Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 08 Jul 2016, 11:57 am

Oh for goodness sake!

You say that people should not punish people for their race. We both agree that there should not be "Hate crime" statutes. Can you (since you are a lawyer, and quite likely smarter than I am in this area) explain how this is not a "hate crime"?
Let's see...
You have hate.
You have an anti-race sentiment.
You have a crime.

Explain how this is NOT a racially biased hate crime. Which of those three facts above are in dispute?


As for the greater sentencing for crimes by African-Americans, I have already said there should be standard sentencing regardless of race. Do you agree?

I think there should be a set punishment for cocaine possession regardless of powder or pellet (crack) form. I think multiple convictions should increase the sentence length.

All of this should be regardless of race. I am not going to get into an argument defending differences in sentencing when I do not agree with differences in sentencing.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 08 Jul 2016, 12:00 pm

bbauska
How is this not a hate crime? She said "I hate white people" and then threw a punch.


Look at the sentence.
He placed the city woman on 12 months probation and ordered her to get psychological and psychiatric counselling, as well as counselling for substance abuse.


What motivated her crime was most likely being horribly drug and/or high.
If she had committed an act like this stone cold sober, and had known racist affiliations or a record indicating racist motivations ....maybe.
Natives in Canada have been given pretty shoddy treatment, particularly before the 1960's.Residential schools were little more than a form of child abuse for decades...
Many have had a hard time finding a rewarding life. Suicides are currently epidemic among them, especially in remote areas, and drub and alcohol abuse also at epidemic levels.
They are incarcerated at rates that are ridiculously high and which have contributed to several lost generations . Putting this woman in prison for 6 months probably didn't help her with her demons.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 08 Jul 2016, 1:15 pm

Thank you, RickyP. You apparently do desire to see crimes treated differently based upon race.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 08 Jul 2016, 1:49 pm

bbauska
Thank you, RickyP. You apparently do desire to see crimes treated differently based upon race.

When I say this?
What motivated her crime was most likely being horribly drug and/or high.
If she had committed an act like this stone cold sober, and had known racist affiliations or a record indicating racist motivations ....maybe.

You can't seem to read a direct answer directly nor read the judges ruling in context.

The reason something is called a hate crime is because racial prejudice is the main motivation.
In this case, its fairly obvious that alcohol and/or drugs is/are the major motivator.

Having said that, indigenous people were subjected to a century of abuse because of their race. Including stealing their children and their homes.
..And every government in Canada has apologized that formally in the last 20 years...
She may not have been motivated by hate against all white people. . But I can at least understand why she might have a legitimate reason if that were the case... Although i don't know here personal story. And I think that context is required to understand her motivations.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 08 Jul 2016, 8:21 pm

For the survey, a hate crime is defined as a criminal offence committed against a person or property, where there is evidence that the offence was motivated by hate.

https://www.google.com/search?num=40&q=what+is+considered+a+hate+crime+in+canada&oq=what+is+a+hate+crime+in+canada&gs_l=serp.1.1.0j0i8i30.14770.23576.0.26681.12.12.0.0.0.0.115.912.11j1.12.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..0.9.716...30i10j0i7i30j0i8i7i30.IDeBX4lY4kM

Note that it does not state the "Main motivation". The woman's actions are, by her own words, were motivated by racial hatred.

I am fine with there not being hate crimes. I have said that, and will continue to say that. Also, I have said that all crime penalties should be mandated sentences.

Either agree with me, or say that you do want separate treatment based on race.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 09 Jul 2016, 1:39 am

bbauska wrote:For the survey, a hate crime is defined as a criminal offence committed against a person or property, where there is evidence that the offence was motivated by hate.

Note that it does not state the "Main motivation". The woman's actions are, by her own words, were motivated by racial hatred.
There is also a standard legal bar to pass in UK, US and Canadian criminal law of "beyond a reasonable doubt" before someone is found guilty.

I am fine with there not being hate crimes. I have said that, and will continue to say that. Also, I have said that all crime penalties should be mandated sentences.
Well, there are hate crimes, and laws about them, so what you are "fine with" is not the issue.

On the second part, that sounds OK at first glance, but does not allow for another common legal standard, of judicial discretion. Judges and juries in our common law systems have been able to consider mitigating and aggravating factors when they determine sentence.

Either agree with me, or say that you do want separate treatment based on race.
That is one fine false dichotomy you grew there. Well done.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 09 Jul 2016, 7:39 am

I was stating opinion of a personal nature. It is how others learn about us. I know legal standards are different based upon location.

I just don't want them to be different based upon race.

Do you?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 09 Jul 2016, 8:10 am

bbauska
. I know legal standards are different based upon location.
I just don't want them to be different based upon race.


Then do you agree with the premise of Black Lives Matter, (And of the available statistical evidence) that in encounters with law enforcement in the US, people of color are in far greater jeopardy than white people?
And that there need to be systemic changes to counter this unfortunate bias?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 09 Jul 2016, 8:46 am

I do agree that there is a higher statistical chance of a shooting with people of color. The question is why is that?

I think much of the issue is disobedience to the officer. There are troublesome officers, no doubt. Let's use Ferguson as an example. Did Michael Brown follow the orders of the officer? Did Michael Brown assault the officer?

