Escalating Anti-Asian Youth Violence

[achtungbaby]

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (AP) -- Police have arrested a 14-year-old boy who allegedly beat a Vietnamese student with a bat in what police and school officials say is the latest in escalating violence against Asian youth.

The boy, whose identity has not been made public, was arrested Saturday morning on a warrant, officer Ayala Carmen of the Springfield Police Department's Youth Assessment Center said.

The warrant, issued Friday, charged the teenager with assault with a dangerous weapons and violating the victim's civil rights.

Four High School of Science and Technology students, two age 15 and two age 17, were getting off their school bus Monday when they were allegedly set upon by a group of four or five Hispanic and black males making anti-Vietnamese statements, police said.

One of the 15-year-old boys spent two days in the hospital, while the other three were treated and released.

The 14-year-old alleged attacker was charged with civil rights violations because of the anti-Vietnamese statements, Officer Michael Carney told The Union-News of Springfield.

``We want to send a clear message to the community that we will not tolerate this type of behavior in the schools, or on or off the buses,'' Carney said. ``Contrary to what some believe, students go to school to be educated and that's their civil right and we will protect them.''

Police have asked the state Attorney General's Office to review the police documents to consider issuing a civil rights injunction, Carney said.

If granted, it would keep the perpetrator from approaching the victims or anyone else in the state they believe to be Vietnamese.

John F. Maloney, who runs city school department's transportation, said he has been working with police since the last school year to protect Asian students.

Maloney said Vietnamese and Laotian students appear to be targets.

Assistant Superintendent Mario F. Cirillo Jr. said school officials have been aware of the situation since last spring and have been working with police to keep students safe.

Chau T. Van, executive director of the Springfield Vietnamese-American Civic Association, said he was not surprised by the attack.

"It's been happening in the community. We want to stop the hatred,'' he said.

Police said the investigation is continuing.

[optiontoo]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 8 2002, 04:40 PM
John F. Maloney, who runs city school department's transportation, said he has been working with police since the last school year to protect Asian students.
Hah, that's a laugh. They should be protecting students, not just Asian students. (What if you're half Asian? Quarter? You claim to be Asian by association??) If students beating on other students were, like caned or something, I don't think there'd be many fights. ;-)

[kasia]

so the civil rights claim is in relation to their status as students, not minority members? why are we *so* reluctant to use hate crime enhancements??

[ChairmanMah]

move or form a gang.

[optiontoo]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 9 2002, 06:16 AM
why are we *so* reluctant to use hate crime enhancements??
I think hate crime laws are bogus to begin with. First of all, what makes homosexuals or minorities so special that if they are bothered, the perpetrator is treated stiffly by the justice system? (Some people are more equal than others?)

Also, hate crime laws leave far too many ends open to interpretation, and thus, abuse. You could have some WASP get his ass kicked in a bar over hitting on someone else's wife. But oh, he's the head of his religious sector (a legal religion that nobody else has even heard of) and voila, it's a hate crime.

[Reinhard H.]

I agree that "hate crime" is bogus, what is better about killing a person because you want to rob his money than killing him because you hate his race? Also, hatred comes in all shapes and sizes, how do you define what is hatred? If I walked through some black ghetto I might get myself killed and probably it wouldn't be called a hate crime, because of course when whites are killed no "hate" is involved.

[wylin]

Originally posted by ChairmanMah@Oct 8 2002, 10:58 PM
move or form a gang.
u mean like they do in westminster and north orange county california. nice.

lets see the Vietnese For Life, VC, and other vietnamese gangs arent enuff. hmm lets start one in mass and call it Vetcong Crazy Boys...and arm themselves w/ Ak47s and rice hats hell ya solves alota problems.

[achtungbaby]

From stopthehate.org:

A hate crime is a criminal offense committed against persons, property or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by an offender's bias against an individual's or a group's race, religion, ethnic/national origin, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation. (Definition developed at the 1998 IACP Summit on Hate Crime in America.)

So yes, this includes white people. No one is saying one group is better than another, but our country has a history of persecuting minorities, and hate crime legislation, though not perfect, was enacted to severely punish anyone who gets the notion in their heads that beating down on another people is okay, particularly in a society whose playing field is already uneven.

