Government priority and the Return of the White Knights

In an America divided by racial tensions , it seems to some we are seeing a massive resurgence in the so-called " white supremacist " movement , made up of various neo-Nazi terrorist groups and of course , the notorious White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.Shouldn't the Bush administration be concentrating on domestic policy and be mopping up these thugs instead of pursuing war with foreign nations ?

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com...ws/01alene.txt

http://www.adl.org/hate-patrol/njs/neonazi.asp

Mind giving sources for this information and some details?

Unless they start carrying out acts of aggression on other people, they have a right to free speech. We can disagree with them all we want, but if somebody wants to badmouth any other race, it's their liberty. So these thugs can't be "mopped up", even if we think they're wrong, because nothing prohibits them from demonstrating.

I agree with Sasquatch here. (For once :p ) I however do want to say that I hate these people with all my heart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Unless they start carrying out acts of aggression on other people, they have a right to free speech. We can disagree with them all we want, but if somebody wants to badmouth any other race, it's their liberty. So these thugs can't be "mopped up", even if we think they're wrong, because nothing prohibits them from demonstrating.

---

Yep. Legally speaking, the things they say is equal to what people say about the president or anyone else in the world. Morally speaking, it's a different story, but our government should very rarely act as the morals police. If that were changed, there's an excellent possibility that we'd end up being forced to follow someone else's moral code in which wife beating is ok or something like that.

For once, I agree with Sasquatch, for more than once with Nikotine. I mean, well...They have the right to be as stupid as they want if they do not engage in violent action. Of course, neonazi groups at least do engage in violent action...so do you think this racist beatings should be prosecuted more than other violent actions made under a different motivation, such as robbery or gang fights? I personllay think it should, because you know, if you are going to get hurt, you probably did something against someone who may hate you, or you simply refused to hand in the money when threatened. So you know, with other kind of crimes you can somehow attempt to do something to avoid them, while with hate crimes the only things that determines if you get beaten or not is the colour of your skin, and it's not like you can do much about that.

Also, as a little anecdote not directly directed to this, in a city close to Barcelona (in Spain) called Girona- wich is nearly a town, a very nice one, by the way- there is a neonazi group...with a black person. The guy walks around with swastikas everywhere and a tattoo in his arm where you can read "God, forgive me for being black". It's so pathetic I can't even hate him, I just pity his idiocy.

Ok, that's messed up. What I find fun is arguing with neo-nazi's around here. We get surpremicists like other places have punk groupies. Just a bunch of stupid kids rebelling against mommy and daddy, or other such teenie B.S.

Anyways, we get annoying wannabe whatevers, and they like starting fights, and I like ending those fights. Great way to relieve stress and generally pick up my day. Almost feel bad about it. And the problem is, now, I can't get them to fight me anymore :cry:. Anyone know a racist S.O.B. that I can beat up?

As for Bush&Co.- with all the CRAP that they do, are you honestly expecting them to do ANYTHING right... EVER!?!

Quote:

---

Ok, that's messed up. What I find fun is arguing with neo-nazi's around here. We get surpremicists like other places have punk groupies. Just a bunch of stupid kids rebelling against mommy and daddy, or other such teenie B.S.

---

Are you calling punks and white supremicists the same?

One might consider me to be a 'punk', but I am most certainly not a racist, nor am I rebelling against mommy and daddy. I think you should reconsider your thoughts on this sub groupd of people.

Quote:

---

As for Bush&Co.- with all the CRAP that they do, are you honestly expecting them to do ANYTHING right... EVER!?!

---

No.

White supremacists, neo-nazis and skinheads make me sick.

However, they have an inalienable right to make complete sausages out of themselves if that's what pleases them.
The moment they start hurting anyone, though, they cross the line and become illegal. Hopefully it won't come to that.

Sadly, though, I'd rather live in a world with white supremacists and black supremacists than a world where people's social and political views are censored because some people find them repulsive. I don't believe in taking away rights and freedoms because I disagree with what is being said; I do, however, think it's fine to remove those rights from groups that are either causing harm or are out to cause harm.
Such is the case in Germany, where displaying nazi or neo-nazi regalia is illegal.

Wow, somebody agrees with me. Two people. And those two people!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

As for Bush&Co.- with all the CRAP that they do, are you honestly expecting them to do ANYTHING right... EVER!?!

---

Regardless of your opinion of the Bush administration, they are obligated not to do anything about groups like these. Whether you think it's right or wrong, or should be allowed or should be punished, these supremacist groups are exercising a Constitutional right and cannot be stopped until they cross a boundary.

As Big D said, it's better to live somewhere where we have the freedom to form groups like that than to live in a place where there isn't that freedom available.

As for "hate crimes", the extra punishments are "thought crimes". They're not punishing just what people do, they're punishing what they're thinking when the do it. If I go kill a guy on the street, I should get the same punishment no matter what color the guy is or why I killed him.

The thing with hate crimes, though, is they are generally perceived as being especially brutal and cruel. If you get in a fight with a black man and you wind up shooting him dead, the punishment would likely be more lenient than if you had chained him to the back of your truck and drove down a dirt road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocFrance

The thing with hate crimes, though, is they are generally perceived as being especially brutal and cruel. If you get in a fight with a black man and you wind up shooting him dead, the punishment would likely be more lenient than if you had chained him to the back of your truck and drove down a dirt road.

---

I assume you're referring to that incident back in 1995 ? You know , with the mentally retarded black man was beaten and gagged by a gang of seemingly normal teenagers before being chained to their pickup truck and dragged something like 9 miles down a road.When the police came , they recovered him in pieces ...

Sheer evil.

The way I see it, it doesn't matter if it's a "hate crime" or not, the crime should be illegal, not the motive. If it's particularly cruel, then they can add more charges, but it shouldn't matter who it's against, in terms of skin color.

As far as I had heard, that black guy in Texas that was dragged to death was only attacked by two guys, and both of them got life imprisonment.

First off, James Byrd was attacked by three men. Two of them recieved the death penalty, and one recieved life in prison.

The nation was outraged at his death--this is only right, and the nation should be outraged.

Which is why I want to know--would someone please look up the name Ken Tillery, from Jasper, Texas, and tell me why the nation wasn't outraged then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

The way I see it, it doesn't matter if it's a "hate crime" or not, the crime should be illegal, not the motive. If it's particularly cruel, then they can add more charges, but it shouldn't matter who it's against, in terms of skin color.

As far as I had heard, that black guy in Texas that was dragged to death was only attacked by two guys, and both of them got life imprisonment.

---

OK, say you're of a certain race. One day, another person of your race is beaten to a bloody pulp by a person of another race. The man is charged with murder and put away. However, this happens several more times - members of your race brutally murdered by members of the other race. How do you think you would feel? I would be pretty afraid to interact with any of the other race. If I were the other race, I'd be afraid of some retribution from the first race.

The intent of hate crimes is most often not to kill a person of a certain group, but rather to instill fear and paranoia in the other members of that group. That is why hate crimes should be considered particularly heinous. They do nothing but cause racial tension.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocFrance

The intent of hate crimes is most often not to kill a person of a certain group, but rather to instill fear and paranoia in the other members of that group. That is why hate crimes should be considered particularly heinous. They do nothing but cause racial tension.

---

Again, the intent doesn't matter, it's the crime that matters. Whether I think "I don't like this guy" or I think "I hate black people" when I kill him, the only crime is killing him. The motive has nothing to do with guilt or innocence of the crime. A "hate crime" is no more heinous than any other crime, the only thing that's different is the motive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Again, the intent doesn't matter, it's the crime that matters. Whether I think "I don't like this guy" or I think "I hate black people" when I kill him, the only crime is killing him. The motive has nothing to do with guilt or innocence of the crime. A "hate crime" is no more heinous than any other crime, the only thing that's different is the motive.