I do not think there needs to be systemic changes by the police.

Now answer my question:
You have hate.
You have an anti-race sentiment.
You have a crime.
Explain how this is NOT a racially biased hate crime. Which of those three facts above are in dispute?

Which of those three facts above are in dispute?

http://www.calgary.ca/cps/Pages/Community-programs-and-resources/Diversity-resources/Hate-and-bias-crimes.aspx

A hate or bias crime is a criminal occurrence committed against a person or property which is motivated by hate, bias or prejudice based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, language, mental or physical disability, sex, age, or any other similar factor.


I think the definition in Calgary for hate crime qualification was met. How does this not qualify based upon the convicted woman's own words?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 09 Jul 2016, 2:30 pm

bbauska
I think the definition in Calgary for hate crime qualification was met. How does this not qualify based upon the convicted woman's own words?

I'm repeating myself... But here you go ...
Because she was probably incapacitated by drugs or alcohol at the time of the crime. In other words, not behaving as she normally would.
That's not covered in the story, and I'm only surmising it from the general problems of drugs and alcohol among indigenous people. There is a clue however. She spent time in jail before her trial which would happen if she were indigent.
Give the judge some credit for understanding the circumstances and the context and the people involved. We appoint judges in Canada with some very high standards. They are given a geat deal of latitude because they are there to mete out justice. Mandatory sentencing is a sure route to unjust treatment of some who are convicted. (See three strikes law).

bbauska
I do agree that there is a higher statistical chance of a shooting with people of color. The question is why is that?

Systemic racism would explain it ...
Freeman liked you to reports that show that blacks are sentenced differently then whites as well. And by that I mean given tougher senteces for the same convictions. Given your predeliction for standardized behaviour, I assume this is appalling to you? Its a fact that reinforces the idea that systemic racsim exists through out the justice department.

bbauska
I think much of the issue is disobedience to the officer. There are troublesome officers, no doubt. Let's use Ferguson as an example. Did Michael Brown follow the orders of the officer? Did Michael Brown assault the officer?

Sure. Black people behave so differently when approached by police.What evidence do you have for this bbauska. (I hope you actually have evidence because it is a rather racist claim.)
The prevalence of video records of police behavior, including from police cameras, seems to indicate that this really isn't the case. (Especially some high profile cases of late..)
It also isn't true, when you consider that black men are now regularly taught to behave to survive the encounter these days. And have been for some time.
Anecdote: A fellow I work with went to University in Arizona in the early 90s. . In his first practices with the varsity soccer team he and all the other visible minorities were told that if they were ever stopped by police while driving they were to put both hands outside the vehicle and keep them visible at all times. And yes to comply with the officer as much as possible while keeping both their hands visible at all times. Only he and the other visible minorities were given the lecture. Their coach was white but he'd had enough of his players go through police encounters that he knew what he had to do to keep his players of color safe.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 10 Jul 2016, 7:15 am

bbauska wrote:I was stating opinion of a personal nature. It is how others learn about us.
What I have learned is you will state opinion but not back it up with any evidence and will even claim you said no such thing when challenged.

Did you arrive at your opinion that hate laws are unfairly applied ex nihilo* or did you base it on any inputs?

I just don't want them to be different based upon race.

Do you?
Nope.

(* for those who don't have Google or basic Latin, it means "out of nothing)
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 10 Jul 2016, 1:49 pm

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/hate-incidents

Dustin Daquin, 22, was charged with two counts of simple battery and misdemeanor hate crime after allegedly attacking a Latino man and black man while making comments about their race and sexuality.

Amrit Marajh, 28, was charged with assault as a hate crime after allegedly punching a 24-year-old Jewish man.

Are these examples enough for you? Do I need to keep looking past the first two pages?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 14 Jul 2016, 1:39 am

bbauska wrote:https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/hate-incidents

Dustin Daquin, 22, was charged with two counts of simple battery and misdemeanor hate crime after allegedly attacking a Latino man and black man while making comments about their race and sexuality.

Amrit Marajh, 28, was charged with assault as a hate crime after allegedly punching a 24-year-old Jewish man.

Are these examples enough for you? Do I need to keep looking past the first two pages?

What do those two examples show?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 14 Jul 2016, 10:14 am

Lets do a comparison between the Inuit woman and the Daquin incident

Both involved simple battery
Both involved hateful speech toward a protected class

Why was Daquin charged with a misdemeanor hate crime and not the Inuit woman? Help me understand the difference in what they did. Not what they feel, or how they are nice the rest of the time.

I am judging the people on their actions, so based on their actions, what is the difference?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 17 Jul 2016, 3:06 am

bbauska wrote:Lets do a comparison between the Inuit woman and the Daquin incident
Sure. One happened in Canada. The other happened in New Orleans. Who wrote, "I know legal standards are different based upon location" on this thread?

One involved a single assailant, the other involved two (I believe Dustin's accomplice was not caught).

One was a single point in time. The other unfolded.

http://m.wdsu.com/news/nopd-arrest-1-se ... e/29201890

What is interesting to me is that it looks like your second example is a South Asian (Sikh or Hindu by the name) assailant and white Jewish victim. So what was your actual point? And are two incidents plucked from the SPLC site really worthy in terms of data.