And it's not as if it's easy to be accused of a hate crime either. The attack and murder of a gay man in West Hollywood recently and the D.A.'s decision to not pursue a hate crime conviction is just one example; Richard Labbe's murder of 62 year-old Thung Phetakoune and the D.A.'s decision there to not charge him with a hate crime is another. And yes, it's up the a D.A. to decide whether certain offenses will be prosecuted as hate crimes, so yes, there is a degree of interpretation, but practically everything about the law is how well you can effectively interpret it.

Throw in the fact that we had more hate crime incidents last year than ever before in LA County -- and yeah, I think we need 'em.

Sometimes it's hard to conceive of ugliness in our own worlds, or to ever understand how people can be if we've never been taken advantage of. But people suck. Hate crime legislation attempts to make them suck less.

[optiontoo]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 9 2002, 07:33 PM
...there is a degree of interpretation, but practically everything about the law is how well you can effectively interpret it.
I think establishing motivation is reason enough to abolish hate crime laws. How can you establish someone's motivation and use it as evidence?

If the prosecuting attorney on a hate crime case is some $1,500-an-hour job and the defendant has to rely on a public defender, of course motivation will be proved whether it existed or not. Some white guy accidentally bumps into some asian kid in the subway station and he ends up on the tracks...

Perhaps some DAs don't charge people with hate crimes because (A) the laws are too convulted; (B) hate crime cases draw excessive attention from the media, putting the court under the public microscope; © court rulings could come back to haunt other "hate crime" defendants in future rulings... etc.

Did you know you can start a legal religion on the Internet? You can become an ordained priest too. CRAP like this could seriously alter someone's future.

[thaite]

Originally posted by optiontoo@Oct 9 2002, 05:00 PM
Did you know you can start a legal religion on the Internet? You can become an ordained priest too.
Yeah, I know. I did that. I'm an ordained minister of the ULC. Anybody wanna get married?

[optiontoo]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 9 2002, 07:33 PM
but our country has a history of persecuting minorities
And one more thing while I'm busting down your logic. ;-)

Which country in the world would you like to be the most unpopular minority in? The US or maybe someplace in Asia, the Middle East...? (Anarctica doesn't count.)

[wylin]

Originally posted by buoywonder@Oct 9 2002, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by optiontoo@Oct 9 2002, 05:00 PM
Did you know you can start a legal religion on the Internet?  You can become an ordained priest too.
Yeah, I know. I did that. I'm an ordained minister of the ULC. Anybody wanna get married?
dammit i just wanna be a jedi knight

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 9 2002, 07:33 PM
From stopthehate.org:

A hate crime is a criminal offense committed against persons, property or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by an offender's bias against an individual's or a group's race, religion, ethnic/national origin, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation. (Definition developed at the 1998 IACP Summit on Hate Crime in America.)

So yes, this includes white people. No one is saying one group is better than another, but our country has a history of persecuting minorities, and hate crime legislation, though not perfect, was enacted to severely punish anyone who gets the notion in their heads that beating down on another people is okay, particularly in a society whose playing field is already uneven.

And it's not as if it's easy to be accused of a hate crime either. The attack and murder of a gay man in West Hollywood recently and the D.A.'s decision to not pursue a hate crime conviction is just one example; Richard Labbe's murder of 62 year-old Thung Phetakoune and the D.A.'s decision there to not charge him with a hate crime is another. And yes, it's up the a D.A. to decide whether certain offenses will be prosecuted as hate crimes, so yes, there is a degree of interpretation, but practically everything about the law is how well you can effectively interpret it.

Throw in the fact that we had more hate crime incidents last year than ever before in LA County -- and yeah, I think we need 'em.

Sometimes it's hard to conceive of ugliness in our own worlds, or to ever understand how people can be if we've never been taken advantage of. But people suck. Hate crime legislation attempts to make them suck less.
I agree with you. I think hate crime laws are good. And I don't think hate really can only apply to minorities. I think it makes sense to punish people committing hate crimes more because these crimes are so much more senseless than killing somebody for his wallet. Hate crimes are killing 'cuz you want to preserve your kind or something.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by optiontoo@Oct 10 2002, 12:00 AM
I think establishing motivation is reason enough to abolish hate crime laws. How can you establish someone's motivation and use it as evidence?

If the prosecuting attorney on a hate crime case is some $1,500-an-hour job and the defendant has to rely on a public defender, of course motivation will be proved whether it existed or not. Some white guy accidentally bumps into some asian kid in the subway station and he ends up on the tracks...