---

Any lawyer or judge will tell you that intent is a primary factor when deciding on a sentence.

If motive or intent did not matter, then manslaughter would also be considered murder. Intent does play a factor, and it should.

'Intent' is relevant to guilt.

'Motive' is relevant to sentence.

'Intent' = whether or not you intended to kill.
'Motive' = what compelled you to kill.

Motive is reduced to whether your killing could be partially-condoned or not, not a different sentence for every different reason.

After making this category of thought-crime a factor, what about the others? Surely it's more cold-blooded to kill someone for money than for hatred, right? So we should have a "greed-motivated crimes" law as well? A "CYA Crimes" law, a "wanted to know what it's like crimes" law, and a "he needed killin' crimes" law with extra-light sentences?

This is America. We punish people for committing crimes, not having the wrong thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

This is America. We punish people for committing crimes, not having the wrong thoughts.

---

Yes, but I'm talking about punishing people that let the wrong thoughts lead them to committing crimes. As D corrected me, intent is huge factor in any criminal case.

Anyway, the primary purpose of criminal law is deterrence, not punishment. By making the punishment for hate crimes much more severe, hopefully the would-be murderers will be discouraged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

Motive is reduced to whether your killing could be partially-condoned or not, not a different sentence for every different reason.

After making this category of thought-crime a factor, what about the others? Surely it's more cold-blooded to kill someone for money than for hatred, right? So we should have a "greed-motivated crimes" law as well? A "CYA Crimes" law, a "wanted to know what it's like crimes" law, and a "he needed killin' crimes" law with extra-light sentences?

---

There's a big difference between 'different laws for different motives' and 'different sentences for different motives' .

Guilt (for murder)- or criminal liability - is determined by two things.

(1) Did the accused carry out the act of killing the victim?

(2) Did the accused intend to kill?
or alternatively
Did the accused know his/her action could be fatal, but was reckless to this risk?

If both of these are satisfied, then the accused is guilty of murder, in the absence of a defence.

A sentence is then imposed by the judge. Usually, there is a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. However, sometimes the death penalty is an option; there are also other variations, such as the length of the non-parole period. A person's motive for murder can significantly impact upon this.

For example, if a man murders is neighbour so he can steal his neighbour's beer, then he'll likely get the maximum possible sentence.
On the other hand, if a somoene murders the man who raped his wife, then the motive is entirely different. In those cases, the crime of murder is still to be condemned and punished, but the offender would very likely receive a lesser sentence than someone who murdered for personal gain, as in the 'beer' example.

So there can indeed be a different sentence for different motives.

Pesonally, I have no problem with specific legislation targetting 'hate crimes'. Persecution of minorities is depsicable and should be dealt to accordingly, especially when one person is harmed merely for belonging to the group. The offence is targetted at every person in that group, not just the one victim, in such cases.

If X kills Y because he wants Y's money, he's guilty of murdering Y. His motive was because he wanted money.

If X kills Y because Y was white and X hates all white people, he's guilty of murdering Y. His motive was because he has a murderous hatred of all white people.

No society needs that kind of extreme prejudice.

Damn, Big D just showed me up. Again.

And now I remember why I barely got a C in my Law 220 class.

I'm definitely not out to "show anyone up":p

Law is a complex and messy business. "Intent" and "motive" mean basically the same thing to most people; I was just clarifying the legal distinction between the two.

Well Big D, thank you for clarifying the difference between intent and motive.

However, the rest of your post, I disagree with. As with your example, if a man murders his neighbor so he can steal his neighbor's beer, he is guilty of murder, and his motive is stealing--which is a crime, and just another charge to add to the list. However, if a man murders the guy who raped his wife, he is guilty of murder, and his motive is revenge/justice. But, this man could plea-bargain his way down, especially if he did it within a short time of finding out what happened, finding out who it was, or seeing the guy again. There are time limits, within which can be plead temporary insanity. Not to mention, severe emotional distress would come into play in the courtroom, and the defense council would probably rely on trying to make the jury understand and/or feel sorry for the suspect. A jury member might say "well he did it, but I understand why, so he's got to be punished, but we might should go light on the poor guy."

