There should be no such category as "hate crimes." This is an example of liberals trying to look tough on crime. It places defendants who may be innocent at tremendous legal jeopardy, since the facts in these cases are sometimes very ambigous. If you hit somebody, you hit somebody. That's the crime. Period.

I agree, to a point. However, as long as such a category exists, shouldn't the law be applied equally in all cases?

Have you ever written anything that doesn't toe the far Right line, Scott Pepper?

The Ithaca case has been trumpeted by the Stormfront and similar sites for months. However, they miss some important indicia:

*Apparently, the victim was unable to substantiate her claims about a racial motivation. Despite the crowded concert setting, no witnesses have corroborated her assertions.

*The penalties for juveniles are less severe than those for most adults in criminal law.

Incidentally, the Sun's coverage of the story is lifted from The Cornell Review which is one of those student papers funded by money from far Right foundations. Objectivity? Don't even ask.

A much more balanced piece can be read here.

Mike, I agreed with what you are saying when I was in law school. Now, I believe that hate crime prosecutions make sense when racial animus is the main basis for harrassment, assault or murder. An example would be the James Byrd Jr. case in Texas.

Have you ever written anything that doesn't toe the far Right line, Scott Pepper?

About 90% of what I've written here in the months since I've joined have been book and television reviews. The name of the site is Blogcritics, after all.

The question for McDevil is:

Have you ever written anything that didn't include mindless, unsubstantiated name calling?

So, Scott, why did you write this entry about a case which appears not to be a hate crime episode at all, saying it is?

I know very little about this case, so one might ask why am I commenting on it?....lol

I can tell just by reading this post that not everything there is to know about this incident has been revealed. Six people don't just attack another for no reason. This is an incident that obviously escalated, and then later the victim is looking for a way to rationalize and point fingers, rather than accept a part of the blame.

Frankly, any fight that escalates to this point is a hate crime, simply because violence is hate. To try to make a racial issue of this is entirely missing the point. Was the attack unmotivated? I doubt it. Did he/she deserve to be beaten? No.

MD-

I don't really know whether it was a hate crime or not; I wasn't there.

However, if this had been a case of a black woman being assaulted by six white women who had screamed that they were going to "fuck up her pretty black face," it would most certainly have been classified as a hate crime.

Additionally, I'm not sure why you think the Journal article is somehow unbiased. The Sun piece has quotes from the victim, the accused, the police, and the university. Seems to be presenting all points of view to me.

Six people don't just attack another for no reason.

I don't think you can make that blanket statement, although in this case it might be true.

Whether it was racially motivated or not, the entire thing is ugly beyond belief, especially with two 14-year-olds being involved.

Bullsh!t, Pepper. The races or ethnicities of the parties are not the key to whether a crime is a hate crime. The animus (intent) is. If the intent is to harm the person because of race or ethnicity, then the requirement is met. Based on the facts in this episode, I don't see a hate crime. I do see some poorly behaved young women who got into a spat and should have let it end when security guards at the concert separated them. I think there is any easy test for a situation like this one: Would X have harmed Y if both had been the same race? The answer in this case would seem to be 'possibly,' at the very least.

Yesterday, a man here allegedly abducted a nine-year-old girl from her school and tried to rape her. He had her in the back of his car and had removed her shirt, when she kicked him in the face and ran away. The girl is African-Amercan. The man is described as fair-skinned with blond hair and blue eyes. Applying the same test as above, did a hate crime occur? Again, the answer is not likely. It appears that the man who allegedly did this is a rapist and pedophile. There is no reason to believe he would not rape a white child if the opportunity arose. Race is incidental to the episode. Your problem is that you are rather eagerly imposing racist intent without sufficient evidence.

I believe the plaintiff had two weaknesses in her case in addition to lack of corroboration:

*Security guards had separated her from the group, yet somehow she ended up back in its company. (Is that what the woman who pleaded guilty means by 'she was looking for a fight?')

*She may have tried to exploit the situation by injecting race. (To have gone to the papers with a complaint about the assailants' race instead of the assault itself looks strange.)

