Talk:Hate crime
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is part of WikiProject Crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the assessment scale. |
| Low | This article is on a subject of low-importance for crime-related articles. |
|
WikiProject Crime To-do:
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the Discrimination WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of discrimination topics. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
 |
|||
| Archives | |||
|
|||
| About archives • Edit this box |
[edit] Arguments Against
I added the following text in the section for arguments against:
- If it is true that all violent crimes are the result of the perpetrator's contempt for the victim, then all crimes are hate crimes. Thus if there is no alternate rationale for prosecuting some people more harshly for the same crime based on who the victim is, then different defendants treated unequally under the law, which violates the United States Constitution.
Twice this text has been removed as "unsourced soapboxing." But I'm not on a soapbox; I'm not arguing a position. I'm merely recounting a popular argument against. I'm sorry I don't have a ready source, but is it right to exclude one of the primary arguments against, for lack of a proper source? Brain Rodeo 22:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I added sources. I think the original point could be stated more concisely. The second source doesn't look very reliable however it is written by a an Associate Professor at California State University.--J2000ca (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The logic presented in this bullet point is entirely dubious. Sure it may be sourced, but it's still extremely dubious, and in fact leads to a skewed perception of those people who oppose hate crime laws, as this would present them as naive weasely people.
- It is known that not all crimes are committed based on a motive of hate. You just need one murder inspired by money, or protection in order to provide a counter-example for that point.
- Even why committed based on a motive of hate there is no reason to imply that they are equal to hate crime laws. A person who kills a woman is obviously less culpable for hate crimes when he killed her for motives other than "she's just a woman." However, in a hate-crime situation the evidence must show that any arbitrary person of that protected class would have met the same events. