Rutgers university: Hate Crime?

[ConF1ictz]

if you have read up on this recent story, you know whats going on with the rutgers university incident.

basically explaining it, the roomate Ravi, of a man named Tyler Clementi, without permission for Tyler, filmed him in his room and caught him making out wiht another man. he then did it again. Tyler jumped off the GW bridge two days later.

where i stand is that Ravi did this without knowing his roomate was a homosexual. what if he was having sex with a woman. would that change this situation at all? people are saying that Ravi caused him to jump off the bridge because he revealed his sexuality. im where this has nothing to do with it because first off, he didntn knwo he was gay, and secondly, he didnt push him off the bridge for being gay.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Depends on wether Ravi actually published the video with Tyler's permission. If he did, he's definitely at fault, at least somewhat. Not legally, but morally he should feel bad (if he published them, once again).

Second of all, Tyler jumped off the bridge, he decided that he couldn't live with being gay. That's his decision.

 

[ConF1ictz]

yes, just saying that it was live streamed, he didnt publish it, so whoever was watching at theat time saw it. and i read that Tyler actually knew about it and said told an RA. this makes me wonder because he said "after all, Ravi is a pretty nice guy." and then jumped off the bridge. so i don think that it was any type of hate crime on Ravis part. also, why did tyler take so long to kill himself, why did he jump two days later?

 

[1048576]

I hope someone films you taking the world's loudest dump and broadcasts it all over the internet and you become a viral sensation. Then I can be all "well you know you have had buildup at least once so this shouldn't reduce the quality of your life. Nobody physically made you sad."

 

[ConF1ictz]

yeah, but you arent doing it because you hate people that take loud dumps, are you. do you have something against people who take loud dumps to the point that you hate them.

what youre saying has nothign to do with this, and what if it were a girl, then wtf would he have to kill himeslf for...thats even a thumbs up in my book

 

[El Nino]

and what if it were a girl, then wtf would he have to kill himeslf for...thats even a thumbs up in my book

I don't have a position on this issue yet, but analyze what you just said up there. What makes you say that? Maybe because being with a girl would have been thumbs up for most males. And maybe you know that most people would agree with you. Drawing from that assumption, it doesn't take a genius to realize that changing the gender of the person involved changes the whole game because homosexual relationships are 1) controversial, and 2) may involve heavy emotional baggage for a lot of people.

It's true that the perpetrator may not have had anything against homosexuals, and it's true he may not have intended for his victim to commit suicide. But this situation is different than it would have been had a heterosexual been involved because of the way society at large is structured. Heterosexuality is the default social norm, and you'd have to do a lot to convince me that the perpetrator(s) were ignorant of the fact that homosexuality comes with a stiff stigma attached to it, especially since they went ahead and posted that video.

Ask yourself also why they posted that video. If it had been with a girl, then it would have been "thumbs up," then they wouldn't have shamed or humiliated the guy at all. Did the fact that the guy was with another guy have any impact on their decision to post the video, especially considering that it was a prank, and the intent of a prank is the humiliate the other party?

 

[ConF1ictz]

understandable, but im thinking it goes further than that, in the sense of the kids parents. i think he was just ashamed of what was revealed and he killed himself. it was himself who jumped.

to totally flip it, there are people all over the world that are gay and have parades to celebrate it. but why whould this kid feel the total opposite...was he hiding it from his parents, or someone specific because if thats the case(which is the only thing that comes to mind), that is the definite reason he jumped.

 

[1048576]

If you aren't gay, then chances are you will never understand the problems gay people face.

It's possible that this guy was okay with himself, but wasn't okay with the incessant ridicule he would get from others as a result of this forced outing. I'm gay. I'm totally okay with being gay. I think, mechanically, being gay has its advantages and disadvantages, and that they tend to even out. Morally, there's nothing wrong with being gay. I'm still closeted to the general public. I don't want intolerant fundies insulting me every day as I walk to class. I want to be treated the same as everyone else. Most importantly, I want people to be able to laugh and call Marth a foggot without it getting awkward. That's my decision to make, not my roommate's.

 

[freeman123]

I don't think anything should be considered a hate crime. "Hate crime" implies that a crime is somehow better or worse depending on a criminal's reason for committing it, regardless of whether or not the results are the same.

It makes no difference if someone kills me because they want my money or if they kill me because I'm an atheist. I'm still going to be dead either way. The person who would kill me because they wanted my money isn't less at fault than the person who would kill me because I was an atheist. I think hate crime laws are completely stupid and we shouldn't have them at all.

In this case, the guy who filmed Tyler Clementi and put the video online, regardless of what his reason was for doing it, should be charged with invasion of privacy. He shouldn't be held legally responsible for Tyler committing suicide.

 

[El Nino]

It makes no difference if someone kills me because they want my money or if they kill me because I'm an atheist.

Actually, from a criminal justice standpoint, it does matter.

If one person has a grudge against you because you, for example, slept with his girlfriend, and he kills you, his intent to kill other human beings ends there. If that same person has a grudge as other people of your race/ethinicity/sexual orientation/gender/etc., then his intent to kill keeps going. That is, if he hates your entire race, he doesn't intend to stop until everyone like you is also dead. This mentality is more harmful to society as a whole than, say, a revenge killing. Although, yes, both are harmful to society.

Also, if society is going to try to prevent either crime, different means would be used because the motivations behind the crimes are different.

In this case, the guy who filmed Tyler Clementi and put the video online, regardless of what his reason was for doing it, should be charged with invasion of privacy. He shouldn't be held legally responsible for Tyler committing suicide.

I think there might be a case for reckless endangerment, although that may be a long shot.

Edit:

to totally flip it, there are people all over the world that are gay and have parades to celebrate it. but why whould this kid feel the total opposite...was he hiding it from his parents, or someone specific because if thats the case(which is the only thing that comes to mind), that is the definite reason he jumped.

Interesting that you bring up the pride parades. The reason people have those parades is because they are meant to be a direct antidote to what we see here: the bullying, the suicides, the mental anguish. That we see these parades all over the world is actually a sign of the underlying problem; it's a form of therapy, and people don't take medicine unless they are sick. The parades would have no meaning if society were accepting of homosexuality.

And since the parades are common knowledge, as the stigma against homosexuality is common knowledge, how accountable can a person be for that knowledge?

I think the criminal case is shaky, but I would say that the outcome depends on whether or not the prosecution can convince a jury that the victim's homosexuality contributed to the defendant(s) decision to publish the tape. If so, that may be enough for a hate crime charge.

 

[freeman123]

El Nino
Actually, from a criminal justice standpoint, it does matter.

If one person has a grudge against you because you, for example, slept with his girlfriend, and he kills you, his intent to kill other human beings ends there. If that same person has a grudge as other people of your race/ethinicity/sexual orientation/gender/etc., then his intent to kill keeps going. That is, if he hates your entire race, he doesn't intend to stop until everyone like you is also dead. This mentality is more harmful to society as a whole than, say, a revenge killing. Although, yes, both are harmful to society.

Also, if society is going to try to prevent either crime, different means would be used because the motivations behind the crimes are different.

Then you're advocating punishing people for crimes that they haven't committed. You're saying that we should charge people with more than the crime that they're being accused of committing in cases where the government decides that they're going to commit more crimes in the future. That isn't justice. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, and you can't call it a fair trial if you're sentencing people for crimes that they haven't even committed yet on the basis that you think that they're going to commit them.

Also, 56% of violent felons are repeat offenders. So most people who commit a violent crime are likely to do it again; regardless of their reasons. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4441/is_200609/ai_n17194955/

El Nino
I think there might be a case for reckless endangerment, although that may be a long shot.

No one placed Clementi in any danger though. He took his own life.

 

[El Nino]

Then you're advocating punishing people for crimes that they haven't committed. You're saying that we should charge people with more than the crime that they're being accused of committing in cases where the government decides that they're going to commit more crimes in the future. That isn't justice. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, and you can't call it a fair trial if you're sentencing people for crimes that they haven't even committed yet on the basis that you think that they're going to commit them.

There's a reason why murder one carries a stiffer sentence than shoplifting. There's also a reason why murder one carries a stiffer sentence than vehicular manslaughter. Can you come up with a reason as to why that might be the case?

I'm not arguing for the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in the U.S. or anywhere else. But I am going to say that the motive behind a crime is usually brought up during a trial. Killing a friend on accident because you were driving drunk is not going to get you the same sentence as someone who premeditated the murder of their spouse.

And just as an aside, what you said about people being tried for crimes they have yet to commit, that is something that does come up during the trials of people who are suspected of being serial killers.

No one placed Clementi in any danger though. He took his own life.

I'm not sure that outting a homosexual in a society in which there is a stigma attached to homosexuality could be considered a move completely free from any danger. It may not have been equivalent to murder, but it could be argued that it was reckless behavior. It would be like using the environment rather than your own hands to do harm to a person.

Consider an extreme example, just as a thought experiment. If someone abducts and tortures another person until that person finally commits suicide in order to escape, should the perpetrator be charged with murder or torture?

 

[Deleted member]

Also, 56% of violent felons are repeat offenders. So most people who commit a violent crime are likely to do it again; regardless of their reasons. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4441/is_200609/ai_n17194955/

That statistic has nothing to do with the reasons behind committing the crimes, so the comment "regardless of their reasons" doesn't apply.

 

[ConF1ictz]

Actually, from a criminal justice standpoint, it does matter.

If one person has a grudge against you because you, for example, slept with his girlfriend, and he kills you, his intent to kill other human beings ends there. If that same person has a grudge as other people of your race/ethinicity/sexual orientation/gender/etc., then his intent to kill keeps going. That is, if he hates your entire race, he doesn't intend to stop until everyone like you is also dead. This mentality is more harmful to society as a whole than, say, a revenge killing. Although, yes, both are harmful to society.

Also, if society is going to try to prevent either crime, different means would be used because the motivations behind the crimes are different.

this is exactly what i was looking for. thank you because this totally rules out the fact that he "hated him". im still going with the fact that he was unsure, therefore he does not hate him for being gay. and according to his history, he does not seem to have anything against gay people. but we have to understand also here that that Ravi did not kill anyone. Tyler Clementi clearly commited suicide according to his twitter updates and facebook status. this would totally clear up the fact that it wasnt a hate crime. saying that im not 100% positive that Ravi hates gays but with the fact that he was unsure that Clementi was gay and was shocked to see it happening in the first place. From examining his online conversation with all of his friends,he seemed to me to be a little confused when he saw his roomate making out with another man.

are we settling at "invasion of privacy"?

 

[freeman123]

El Nino
There's a reason why murder one carries a stiffer sentence than shoplifting. There's also a reason why murder one carries a stiffer sentence than vehicular manslaughter. Can you come up with a reason as to why that might be the case?

I have no idea why you would bring up shop lifting, because that's nowhere near the same thing as murder.

You have a better argument with manslaughter, but that's still not the same. With manslaughter and murder, you're comparing unintentionally killing someone to intentionally killing someone. There is another factor, besides reason, that's used to determine punishment for the crime. That factor is intentions.

With murder for reason A and murder for reason B, you're comparing intentionally killing someone to intentionally killing someone. Regardless of their reasons, both Murderer A and Murderer B had the same intentions, and they both committed the same crime. The only differing factor here is motive.

By saying that Murderer A's crime was worse, because it was a "hate crime", you're saying that Murderer B's crime was justified to some extent, because he had a better reason for it.

El Nino
But I am going to say that the motive behind a crime is usually brought up during a trial. Killing a friend on accident because you were driving drunk is not going to get you the same sentence as someone who premeditated the murder of their spouse.

Like I've already said, killing someone by way of drunk driving is not a matter of motive; it's a matter of intent.

El Nino
And just as an aside, what you said about people being tried for crimes they have yet to commit, that is something that does come up during the trials of people who are suspected of being serial killers.

I don't believe that that's true, and, if it is, that's wrong too.

El Nino
I'm not sure that outting a homosexual in a society in which there is a stigma attached to homosexuality could be considered a move completely free from any danger.

One person is not responsible for how society feels about homosexuality. They're only responsible for themselves. And, society did nothing to Clementi. Clementi took his own life. It's not like a bunch of people found out that he was gay and then went and killed him for it. So I don't see how you could possibly argue that the person who recorded the video put Clementi in any kind of danger whatsoever.

El Nino
It may not have been equivalent to murder, but it could be argued that it was reckless behavior. It would be like using the environment rather than your own hands to do harm to a person.

No it's not. Nobody used the environment to harm anyone. Tyler Clementi took his own life.

El Nino
Consider an extreme example, just as a thought experiment. If someone abducts and tortures another person until that person finally commits suicide in order to escape, should the perpetrator be charged with murder or torture?

No. They should be charged with kidnapping and torturing the person. Why would you need to charge them with a crime that they didn't commit? You already have them for crimes they've actually committed.

It'd be like if I broke into five houses in my neighborhood, and my break ins cause two families whose homes I haven't broken into to move. Should I be charged with seven break ins? That doesn't even make sense.

puu
That statistic has nothing to do with the reasons behind committing the crimes, so the comment "regardless of their reasons" doesn't apply.

Yes it does. That's 56% of all violent criminals; regardless of what their reasons were for committing their crimes. Most violent criminals are repeat offenders. It makes no difference what their motives were.

 

[ConF1ictz]

Interesting that you bring up the pride parades. The reason people have those parades is because they are meant to be a direct antidote to what we see here: the bullying, the suicides, the mental anguish. That we see these parades all over the world is actually a sign of the underlying problem; it's a form of therapy, and people don't take medicine unless they are sick. The parades would have no meaning if society were accepting of homosexuality.

And since the parades are common knowledge, as the stigma against homosexuality is common knowledge, how accountable can a person be for that knowledge?.

this makes no sense for the fact that people celebrate because they want to have fun, thats pretty much the reason everyone celebreates. youre bringing in metaphors that make so sense because when puerto rican people have the "puerto Rican" day parade, it doesnt mean theryre upset for being who they are. this means they are proud and enjoy it. they are celebrating it and having fun. when a baseball team wins the world series, they have a parade. according to what youre saying is that celebration is a cry for help. so eveyone who celebrates in a parade fashion is crying out for help. think about it first.

 

[1048576]

He's saying that pride parades demonstrate the fact that anti-gay bias is rampant. That seems like a bit of a stretch, for the reasons you stated, but are you prepared to defend the position that there is little to no bias against gay people in American society right now? Because that premise can get picked apart pretty easily. www.gallup.com

 

[Dre89]

There may be homosexuality hate, but I'm pretty sure a lot of other western countries generally support it now, I know Australia does.

Homosexuality isn't the issue here, it's the invasion of privacy. The punishment shouldn't depend on what was revealed, or how the victim reacted.

If he caught the guy cheating on his girfiend, then he committed suicide, people wouldn't hate him as much. If he revealed the homosexuality, then the guy just laughed it off, he wouldn't be as hated either.

 

[El Nino]

By saying that Murderer A's crime was worse, because it was a "hate crime", you're saying that Murderer B's crime was justified to some extent, because he had a better reason for it.

What would you say is the purpose of the criminal justice system?

I don't believe that that's true, and, if it is, that's wrong too.

It is most likely to come up during a parole hearing. For instance, there are programs that try to rehabilitate sex offenders, and a psychologist will evaluate the patient and report on the patient's progress. Sometimes, the evaluation plays a role in deciding whether a person gets paroled or not because when they are up for parole they technically haven't finished serving their complete sentence yet.

So I don't see how you could possibly argue that the person who recorded the video put Clementi in any kind of danger whatsoever.

The recording isn't the main issue; the publication of the video is.

Another point to consider, an extreme example: If an incident like this were to take place in another country (we'll say Iran, just for kicks) in which homosexuality is punishable by death, and if I were to intentionally publish a video of my roommate engaging in homosexuality, and if my roommate were then arrested and executed, how responsible would you say I would be for my roommate's death?

this makes no sense for the fact that people celebrate because they want to have fun, thats pretty much the reason everyone celebreates. youre bringing in metaphors that make so sense because when puerto rican people have the "puerto Rican" day parade, it doesnt mean theryre upset for being who they are. this means they are proud and enjoy it. they are celebrating it and having fun. when a baseball team wins the world series, they have a parade. according to what youre saying is that celebration is a cry for help. so eveyone who celebrates in a parade fashion is crying out for help. think about it first.

The celebration is not a cry for help. But it is a reaction. LGBT "liberation" is referred to as such because of the history of oppression experienced by the community. The celebration is a celebration of freedom, and what that means (for almost any "freedom" celebration) is that the group that is celebrating has once been oppressed. Only those who have been enslaved in some form would have a reason to outwardly express their emancipation.

Think of it as an Independence Day. It isn't a sad occasion, but it marks a turning point in history of emerging from oppression into a form of self-liberty.

Homosexuality isn't the issue here, it's the invasion of privacy. The punishment shouldn't depend on what was revealed, or how the victim reacted.

Do you feel that cases of criminal child abuse should consider the psychological impact the abuse had on the child? Or is emotional damage irrelevant under law?

 

[Deleted member]

Yes it does. That's 56% of all violent criminals; regardless of what their reasons were for committing their crimes. Most violent criminals are repeat offenders. It makes no difference what their motives were.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics, I'm not even sure how to articulate it.

The title of the article, and the point of the article is "Fifty-six percent of the violent felons convicted in the 75 most populous counties from 1990 through 2002 had a prior conviction, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics."

There is not one mention of the intention of the criminals is in the entire article. You have taken this to mean that intention is irrelevant, which is not the case.

In case that isn't clear enough, I'll make the following examples.