Yes, it is ugly, bhw. The victim will have to learn to live with her injuries the same way I've learned to live with mine from an aggravated assault.

Whenever race is even remotely involved, people in general (minorities in particular) tend to abandon quite a bit of logic to recite their pre-fab statements. Lawyers or law-school students are especially prone to ignore common sense and engage in advocacy instead. (I'm being charitable now, Mac Diva.)

It is true that the concept of hate crime is somewhat nebulous and that it is capriciously and unevenly applied. That's because such nomenclature itself is racially-motivated and as such it does not serve the goal to promote justice or fight crime - it is simply to portray the people of color as the continuing victims, all the evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. As we all know - or should know - 90% of interracial violent crime is black-on-white, yet the hate crime nomenclature is reserved primarily for the remaining 10% white-on-black. (Walter Williams, the courageous black economist from George Mason University, expended a lot of ink on the topic.) Only a dimwit like Mac Diva would seek and find excuses where there are few or none. Also, such a disproportionately large segment of her post is devoted to gratuitously worrying about the "rightwing" that one suspects, had the rightwing not existed, she might not have much to say at all.

Anyway -- first, I was struck by some unwarranted assumptions.

Chris Kent: " Six people don't just attack another for no reason."

Why not? Then perhaps race was THE reason.

Chris Kent: "This is an incident that obviously escalated, and then later the victim is looking for a way to rationalize and point fingers, rather than accept a part of the blame."

Whoa! And where is the evidence that she deserves any part of the blame? Even the so-called balanced article (as per Mac Diva) does not establish such claim - it merely says there are inconsistencies between the three testimonies (the victim's, the defendants', and the witnesses'.)

Now, back to Mac Diva.....

-- "Apparently, the victim was unable to substantiate her claims about a racial motivation."

Well, she specifically claims the assailants used epithets with racial aspects. But it is true that beyond the fact of her ripped lip, stitches, ruptured eardrum, the 6 assailants being black and her being white - the race is not an issue here.

Happy now?

C'mon now... Where on Mars do you reside... As someone else noted, had the roles been reversed - 6 whites savagely beating up a black sistah -- there would have been a black riot, presided over by Jesse and Al, if the incident was not declared an anti-black hate crime and prosecuted as such.

Mac Diva: "Scott, why did you write this entry about a case which appears not to be a hate crime episode at all, saying it is?

It "appears" to you - that's why you're challenging him, as though it was a given? Does that make sense? If you establish something beyond appearance, that's the time to challenge him. (I remember Warren Burger's lamenting about the low quality of lawyers nowadays. I presume the curve has not reversed its trend....)

Mac Diva: "The animus (intent) is [the litmus test for hate crime]. If the intent is to harm the person because of race or ethnicity, then the requirement is met. Based on the facts in this episode, I don't see a hate crime."

You mean you're simply not sure (well, to be charitable about your motives). For you've said absolutely nothing that would exclude such a possibility. But here is the reason why this was not classified as hate crime - a technicality (and it comes from your article that you labeled balanced.)

-- "Tompkins County District Attorney George Dentes said hate crime charges were not filed because second-degree harassment is not one of the charges specified in the hate crime statute."

There you have it. After the charges are reduced, for all intents and purposes, to second-degree harassment, it is no longer possible to meet the statutory definition of a hate crime. A technicality, in other words.

Mac Diva: "I think there is any easy test for a situation like this one: Would X have harmed Y if both had been the same race?"

Good thinking.

Mac Diva: "The answer in this case would seem to be 'possibly,' at the very least."

Poor thinking. You have no idea either way. "Possibly" is meaningless. If you want to speculate, consider the FBI Uniform crime reports that bear out the statistical preponderance of black violence against whites.

Mac Diva : "I believe the plaintiff had two weaknesses in her case in addition to lack of corroboration: *Security guards had separated her from the group, yet somehow she ended up back in its company. (Is that what the woman who pleaded guilty means by 'she was looking for a fight?')