As for "hate crimes", either somebody murders somebody because they're a certain color, or somebody murders somebody because they want money, they're mad at 'em, etc. As The Redneck said, when will the "he needed killin'" motive get a different sentence than the "he was black" motive, or the "I wanted his wallet" motive? Why don't we toss in the "he looked at me wrong" and "I'd never done it before and figured now was as good a time as any" motives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

As for "hate crimes", either somebody murders somebody because they're a certain color, or somebody murders somebody because they want money, they're mad at 'em, etc. As The Redneck said, when will the "he needed killin'" motive get a different sentence than the "he was black" motive, or the "I wanted his wallet" motive? Why don't we toss in the "he looked at me wrong" and "I'd never done it before and figured now was as good a time as any" motives?

---

That's a good point, and one that can only be debated in terms of "personal opinion", I guess. Some people see "hate crimes" as a widespread social evil, something that occurs frequently and isn't just another sad display of typical human greed or callousness. "He needed killin" usually shows a fairly utter disregard for human life and the law, but that excuse can come from a lot of reasons. It's not a specific motivation, unlike racial hatred which can be defined and quantified.

Racism has strong links to many of history's greatest horrors: slavery, genocide, the Holocaust. That could well be the reason many people want violent racial hatred to be placed in a class of its own - so it can be cracked down upon as a uniquely abhorrent offence.

I fully understand why people would want all murder to be treated the same; after all, the results for the victim - i.e. unjust death - are the same no matter the killer's motivation.

People are killed every day because someone else wants their wallet or their car. Well, not in my country, but in more populous nations. When that happens, though, I don't feel like, "Oh no! I've got a wallet/car! They want me dead too! I'm threatened by this wanton hatred!".
However, when someone is killed because of prejudice against their race/sexuality/some other aspect of their identity, it's a different matter. If I was in a particular minority group and I'd learned that a group of thugs beat someone to death for being black/gay/whatever, I'd feel personally vulnerable and threatened by what had happened.

All violent crime is terrible and has effects that extend far beyond the victim. However, hate crimes are such that a whole section of the community is potentially made to feel like targets.

That's how I see it, anyway. I don't have a problem with there being hate crime laws. I'd not have a problem if there weren't hate crime laws, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

If I was in a particular minority group and I'd learned that a group of thugs beat someone to death for being black/gay/whatever, I'd feel personally vulnerable and threatened by what had happened.

---

If everybody involved was brought to justice, why would it matter? Something bad happened, those responsible have been put away, and it probably won't happen again at least until those guys get out. Like the three guys in Texas that dragged the black guy to his death--they were prosecuted and punished, which removed that particular threat. Now black people don't have to worry about "hate crimes" in that area any more than they did before this happened. If a serial killer is going around my town, and he's captured and put in jail, now I don't have to worry about a serial killer coming after me, right? I can understand if the Klan started acting back up and lynching people, but it's usually just isolated incidents.

(By the way, racism may have a link to slavery, but remember, most of those slaves were bought from black slave traders in Africa.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

If a serial killer is going around my town, and he's captured and put in jail, now I don't have to worry about a serial killer coming after me, right? I can understand if the Klan started acting back up and lynching people, but it's usually just isolated incidents.

---

Because we're trying to deter people and prevent these crimes from happening in the first place rather than just punishing those who commit them after the crime has already taken place.