56% of all violent criminals; regardless of race (race isn't mentioned at all, therefore it's irrelevant?).....
56% of all violent criminals; regardless of gender (gender isn't mentioned at all, therefore it's irrelevant?).....

 

[1048576]

There may be homosexuality hate, but I'm pretty sure a lot of other western countries generally support it now, I know Australia does.

Homosexuality isn't the issue here, it's the invasion of privacy. The punishment shouldn't depend on what was revealed, or how the victim reacted.

If he caught the guy cheating on his girfiend, then he committed suicide, people wouldn't hate him as much. If he revealed the homosexuality, then the guy just laughed it off, he wouldn't be as hated either.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/137357/Four-Moral-Issues-Sharply-Divide-Americans.aspx
52% claim homosexual relations are morally acceptable. So being openly gay is basically equivalent to openly having a baby out of wedlock. It's definitely a scarlet letter.

And yeah, I hope someone puts up a livestream of you taking the world's loudest dump, so I can be all, 'well if you were just making a normal answer to nature's call, nobody would care about the stream, and the quality of your life wouldn't be reduced.'

I also disagree with your whole "intent matters" philosophy, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[Dre89]

I didn't really understand what you were saying, but I can tell you're not happy with what I said.

The offender shouldn't be considered responsible for the death, because the offence is the same regardless of how the victim reacts.

The act would still have been just as bad if the victim had laughed it off.

If you're going to say this is manslaughter, then every time someone invades privacy it would warrant a manslaughter charge, because the offence is still the same.

 

[ConF1ictz]

And yeah, I hope someone puts up a livestream of you taking the world's loudest dump, so I can be all, 'well if you were just making a normal answer to nature's call, nobody would care about the stream, and the quality of your life wouldn't be reduced.

please eliminate this from the arguement, it makes no sense because every single living thing that exists takes a dump. gay or not, you still dump every day.

the reason this isnt a hate crime is because there was NO hate involved. Ravi clearly does not hate Celmenti. and to be honest, even if he did, it cannot be proven in court. Consider this the court and everyone trying to prove that its a hate crime. You are all leaving room for doubt, which is the basis of our entire justice system. it doesnt matter whether it is a hate crime or not, but how can it be proven. so with this said, because it cannot be proven(which dictates a charge), it is not a hate crime. he will obviously be charged with cyber snooping and invasion of privacy.

 

[freeman123]

El Nino
What would you say is the purpose of the criminal justice system?

To protect and serve the citizens.

El Nino
It is most likely to come up during a parole hearing.

That's not the same as what you said before. You made it sound like people get longer sentences because they might convict more crimes in the future. That's not the same as not being let out on parole.

Parole hearings are to give prisoners the opportunity to get out early. They aren't serving extra time if their parole is denied. They're still serving the original sentence for the crime(s) they were found guilty of.

El Nino
Another point to consider, an extreme example: If an incident like this were to take place in another country (we'll say Iran, just for kicks) in which homosexuality is punishable by death, and if I were to intentionally publish a video of my roommate engaging in homosexuality, and if my roommate were then arrested and executed, how responsible would you say I would be for my roommate's death?

If you did it knowing that you were putting a person in danger, that would be a very different situation. Ravi didn't think that he was putting Clementi in any danger, and Clementi wasn't put in any danger. Still, the people who should be held accountable in your example should be the government that would put someone to death for such a thing.

puu
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics, I'm not even sure how to articulate it.

The title of the article, and the point of the article is "Fifty-six percent of the violent felons convicted in the 75 most populous counties from 1990 through 2002 had a prior conviction, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics."

There is not one mention of the intention of the criminals is in the entire article. You have taken this to mean that intention is irrelevant, which is not the case.

It doesn't matter. No one has provided any statistics saying that people who are convicted of "hate crimes" are more likely to be repeat offenders; so the argument is irrelevant until someone does.

puu
56% of all violent criminals; regardless of race (race isn't mentioned at all, therefore it's irrelevant?).....
56% of all violent criminals; regardless of gender (gender isn't mentioned at all, therefore it's irrelevant?).....

Yes. Why would race or gender be relevant?

 

[1048576]

please eliminate this from the arguement, it makes no sense because every single living thing that exists takes a dump. gay or not, you still dump every day.

the reason this isnt a hate crime is because there was NO hate involved. Ravi clearly does not hate Celmenti. and to be honest, even if he did, it cannot be proven in court. Consider this the court and everyone trying to prove that its a hate crime. You are all leaving room for doubt, which is the basis of our entire justice system. it doesnt matter whether it is a hate crime or not, but how can it be proven. so with this said, because it cannot be proven(which dictates a charge), it is not a hate crime. he will obviously be charged with cyber snooping and invasion of privacy.