Perhaps some DAs don't charge people with hate crimes because (A) the laws are too convulted; (B) hate crime cases draw excessive attention from the media, putting the court under the public microscope; © court rulings could come back to haunt other "hate crime" defendants in future rulings... etc.

Did you know you can start a legal religion on the Internet? You can become an ordained priest too. CRAP like this could seriously alter someone's future.
I don't think it's hard to recognize a hate crime. For the most part, all the hate crime cases I've seen, it was pretty obvious that it was a hate crime. And I think something is only considered a "hate crime" when there's blantant evidence for it. Hence the statement made earlier that it isn't easy to be charged for a hate crime.

When the criminal is making comments like how he wants to rid the world of gays, I think it's fair to say he killed gay people out of hate.

[optiontoo]

...hate crimes more because these crimes are so much more senseless than killing somebody for his wallet

OH REALLY? So killing someone for the $200 in their wallet is more acceptable than killing someone because you hate them?

Heh, don't mean to pick on anyone but statements like that make it easier to drive my point.

it was pretty obvious that it was a hate crime. And I think something is only considered a "hate crime" when there's blantant evidence for it.

I'm pretty sure the average $1,500/hour lawyer can make the most circumstantial evidence appear "blatant" and the nature of the crime "pretty obvious." Don't forget that things you read in the news are ALWAYS biased. It might be wording, it might be tone, and it might even be subtle, but it's always biased. (We have TV and print media ratings and advertising dollars to thank for that - just a fact of life.)

Hate crime laws might be good and well for a two-dimensional world where things work as expected. But, there will always be ways to use the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law. Hate crime laws put priorities on religious, racial and sexual groups.

If you go into any courthouse you'll see the Lady Justice holding the scales. Have you ever wondered why she's wearing the blindfold?

[angel nympho]

OH REALLY?  So killing someone for the $200 in their wallet is more acceptable than killing someone because you hate them?

Heh, don't mean to pick on anyone but statements like that make it easier to drive my point.

Umm.. Actually, I never said anything about anything being acceptable. I said it's more SENSELESS. There is a difference between violence between two people arguing, and SENSELESS violence. And, I guess if you really want to get into it, then yes, I think that killing some random person you see on the street is a lot worse than killing somebody for a reason... like, say... self-defense? I mean, if what you think is true, then do you think people who kill out of self defense deserve the same punishment as those who kill because they want to rid the world of Asians?

I'm pretty sure the average $1,500/hour lawyer can make the most circumstantial evidence appear "blatant" and the nature of the crime "pretty obvious." Don't forget that things you read in the news are ALWAYS biased.  It might be wording, it might be tone, and it might even be subtle, but it's always biased.  (We have TV and print media ratings and advertising dollars to thank for that - just a fact of life.)

Hate crime laws might be good and well for a two-dimensional world where things work as expected.  But, there will always be ways to use the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law.  Hate crime laws put priorities on religious, racial and sexual groups.  

If you go into any courthouse you'll see the Lady Justice holding the scales.  Have you ever wondered why she's wearing the blindfold?
Well fine. But let's look at reality, here. When is the law EVER blind? I mean, you said so yourself, lawyers can make anything seem the way they want it to seem. In a two-dimensional world where things work as expected, there would be no need for hate crime laws... because if things worked as they were meant to, there really wouldn't be any need to punish anybody.

I don't really care if you think I'm stupid. Sorry if killing somebody because of something they have no control over isn't a senseless act of violence in your opinion.

[optiontoo]

Umm.. Actually, I never said anything about anything being acceptable.  I said it's more SENSELESS.

By saying one thing is more senseless than the other, it's implied that the other thing is more acceptable. Semantics aside, I can think of very few reasons where it's not senseless to kill someone; that's my point. Killing them for no reason versus killing them for a non-legal reason is still killing.

I tend to feel very strongly about this subject, and I'll tell you why whether or not you care. ;-)

When I was first married, my wife and I didn't have a lot of money so we lived in a semi-shitty neighborhood while we saved up to buy a house. Our standard of living was higher than our neighbors because we weren't lazy bums like they were.

So, news spread from our neighbors to our neighbors friends that we were defenseless rich people so hey, why not pull a home invasion robbery?