You're the one with the weakness. You're implying -- somewhat dishonestly, I might add - that she was the one to come back (a) and to seek them out for a confrontation (b). There is no evidence for this in any of the articles adduced. If there is, you will cite it no doubt..... Right?

Mac Diva: "She may have tried to exploit the situation by injecting race. (To have gone to the papers with a complaint about the assailants' race instead of the assault itself looks strange.)"

Yeah sure, and this Mr. Byrd fellow, the black guy that was dragged to his death in Texas, also presumably "injected" his race into the situation. Also, your parenthetical claim is just as clueless - she merely provided a description of the attackers - not an unreasonable thing to do....

Hey... Mac Diva... Why are you so bigoted against whites? I mean, it's egregious though thinly veiled, your "indicia" and other cute props notwithstanding.

Anyway, hate crime or not.... This is not a happy situation. This is just another example (as if we needed any more) that statistically, blacks tend to be violent, both to themselves and to others, and that many lawyers tend to do violence to logic while defending those blacks. You don't need to spend your time on Stormfront to recognize this sad reality.

Tend to be? In my opinion, that is a bigoted statement and conclusion. What's more, the human who wrote that hideous statement turns around and calls someone else a bigot???? That is supposed to be against the rules!

I'm telling, that's against the rules. Mommy,mommy!!! Why can't some of you act like adults instead of whinning.

I strongly agree with a statement from a person (whom I won't name so as to avoid further anger and events of tearful episodes)who stated that most everyone on this site has a problem when a white man has an opinion or something to say. Now I guess that was bigoted to?

The truth is the truth. When violence is committed against a caucasian by a black (which is at a much higher rate) it is simpley a general crime. If a smart ass white honky like me (Roger) committed the same murder, rape etc against another race it becomes hate.

Bottom Line: Any crime committed against any one humanbeing by another is hate, wouldn't you say?

I did not call all blacks violent, obviously. Perhaps I should have said that compared to whites, the Black community as a whole exhibits a much greater proclivity to violence. In no way does that mean that all blacks are violent.

Call me a bigot if that makes you happy, I don't care. You do know - or should know - that I'm correct.

Facts are not racist, statistics are not bigoted -- all the politically-correct nonsense notwithstanding. Hello................

race isn't my issue, so I'm really not qualified to speak on it, but it is my perception that if black Americans are more prone to violence than whites it is because they are more likely to face oppression. There are statistics that prove that black Americans equally qualified for a job as a white person will be passed over in favor of that white person. This gives the white person the job, and leaves the black person unemployed. So perhaps the black person has no alternative but to turn to crime in that instance? Affirmative action was created to combat this discrepency but then we white folk got worried we'd not get hired, didn't we?

I hope you read my statement Ernest. I agree whole heartedly. Wouldn't you say that any person murdering, rapeing or assaulting another is hate? Regardless of race.

That's baloney, Roger. No one gives a hang what you look like.

A crime is a crime. When a crime is motivated by bias, whatever the melanin levels of the immediate victim(s) and perpetrator(s), it is two crimes -- one against the immediate victim and one against those who share whatever characteristic the perp hates. Hence, hate crime. James Byrd was as much the victim of a hate crime as was Reginald Denny, who was as much the victim of a hate crime as Matthew Shepard. When applied properly -- and, in truth, it isn't always done so, unconscionably -- hate-crime laws are to protect people of ALL hues, sexual orientations, genders, etc.

However, I will apologize for the weird computer-generated characters that appears in conjunction with my posts. I'm typing in MS-Word and pasting into this window, hence these weird A-characters appear, due to coding incompatibility.

Those are MS-Word 'smart quotes', where your quotations and whatnot have 'curly-q's'. You can turn that off in MS-Word as those are not web compatible.

Yes, Roger, thank you.

I am in favor of eliminating this morally-bankrupt concept called hate-crime laws. Transcending the race requires that we start viewing people as human beings, not as members of privileged or special groups.