But you don't take an embarassing dump every day. That's why the analogy works. Apparantly it went over your head though

Way to move the goalposts. Now that we've shown it was likely a hate crime we need "beyond a reasonable doubt." This thread != court.

And Dre, you're not supporting your claims, so I disagree. In my worldview, the consequences of an action outweigh the intent of the action. If I try to strangle you and end up curing cancer, that makes me a better person than if I try to cure cancer and end up strangling you.

And I'd like to know whether of not you agree, given my cited data, that being openly gay in the US is still a "scarlet letter."

 

[Deleted member]

It doesn't matter. No one has provided any statistics saying that people who are convicted of "hate crimes" are more likely to be repeat offenders; so the argument is irrelevant until someone does.

Yes. Why would race or gender be relevant?

I wasn't making a point about the issue one way or another (I don't have a particular opinion on it yet), I was just saying that the statistic that you provided had nothing to do with the issue. You posted a statistic saying that it proved your point when in fact it did not relate to your point at all.

And do you really think that gender and race are irrelevant to crimes? You think that women are just as likely to be criminals as men, and that all races are equally likely to commit crimes?

I would post links (I just checked them) but a quick google search, and quite simply just common knowledge shows that you're wrong. If you want I can post them.

EDIT: Reading this again I realize that the last 2 paragraphs are somewhat off topic. Other than from a logical standpoint there's no reason to respond to them.

 

[El Nino]

To protect and serve the citizens.

Then, if different crimes have different causes and different effects on society, would it be in the interest of protecting the citizens to treat these crimes differently in court?

Part of the reason why hate crime legislation was put into effect in the U.S. is because the U.S. has a history of racial/ethnic violence. Hate crimes are different than other crimes because they have the potential to escalate into widespread violence, such as the race riots and lynch mobs that have occurred at various places and times in U.S. history. That is why hate crimes are given special consideration. They have the potential to tear apart entire communities.

That's not the same as what you said before. You made it sound like people get longer sentences because they might convict more crimes in the future. That's not the same as not being let out on parole.

Sentencing is usually at the judge's discretion (I assume we're going by the American system here), and an offender's criminal history does count as a mitigating factor. It isn't uncommon for repeat offenders to be punished more harshly. Part of the reasoning for that is the idea that repeat offenders are less likely to rehabilitate and will commit more crimes in the future. Again, that is soley at the judge's discretion.

If you did it knowing that you were putting a person in danger, that would be a very different situation.

Then, are we always excused on account of ignorance? Where do we draw the line? Are there other factors that determine a person's responsibility for the outcome of a situation?

Edit: As 1048576 argues, homosexuals still carry a scarlet letter in society. This is common knowledge. It may not be enough to make a person responsible for homicide, but how responsible is a person who intentionally caused emotional distress in someone from a population known to be stigmatized? That's the question I'm trying to figure out.

 

[ConF1ictz]

But you don't take an embarassing dump every day. That's why the analogy works. Apparantly it went over your head though

Way to move the goalposts. Now that we've shown it was likely a hate crime we need "beyond a reasonable doubt." This thread != court.

And Dre, you're not supporting your claims, so I disagree. In my worldview, the consequences of an action outweigh the intent of the action. If I try to strangle you and end up curing cancer, that makes me a better person than if I try to cure cancer and end up strangling you.

And I'd like to know whether of not you agree, given my cited data, that being openly gay in the US is still a "scarlet letter."

im not moving past the goal posts, because you are innocent until proven guilty. so even if you killed someone brutally, and it cannot be proven in court, you never did it. i understand this sounds messed up, buut its totally true. it never happened according to evidence, because there is no prior knowledge that Ravi is against gays. Ravi was apparently not against gays because he would have created a problem from the start, when he moved into the dorm in late august..IF HE KNEW. thats what im trying to say, HE DID NOT KNOW. and its totally true.

and be honest, if someone was like "i need the room for a few hours later", you wouldnt be a bit curious as to why they need the room.

 

[freeman123]

puu
And do you really think that gender and race are irrelevant to crimes? You think that women are just as likely to be criminals as men, and that all races are equally likely to commit crimes?

I don't think that a person of a particular gender or a particular race should be sentenced differently than someone else who has committed the same crime as them just because of their race or gender.