At the time, I was practicing Muay Thai kickboxing and my friend practiced Kenpo. His Kenpo wooden practice swords were in my house. They're not sharp, but they're hard and they're heavy and you can really hurt someone with 'em.

Anyway, to make a long story relatively short, a "minority" broke into our house at about 4:00 AM one morning. (Actually it was two guys, but one got away.) I heard them tiptoing around the house and when I got up, one of them made like he was pulling a weapon. I grabbed one of the Kenpo swords, assessed the situation and I DID see a gun being drawn. So I struck, and I struck hard. (Ended up breaking the guy's neck - he's a quadraplegic now.)

So there's a criminal case, maybe I used excessive force on this guy. There was talk about me using the word "nigger" before. There was also a civil suit where LARRY H FUCKING PARKER tries to sue me for $250,000. All because I saw a gun (and yes it was loaded and yes it was cocked) and acted to preserve my wife and myself.

OT but my attorney's advice was, "Get yourself a gun. If this happens again, you kill the bastard that breaks into your home. That way you can't be accused of mutilation or hate crime or anything. When the perp's dead, all these things are somehow forgiven and it's called self defense."

In the end, the whole legal battle cost me a lot of money, a lot of grief, and my family a lot of heartache. If it weren't for hate crime laws, none of the court proceedings would have happened. In the end, I went from feeling remorse for paralyzing the guy to not really giving a shit about him. If he wheeled his chair in front of my moving car, I doubt I'd hit the brakes. (Shit I might speed up.) Laws like these would be far too far too difficult to refine to the point where they're fair.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by optiontoo@Oct 10 2002, 02:26 AM
Umm.. Actually, I never said anything about anything being acceptable. I said it's more SENSELESS.

By saying one thing is more senseless than the other, it's implied that the other thing is more acceptable. Semantics aside, I can think of very few reasons where it's not senseless to kill someone; that's my point. Killing them for no reason versus killing them for a non-legal reason is still killing.

I tend to feel very strongly about this subject, and I'll tell you why whether or not you care. ;-)

When I was first married, my wife and I didn't have a lot of money so we lived in a semi-shitty neighborhood while we saved up to buy a house. Our standard of living was higher than our neighbors because we weren't lazy bums like they were.

So, news spread from our neighbors to our neighbors friends that we were defenseless rich people so hey, why not pull a home invasion robbery?

At the time, I was practicing Muay Thai kickboxing and my friend practiced Kenpo. His Kenpo wooden practice swords were in my house. They're not sharp, but they're hard and they're heavy and you can really hurt someone with 'em.

Anyway, to make a long story relatively short, a "minority" broke into our house at about 4:00 AM one morning. (Actually it was two guys, but one got away.) I heard them tiptoing around the house and when I got up, one of them made like he was pulling a weapon. I grabbed one of the Kenpo swords, assessed the situation and I DID see a gun being drawn. So I struck, and I struck hard. (Ended up breaking the guy's neck - he's a quadraplegic now.)

So there's a criminal case, maybe I used excessive force on this guy. There was talk about me using the word "nigger" before. There was also a civil suit where LARRY H FUCKING PARKER tries to sue me for $250,000. All because I saw a gun (and yes it was loaded and yes it was cocked) and acted to preserve my wife and myself.

OT but my attorney's advice was, "Get yourself a gun. If this happens again, you kill the bastard that breaks into your home. That way you can't be accused of mutilation or hate crime or anything. When the perp's dead, all these things are somehow forgiven and it's called self defense."

In the end, the whole legal battle cost me a lot of money, a lot of grief, and my family a lot of heartache. If it weren't for hate crime laws, none of the court proceedings would have happened. In the end, I went from feeling remorse for paralyzing the guy to not really giving a shit about him. If he wheeled his chair in front of my moving car, I doubt I'd hit the brakes. (Shit I might speed up.) Laws like these would be far too far too difficult to refine to the point where they're fair.
Well, okay then. You have your opinion, I'm not trying to change your mind about anything.

But "senseless" to me does not equate to anything about it being "acceptable." And that's just how I look at the word versus how you look at the word. I, also, can think of very few reasons where killing somebody is not senseless... However, let's turn your situation around. Say this guy broke into your house, not with the intention to rob, but with the intention to kill. Say this guy went into your house wanting to kill you because of the color of your skin. Say this guy succeeds. You did nothing to deserve what happened except exist. You don't think this guy should get slapped with a *hate crime* label and be persecuted more than your hypothetical next door neighbor who killed somebody because this somebody raped his daughter?

