.
And i’m sorry to say it, but the left wing attitude to this is a bloody nightmare!

Jonny

Left by Jon on June 21st, 2007 at 6:12 pm

why is it when a minority is subjected to a hurendous crime,the media and the village people yell,hate crime!!!and you have nation wide outcry and demands from the race hustlers for swift justice!and yet,when a white couple or for that matter,any white person is subjected to the same type of crimes,all you can here from the world of news media and the race hstlers are………………play the song for the white devils,silance is golden!p.s who came up with the kook,klutz,klowns idea?

Left by gene on August 22nd, 2007 at 7:00 pm