El Nino
Then, if different crimes have different causes and different effects on society, would it be in the interest of protecting the citizens to treat these crimes differently in court?

They already do that. Stealing a candybar has a different effect on society than murdering someone; so a person who is convicted of murder is going to get a worse sentence than a person who steals a candybar. Committing a crime for reason A has the exact same effect on society as committing the same crime for reason B. There's no difference whatsoever.

El Nino
Part of the reason why hate crime legislation was put into effect in the U.S. is because the U.S. has a history of racial/ethnic violence. Hate crimes are different than other crimes because they have the potential to escalate into widespread violence, such as the race riots and lynch mobs that have occurred at various places and times in U.S. history. That is why hate crimes are given special consideration. They have the potential to tear apart entire communities.

Social engineering is not the government's job.

El Nino
Sentencing is usually at the judge's discretion (I assume we're going by the American system here), and an offender's criminal history does count as a mitigating factor. It isn't uncommon for repeat offenders to be punished more harshly.

They're being punished for crimes that they've ALREADY committed, though. That's entirely different that punishing someone for crimes that you think they're going to commit in the future, but that they haven't actually committed.

And you still haven't provided any statistics that people who commit "hate crimes" are more likely to repeat offend than people who commit violent crimes for other reason; so I don't even know why you're making this argument.

El Nino
Then, are we always excused on account of ignorance?

Yes. That's why murder and manslaughter are two different charges. If I do something that results in your death without the intention of killing you and without the knowledge that it would kill you, I've not committed the same crime as if I had intentionally killed you.

If I intentionally kill you for reason A, I have committed the same crime as if I'd intentionally killed you for reason B.

Also, in order for "hate crime" laws to exist, the government has to place people into particular groups. The government has no business sanctioning groups of people.

El Nino
Edit: As 1048576 argues, homosexuals still carry a scarlet letter in society. This is common knowledge. It may not be enough to make a person responsible for homicide, but how responsible is a person who intentionally caused emotional distress in someone from a population known to be stigmatized? That's the question I'm trying to figure out.

So why make it worse for them by having the government "officially" place them in a group as separate from everyone else? We don't have government sanctioned groups for people who like Coke and people who like Pepsi. Why do we need them for sexual preference?

 

[1048576]

im not moving past the goal posts, because you are innocent until proven guilty. so even if you killed someone brutally, and it cannot be proven in court, you never did it. i understand this sounds messed up, buut its totally true. it never happened according to evidence, because there is no prior knowledge that Ravi is against gays. Ravi was apparently not against gays because he would have created a problem from the start, when he moved into the dorm in late august..IF HE KNEW. thats what im trying to say, HE DID NOT KNOW. and its totally true.

and be honest, if someone was like "i need the room for a few hours later", you wouldnt be a bit curious as to why they need the room.

That's all well and good when deciding to put someone in jail, since type 1 error is >>> than type 2 error. But this is smashboards, we tend to require a preponderance of the evidence. Like, I can simultaneously argue that he committed a hate crime (more likely than not) while at the same time arguing that he shouldn't go to jail (it's not beyond a reasonable doubt.)

If someone told me they needed the room for a few hours, I'd ask why, and if they dodged my question, I'd figure they were having sex or making meth and not really care any further.

@freeman, It's obvious that people are willing to do horrible things to gay people because they're gay, so that's why there are hate crime laws protecting them. Gay is like the new black. When society progresses to the point where, say, 90% think homosexuality is morally okay (as opposed to 52%,) then we can stop considering gays a hated minority.

 

[El Nino]

Committing a crime for reason A has the exact same effect on society as committing the same crime for reason B. There's no difference whatsoever.

Have you any knowledge of serial crimes, or criminal psychology?

Edit: Do you understand how race wars start?

Social engineering is not the government's job.

What is your definition of social engineering?

Serving and protecting the citizens does not include taking preventative measures? It does not include being involved in communities with problems such as race relations which could lead to violence and crime?

They're being punished for crimes that they've ALREADY committed, though.

But they've already been punished for their previous crimes. Why are they getting stronger sentences based off of their old crimes? Shouldn't it be the same punishment each time no matter how many times you do it?

And you still haven't provided any statistics that people who commit "hate crimes" are more likely to repeat offend than people who commit violent crimes for other reason

I never said that people who commit hate crimes are more likely to be repeat offenders. What I said was:

If that same person has a grudge as other people of your race/ethinicity/sexual orientation/gender/etc., then his intent to kill keeps going.

"Intent" is not "repeat offense."