And in your defense, I hardly think using the word "nigger" constitutes a hate crime. Unless you're in some strange anti-black society that prides itself on killing blacks.

So we agree to disagree. Big deal. I acknowledge the fact that hate crime laws are flawed, but the general idea of it... I think they're helpful.

[optiontoo]

I do appreciate your willingness to "agree to disagree."

Say this guy went into your house wanting to kill you because of the color of your skin.  Say this guy succeeds.  You did nothing to deserve what happened except exist.

Personally, I don't think people don't deserve to be killed at all, except for the obvious reasons of self defense and such. Killing for money, killing for hate, killing because someone slept with your wife never makes it right. Killing is, in general, always wrong, no matter the reason. (Let's put aside reasons of war aside and stay with one-on-ones for now.)

Either way, the guy did arrive in my house with a loaded firearm. One can assume his intent was to kill, no matter what was said in court. (He claimed to not know the house was occupied.)

I hardly think using the word "nigger" constitutes a hate crime.

Nor do I, and thankfully, nor did the court. Otherwise I might be typing to you from Folsom right now. ;-) (One of my neighbors, apparently trying to get a piece of the pie, said I yelled, 'Fucking niggers!' to a group of kids that threw a bottle thru my window. That event never even happened.)

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by optiontoo@Oct 10 2002, 02:48 AM
I do appreciate your willingness to "agree to disagree."

Say this guy went into your house wanting to kill you because of the color of your skin. Say this guy succeeds. You did nothing to deserve what happened except exist.

Personally, I don't think people don't deserve to be killed at all, except for the obvious reasons of self defense and such. Killing for money, killing for hate, killing because someone slept with your wife never makes it right. Killing is, in general, always wrong, no matter the reason. (Let's put aside reasons of war aside and stay with one-on-ones for now.)

Either way, the guy did arrive in my house with a loaded firearm. One can assume his intent was to kill, no matter what was said in court. (He claimed to not know the house was occupied.)

I hardly think using the word "nigger" constitutes a hate crime.

Nor do I, and thankfully, nor did the court. Otherwise I might be typing to you from Folsom right now. ;-) (One of my neighbors, apparently trying to get a piece of the pie, said I yelled, 'Fucking niggers!' to a group of kids that threw a bottle thru my window. That event never even happened.)
Haha, about the "deserving to be killed" thing, I didn't mean like anybody DESERVES to be killed. I just mean, you did nothing to provoke any act of violence or spite.

And I agree with you, killing in general is always wrong. Even capital punishment is wrong from a moral standpoint. And I don't mean to place a value on anybody's life, but I think there are some times when killing can be... not less wrong, but somewhat... more... argh. I can't find the word. I was going to put "understandable" but I don't think that's the right word for it either. I just mean, sometimes there are reasons as to why people are more punished than others for the same kind of crime. That's why there's first degree murder, homicide, second degree murder, manslaughter.... At least I think so. I'm not too knowledeable on this legal stuff... so if I'm wrong, sorry.

[kasia]

Originally posted by optiontoo@Oct 9 2002, 05:33 PM
I think hate crime laws are bogus to begin with. First of all, what makes homosexuals or minorities so special that if they are bothered, the perpetrator is treated stiffly by the justice system? (Some people are more equal than others?)

Also, hate crime laws leave far too many ends open to interpretation, and thus, abuse. You could have some WASP get his ass kicked in a bar over hitting on someone else's wife. But oh, he's the head of his religious sector (a legal religion that nobody else has even heard of) and voila, it's a hate crime.
there is a great difference in the injury inflicted. not only is the victim injured, but he is injured with the knowledge that his race is the reason for the attack. this causes a great deal of mental trauma, not only for the victim but all people of his race. in addition, attacking a person because of racial animus is much more morally repulsive than doing so for self-interest (i.e., greed).

hate crimes do not leave things open for interpretation. in fact, they are so narrow that they rarely apply to any of the cases that they should be applied to. do you have any idea what you're talking about or are you just pulling things out of your ass? what makes you think that discriminatory motive, as any other motive, is something that does not need to be proven?