You are diluted Natalie. And yes I meant "diluted" not "deluded" meaning I think you have a watered down way of thinking. If something has been "diluted" than it is weak or has been weakened!

My own personal opinion of what qualifies as a hate crime is when it terrorizes a community. Murder is murder, true, but I think many serial killers should be prosecuted under hate crimes. If there is a man killing women, then many women in that community feel terrorized. if there is one single murder of a woman, many women think 'how horrible' and lock their doors and go on. When the 12th woman dies, other women feel terror and their lives are disrupted as they modify their behavior for additional safety. That to me goes above and beyond the single murder, which is reprehensible to say the least. That is why I am for hate crimes and they should apply across the board for all people, for all communities, no matter what the race, orientation, religion or whatever.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, however wrong it may be.

Damn Natalie with your tunnel vision opinions you are bound for a train wreck. Who the hell are you and what drugs are you on to think that your right and everyone else is wrong?

Talking about hate, it's closer than you realize. It's in you! But I don't know you so I love you anyway.

Goodbye,
Roger

Natalie, you can't have equal treatment, you can't have a spouse, you can't fight for your country, you can't be mentioned as existing in the school system but somebody out there loves you. Isn't that enough? Geez.

LOL! Indeed, I saw that and hysterical laughter nearly pushed me from my chair. I believe he loves me as much as I believe in the American dream. And he claims to know what is inside me. That's a laugh too. For the record, I hate no human. I hate inequality, bigotry, discrimination under law, and mendacity.

Boomcrashbaby, thanks for the tip on MS Word. I'll try to figure out how to turn off the damn thing in MS Word.

=====================

As to your post.

-- " if black Americans are more prone to violence than whites it is because they are more likely to face oppression."

What oppression SPECIFICALLY are we talking about?

Anyway, if we claim to be a civilized society, then the disproportionate black violence is unacceptable, both as a matter of principle and pragmatism.

For 30 years now, young whites have been discriminated against to eliminate this so-called oppression that you talk about, via both affirmative action and the cult of Diversity, in schools, government and corporate employment. In addition, school admission requirements have been lowered. I've read about staggering percentage of minorities needing remedial courses while in college. We are losing scholastically against China, Japan, and Korea.

This was all to overcome this much-vaunted and increasingly nebulous oppression against Blacks.

I say this oppression bit is egregious nonsense, as it is increasingly used as an illegitimate excuse to tolerate black violence.

As the economic reasons and discrimination are removed as the reason for black violence and criminality -- that is, as the environmental factors are removed - we are approaching the point of beginning to ask whether there are any genetic factors that cause such predisposition. This is a terrible thing to say, but I'm afraid this is the direction where the society is heading, for it is running out of other choices and excuses.

(Roger, I apologize if you'll find it necessary to disassociate yourself from my views.)

History and sociology are immune from politically-correct palliative measures.

Personally, I find it UNACCEPTABLE when my friends have to avoid at all cost mistakenly taking certain exits off a highway for fear of finding himself or herself in a black neighborhood, where violent crime, whether inter or intra-racial, is the norm. Hell, as a white person, I have paid my dues to blacks all around. I am entitled to live in a civilized and peaceful society, damn it.

-- "There are statistics that prove that black Americans equally qualified for a job as a white person will be passed over in favor of that white person."

40 years ago, yes. Can such sporadic event occur nowadays? Sure. But as a rule, today such "statistics" are fiction. In a Fortune 500 corporation, I was repeatedly pressured to hire minorities that were not qualified, passing thereby over whites and Asians.

I'm afraid the excuses-industry does not make an unlimited mileage vehicle.

Thanks for your post.

Time to go puke again.

If you puke too much you'll eventually puke your guts out turning yourself inside out and pukeing youself down the damn toilet, or where ever you are vomiting.

You don't want that. Then you'll be in the bowels of the sewer system.

And I thought safe sex was an issue. Be safe please!!!

However awful that scenario, it strikes me as a preferable alternative to the status quo.

I'm not surprised Natalie. You really speek volumes for yourself and your cause.