Posted on 01/12/2017 4:34:58 AM PST by Kaslin
Last week in Chicago, a white special-needs teenager was held captive by four black youths. The victim was bound, gagged, tortured, forced to drink toilet water, partially scalped, and subject to racially and politically motivated verbal abuse. The perpetrators streamed portions of their violent savagery on Facebook.
After the victim escaped from his assailants and was found on the streets by a police officer, a Chicago police commander initially said he was unsure whether the attack constituted a hate crime -- as if that distinction might calibrate the crime's viciousness.
President Obama was likewise initially hesitant to label this cruelty as a racially motivated hate crime -- which was odd given the president's prior readiness to jump into and editorialize about racially charged cases such as those of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates and Trayvon Martin.
Yet it is hard to imagine what additional outrages the Chicago youths might have had to commit to warrant hate-crime status. After public outcry, Chicago prosecutors -- along with Obama -- confirmed that the attack did indeed, in their opinion, qualify as a "hate crime."
Many in the media still sought to downplay that classification.
"I don't think it's evil," editorialized CNN anchor Don Lemon, who instead attributed the violence to the offenders' problematic upbringing.
What are the lessons from all the verbal gymnastics concerning "hate crimes"?
Sadly, we are learning that the labeling of hate crimes has become so politicized and ill-defined that the entire concept is unworkable.
The idea of identifying hate crimes gained currency in the 1980s, when reformers wanted lighter penalties for most criminal offenses but also wished to increase punishment for criminal acts that were deemed racist, sexist or homophobic. So hate crimes emerged as new enhancements to criminal punishment, as a way to tack on stiffer penalties for affronts to liberal society at large.
The rationale for designating hate crimes relied on force multipliers in criminal sentencing -- such as premeditation that can make murder a first-degree offense. But after years of confusion, how do we consistently and fairly define perceptions of bias or hate as a catalyst for criminal violence?
After all, crimes such as murder and rape are already savage and brutal by nature. Is the killer who shouts bigoted epithets more dangerous to society than the quiet sadist who first tortures his murder victim without comment?
It can be dangerous to redefine a single criminal act as a hate crime against society, given the incentives for manipulation and political distortion.
Recently there arose a spate of reported fake hate crimes in which supposed victims complained that their race or religion earned them violent responses from bigots, suggesting a post-election epidemic of intolerance. Authorities often found that the victims had concocted their stories, either to enhance their political agendas and their own sense of victimization, or simply to win attention and perhaps compensation.
Again, who or what defines a hate crime?
When fanatical Army Maj. Nidal Hasan in 2009 slaughtered non-Muslim soldiers at Fort Hood -- shouting "Allahu Akbar!" ("God is great") as he mowed down his victims -- was that a religiously driven hate crime? The politically correct Pentagon thought not. Instead, it labeled Hasan's murderous rampage as "workplace violence."
Progressives originally envisioned hate-crime legislation as focusing mostly on a white majority that presumably had a monopoly on prejudice. But FBI hate-crime statistics show that African-Americans commit a disproportionately large share of hate crimes.
The media usually associate religious hate crimes with offenses against Muslims, and warn against endemic "Islamophobia." Yet statistically, Jews, not Muslims, are the far more frequent victims of religious hate crimes.
Americans can now reasonably wonder whether a reported hate crime might have been staged. In November, for example, a black church in Mississippi was spray-painted with "Vote Trump" graffiti and set afire. Nearly two months later, authorities charged a disgruntled African-American parishioner, not a supposed white supremacist, with the arson.
Sometimes hate-crime status is added to a crime not on the basis of clearly evident prejudice but based on the race of the offender and victim, as the political spin that follows the crime seeks to make larger indictments against society.
In our hypersensitive and litigious society, too many agendas have warped the once-noble idea of hate-crime legislation. It has become a fossilized relic of the 1980s that was well-intended, became incoherent and politicized -- and now should be scrapped.
Hate Crime laws were always idiotic. They only make sense when the crime itself is relatively minor, such as vandalism (even then its probably still idiotic). When the crime is already horrible (such as kidnapping and torturing a mentally disabled person), you don’t really need to add extra charges on it...these people should never be allowed out in public again regardless.
All crime is hate crime... the penalties should be severe as a deterrent ... these four should get life for their murder attempt...
It was always a bad idea, inherently racist and the day will come when it is used for racial persecution.
The concept of a “hate” crime is contrary to our Constitution.
A law should simply state the offense and the consequences. There shouldn’t be a rider they can heap on top to modify it.
Besides, all violent crimes are hate inspired. Nobody would commit a violent crime against someone they liked.
“In our hypersensitive and litigious society, too many agendas have warped the once-noble idea of hate-crime legislation.”
“hate-crime” legislation was NEVER a noble idea, it was always directed only at white people, Christians, heterosexuals, and most often white males, and was ALWAYS politicized from the get go.
The problem is the black on white violence
(Holdering) is PROTECTED by the DO”J” and FB”I”.
Protected so much, that CBS changed the races
and LIED about what was said.
Give them death or life in prison, along with
removing the license of CBS, and it will end.
Aside from being idiotic, if they can’t even call it like it is, that this was pure racism on a par with the KKK, just because the perps were black, then f@#$ it.
The were never a “good” idea in the first place! The law already forsees that crimes my be committed with malice and / or are premeditated - which “worsens” the sentence someone might receive.
“Why” that malice is there is immaterial.
....just watched a segment on FOX29 out of Philly
where some dyke was all wee weed up over trannies
being raped attacked and murdered (24 in 2015...22 in 2016) across the nation....ranting on about TRUMP has to have AG’s across the nation address this crime.....another case of selective rage
How can any crimes be punished worse than the death penalty or being locked up until you die in prison?
The only context in which it makes sense is a crime committed in order to provoke a race war, because then the motive is to expand the act into a political statement, or signal to the masses. To call it a hate crime just because a violent perp screams a racial epithet while assaulting someone is plain dumb.
I have always supported very long sentences for rapists, murderers, armed robbers, child molesters, and other violent criminals. The point, when we cannot just execute them and permanently remove a threat to the innocent, is to warehouse them and remove a predator from society for years or preferably for decades.
I have also always opposed the classification of “hate crimes”. Violent crimes are not committed out of love, and the precise motive for unprovoked violence is not terribly important. Lock them all up, whether they hate gays, blacks, Jews, or everybody, or just like hurting people.
“Hate crime” laws, just like the “Civil Rights” laws, were designed to legislate the Liberal agenda on America! They were SOLD to America as “noble causes”, but they were never intended to be used for any semblance of good - PERIOD!
Both of those laws are just like the term “assault rifle”! They are nothing but trigger words designed to solicit a viral response from a dumbed-down populace.
The Civil Rights laws REMOVED the rights of business owners and the right to association, etc...
Hate crime legislation is a war and a militarization of police. IT makes someone thinking something an enemy of the state just as a muslim should be for good reasons thought to be a suspicious foreign individual regardless of nationality.
Hate crime legislation should not be a language of our civilian justice system but at best something our military handles against foreign actors, ie muslims, communists and Nazis.
It should not be domestically used.
There is a better word than hate crime, which is treason and traitor crimes!
Hate crime is by definition thought crime
No, was never a good idea.
The concept of “hate crimes” merely stands for the proposition that some victims are more important than others.
“Hate crime” excuses crimes against hated groups.
Orwellian.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.