If you hate your ex-wife and kill her, your hate ends when she dies. If you hate an entire group of people, your hate doesn't end when you kill just one of them.

You are right that "hate" does not always lead to a repeat of a particular offense. But when hate towards a group is a motive in a crime, it does have implications for the rest of society that would not be present in another crime with another motive.

I think you should know that it is not uncommon for motive to be considered during a trial. With respect to hate crime specifically, when racial tensions within a community are high enough such that one incident can spark a full scale riot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots), law enforcement has a reason to treat this incident differently than another incident.

Law enforcement has the same incentive to prevent these riots as they do to prevent any other crime. Hate crime legislation is intended to help ease tensions within communities because people do react to a situation depending on whether or not they feel that justice has been served. If they see that police are protecting their community against crime that targets them specifically, they may be less inclined to seek out revenge and retribution on their own, something which tends to only contribute to rising tensions, the end result being an all out race war.

Hate crimes are different than other crimes because of the nature of sociological factors such as group identity. An attack on one person because he is of Group A, when the primary motive of the attack is his identity as a member of Group A, puts all members of Group A ill at ease. They feel targeted, singled out, for ill treatment. If they feel that police are not doing enough to protect them, they may take matters into their own hands. They may respond by seeking out revenge against the perpetrator, who is of Group B, but unable to find him, often times they might take their anger out on another member of Group B. Now Group B feels persecuted, and the cycle thus continues.

You may not think much of group identity, but that doesn't change the fact that other people identify strongly with groups. When they react to crimes that they feel targets them as a community, that reaction is going to happen whether you approve of their thinking or not. From a law enforcement perspective, allowing that situation to escalate to large scale violence is counter-productive to your aims as a law enforcement agency.

We don't have government sanctioned groups for people who like Coke and people who like Pepsi. Why do we need them for sexual preference?

Do you understand why people commit crimes specifically targeting certain groups? Do you think that their underlying motives might be different than people who may commit a similar crime for a different reason? Do you think that this difference in motive might be rooted in an individual's psychology? Do you think law enforcement has anything to benefit from addressing that difference in motive and the psychology of a specific type of perpetrator?

As far as the government dividing people into groups goes, people divide each other into groups regardless of what the government says, but they don't do it consciously. Our group identities evolve on their own, through our actions and interactions, but the creation and evolution of such identities are not entirely in our control. I may not identify with my racial group. But then, I don't have to. Someone else is going to look at me and classify me anyway. And I have to live in this world, and I have to deal with that classification every day of my life.

Furthermore, the study of criminal psychology does divide people into groups depending on their crimes. One aim of criminal psychology is to find the underlying root of a particular type of behavior and rehabilitate the perpetrator. The motive of a crime matters a great deal in the treatment a patient receives.

 

[asianaussie]

Sociological arguments begin here, huh?

People will create stereotypes, they will stigmatise each other and themselves as being part of a certain group. This is the basis of discrimination: direct (and generally negative in nature), informed action done purely on the basis of a person's 'membership' of a group, eg. African-Americans or homosexuals, as is relevant to this case. Hate crimes are the embodiment of discrimination: criminal acts done on the basis of stereotypes or group identity. This is all established theory, and there is definite merit, but that's all it is, theory from which you work an argument from.

Everyone is dancing on theoretical grounds, but a key factor here is motive, and whether the motive will linger in the perpetrator after a crime has been carried out. It's already been stated, but a crime based on hating 'one person' should not be categorised as one based on hating 'a collective' (though sentencing and judgment should not be marred by such distinctions).

The topic's become a bit derailed, but to address the original question: There is an argument for qualifying the person who filmed the incident as a hate criminal. There was no perceived social identity to begin with: the guy didn't know his roomie was gay. This changed. After the first incident, Ravi did it again, this time with what one might argue was a definite motive: to catch his friend in the act. Whether it was to mock, to embarass or even to blackmail has not been explicitly stated, so I don't know whether this qualifies as a hate crime in nature, but I would argue there was established intent on, for lack of a better phrase, "sociological grounds".

Hate crimes are generally incredibly crass and violent in nature, and can, in extreme situations, result in riots and protests, as previously mentioned. While the motive did change in nature from the first filming to the next, the amount of vicious intent (as far as I can tell), did not.

This begs the question, what boundaries does the 'crime' part of 'hate crime' entail, and what parameters are the boundaries set in? Shouting "XXX is a flaming homo" in the middle of a lecture could be written off as a prank, but enscribing clear insults with nails in the person's room or sending threatening messages would potentially qualify as a hate crime. Thoughts?