[kasia]

Originally posted by optiontoo@Oct 10 2002, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 9 2002, 07:33 PM
...there is a degree of interpretation, but practically everything about the law is how well you can effectively interpret it.
I think establishing motivation is reason enough to abolish hate crime laws. How can you establish someone's motivation and use it as evidence?
.
well, in that case, i suppose we should abolish laws murder, assault, robbery, arson, burglary, not to mention rape. and incohate crimes (i.e., attempts) should not be crimes as well. motive is an element in each of these crimes, and since, by your brilliant conclusion, we cannot establish someone's motive and use it as evidence, these should not be crimes either.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 10 2002, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by optiontoo@Oct 10 2002, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 9 2002, 07:33 PM
...there is a degree of interpretation, but practically everything about the law is how well you can effectively interpret it.
I think establishing motivation is reason enough to abolish hate crime laws. How can you establish someone's motivation and use it as evidence?
.
well, in that case, i suppose we should abolish laws murder, assault, robbery, arson, burglary, not to mention rape. and incohate crimes (i.e., attempts) should not be crimes as well. motive is an element in each of these crimes, and since, by your brilliant conclusion, we cannot establish someone's motive and use it as evidence, these should not be crimes either.
Isn't establishing one's motive a key thing in all that legal stuff, anyway? Usually, don't lawyers use motive to prove that the suspect is likely the one who did what they did?

[optiontoo]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 10 2002, 04:15 AM
well, in that case, i suppose we should abolish laws murder, assault, robbery, arson, burglary, not to mention rape.
Your logic is flawed. Murder, rape, assault (etc) are actions. The prosecution is based on an action, not an intent.

[optiontoo]

there is a great difference in the injury inflicted. not only is the victim injured, but he is injured with the knowledge that his race is the reason for the attack. this causes a great deal of mental trauma, not only for the victim but all people of his race. in addition, attacking a person because of racial animus is much more morally repulsive than doing so for self-interest (i.e., greed).

And for busting my chops, I'll have to ask why you think your opinion of which crime being the more repulsive (greed vs. hate) is gospel? Not everybody will agree that a death over hate is more criminally valuable than a death over greed.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by optiontoo@Oct 10 2002, 06:18 PM
there is a great difference in the injury inflicted. not only is the victim injured, but he is injured with the knowledge that his race is the reason for the attack. this causes a great deal of mental trauma, not only for the victim but all people of his race. in addition, attacking a person because of racial animus is much more morally repulsive than doing so for self-interest (i.e., greed).

And for busting my chops, I'll have to ask why you think your opinion of which crime being the more repulsive (greed vs. hate) is gospel? Not everybody will agree that a death over hate is more criminally valuable than a death over greed.
I see your point, but when somebody gets in trouble for stealing somebody's wallet, it's defended by "Well, I need to eat! The nation does nothing to help the poor and homeless get a head up in life!" Sometimes people can sympathize with the thought. Criminals can be turned into victims. ..Er.. with a good amount of legal guidance.
However, when somebody is in hot water for beating the crap out of a minority in the name of preserving one's race... there's really no excuse for that. And really no way to turn a jury's focus away from the actual crime.
...And... I think that's helpful when persecuting people who harbor extreme hatred towards the unknown.

[kasia]

Originally posted by optiontoo@Oct 10 2002, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by kasia@Oct 10 2002, 04:15 AM
well, in that case, i suppose we should abolish laws murder, assault, robbery, arson, burglary, not to mention rape.
Your logic is flawed. Murder, rape, assault (etc) are actions. The prosecution is based on an action, not an intent.
my logic is flawed? or perhaps your knowledge is limited. intent is an element in each of the above named crimes. you cannot dispute a fact.

[kasia]

Originally posted by optiontoo@Oct 10 2002, 06:18 PM
there is a great difference in the injury inflicted. not only is the victim injured, but he is injured with the knowledge that his race is the reason for the attack. this causes a great deal of mental trauma, not only for the victim but all people of his race. in addition, attacking a person because of racial animus is much more morally repulsive than doing so for self-interest (i.e., greed).

And for busting my chops, I'll have to ask why you think your opinion of which crime being the more repulsive (greed vs. hate) is gospel? Not everybody will agree that a death over hate is more criminally valuable than a death over greed.
because a person's identity, as opposed to his wallet, is being attacked.

[optiontoo]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 11 2002, 02:19 AM
because a person's identity, as opposed to his wallet, is being attacked.
Uh-huh. So everybody on earth would be more offended if their identity was attacked instead of their wallet. I see you're stating solid facts.

Also, if intent is an element in a crime, it's a very small element. Who cares what the intent is, say, in a rape case. Rape is rape. Who cares what the intent is in a murder case; it's still murder. Now if you want to talk MOTIVE, that's a different story. The two have different statutory definitions.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by optiontoo@Oct 11 2002, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by kasia@Oct 11 2002, 02:19 AM
because a person's identity, as opposed to his wallet, is being attacked.
Uh-huh. So everybody on earth would be more offended if their identity was attacked instead of their wallet. I see you're stating solid facts.

Also, if intent is an element in a crime, it's a very small element. Who cares what the intent is, say, in a rape case. Rape is rape. Who cares what the intent is in a murder case; it's still murder. Now if you want to talk MOTIVE, that's a different story. The two have different statutory definitions.
i guess we are getting into legal terms. what's the difference between "intent" and "motive"? what determines the difference between manslaughter and murder? is it intent or motive?

[optiontoo]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 11 2002, 07:03 PM
i guess we are getting into legal terms. what's the difference between "intent" and "motive"? what determines the difference between manslaughter and murder? is it intent or motive?
Difference between manslaughter and murder can be easily summed up. If you run someone over with your car and no reason can be determined (and thus no motive) it can be called manslaughter.

If you chase after someone in your car and run 'em down dead, motive can be established with proper evidence and then it's murder.

Intent is assigned in cases such as drug posession. I don't know the exact amounts, but if you have, say, an ounce of weed, it's posession. (The court assumes it's for personal use.) If you have, say, ten pounds of weed, then it becomes posession with intent to distribute. The court will assume that since no one person could smoke ten pounds of weed in a lifetime, they intend to distribute it.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by optiontoo@Oct 11 2002, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 11 2002, 07:03 PM
i guess we are getting into legal terms. what's the difference between "intent" and "motive"? what determines the difference between manslaughter and murder? is it intent or motive?
Difference between manslaughter and murder can be easily summed up. If you run someone over with your car and no reason can be determined (and thus no motive) it can be called manslaughter.

If you chase after someone in your car and run 'em down dead, motive can be established with proper evidence and then it's murder.

Intent is assigned in cases such as drug posession. I don't know the exact amounts, but if you have, say, an ounce of weed, it's posession. (The court assumes it's for personal use.) If you have, say, ten pounds of weed, then it becomes posession with intent to distribute. The court will assume that since no one person could smoke ten pounds of weed in a lifetime, they intend to distribute it.
so "intent" goes to define what someone theoretically wants to do, and "motive" goes to define why someone already did something?



<!--EDIT|SunWuKung|Oct 11 2002, 05:24 PM-->

[Arex]

Intent is a necessary element for many crimes. It's in no way a small element. Without the proper intent, you often don't have a crime. E.g., murder requires an intent to kill (1st degree) or intent to cause gross bodily injury (2nd degree). Anything short of that and you have a manslaughter. Battery requires the intent to make harmful contact with a person, assault requires an intent to put someone in the apprehension of immediate harmful contact, robbery and larceny requires an intent to permanently deprive someone of their possessions...I think. It's been a while since I took crim law and I slept through most of it so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Motive is...er...one's motivation for doing a particular thing. I think motive is what optiontoo was talking about as far as it shouldn't matter what one's motive was so long as they committed a crime. I understand what optiontoo is saying, but I have to respectfully disagree.

The law often steps in and imposes penalties/harsher penalties for a variety of reasons, usually because the legislature or the people have decided that certain things are more vile and deserving of greater punishment than others. This applies even in non-criminal matters. Equal housing and employment laws, for example, make it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of X in housing and employment. You can deny someone housing, you just can't do it based on the color of their skin. You can decide who you want to hire and terminate, you just can't do it based on the person's religion. I doubt anyone would argue that these laws should not be in place. These are essentially civil enhancements (you go from no penalty to a fat penalty if discriminatory motive is established). That being the case, what's so wrong with enhancing criminal sentences as long as you're able to prove that hate (whether racial, religious, gender, or age based) was the particular motivation for the crime?

Alex