Punishment isn't a deterrant for crime? Or are normal crimes alright just to punish the guilty, but we've got to do more to "discourage" hate crimes? Why is it that we need to find a way to deter "hate crimes" more than any other crime?

ah gonna have to disagree with sasquatch again (sorry about this) freedom of speech is a tricky one. yes saying "i hate blacks" maybe just okay. but saying "all blacks should die" "kill all the blacks" "£2000 for the next guy to give me a black guys head" is that legal? your not taking part but inciting racist violence. are giving orders legal or illegal? if they're not arent they just the same as speech? at what point does preaching become an order? are muslim clerics who say all jews need to be killed criminals or exercising their freedom of speech? at what point does the "i hate blacks" logo" become the "you should hate blacks" logo? is there really any difference?

is preaching hate in anyway a good thing? sasquatch in a previous topic you were saying that muslim clerics were saying nasty things about america and should have their mosques bulldozed. now you defend them?

is freedom of speech only considered right when it doesn't affect the people who defend it?

would anyone be happy here if people started walking around town with a sign saying "(insert your name here) must be killed at all costs"?

how many people who have posted here defending people's rights to say similar things are actually black?

Where did you make the connection between "hate crimes" and freedom of speech? If somebody starts saying things like "you should kill all (group) because they're (insult)", that would be a crime, as it would be inciting violence. And why would it matter if it's against a certain race, or any other group of people? If I say "all lawyers must die", is that somehow better than saying "all black people must die"?

There's a difference in somebody who walks around with a sign that says "these people should die" and somebody who murders somebody else. And having equal punishments for murders doesn't have anything to do with free speech.

Quote:

---

f X kills Y because he wants Y's money, he's guilty of murdering Y. His motive was because he wanted money.

If X kills Y because Y was white and X hates all white people, he's guilty of murdering Y. His motive was because he has a murderous hatred of all white people.

No society needs that kind of extreme prejudice.

---

All true, up to and including that we don't want this in our society. But, Person X has a right to have a murderous hatred of all white people. He has a right to join groups that have a murderous hatred of all white people, because the Bill of Rights guarantees us Freedom of Association. He has a right to speak against white people, because we have Freedom of Speech (granted, should he speak harmful lies about them (libel.... or slander, I never can remember which is which), or encourage violence against them, then these are exceptions to Freedom of Speech and he can be proscecuted.). Just like someone can scream about how the Zionists are responsible for 9-11 or about the black helicopters or a whole variety of other things. These are more than unfortunate--they're flat-out nasty, but they're necessary ills in a society that protects our freedom to say and think what we wish. Person X's crime is murder, not being racist. Being racist is nasty, and you're perfectly correct in that it's something we do not need and should not have in our society or any other, but it isn't and shouldn't be a crime.

The people who murdered James Byrd had every right to be racist. That doesn't mean that you or I would want to hang out with them, or that they're in any way decent people, but our government does not have the duty or the right to prevent this. Where they violated the law--where the government can and should step in--is when they murdered somebody.

No one has the right to have a murderous hatred of anyone. Murder isn't a protected form of expression.

Haha! Your semantics are mine! *hordes*

However, back to topic. This is an issue I'm very torn about. On the one hand, when you get down to the nitty gritty murder is murder is murder is murder... only it's not. There IS a difference when you murder someone for a few bucks and when you murder someone for running over your grandma. And yes, the law DOES see a difference in that. You'll get more time for killing the person who ran over your grandma, in all likelihood.

So, if we differentiate between anykind of murder/violent crime at all, it doesn't make sense NOT to differentiate between a "normal" murder and a racially based murder.

A human being who will kill another human being based on looks, intelligence, sexual orientation, gender, or beliefs or for their own personal amusment is a much worse person than someone who murders as a result of a hit and run accident. Well, that's not always going to be true, but based on motive... Argh, see! Confliction.

Morally, I see it as worse crime. I see it as a crime against humanity. I see it as a psychological crime that attempts to get insides the heads of all people who classify themselves in a way similar to the person against whom the original crime was perpetrated. However, I am no where near well versed enough in law to know if there is a difference on the legal level.

Yeah...the government shouldn't limit people from forming groups that plot on and talk about killing people all day, but then when they're Arabs from the middle east "OMFG TERROR WE MUST INTERVESTGATE TO STOP IT FROM HAPPEN BEFORE HAPPENING!!11".

God I hate how hypocritical people are.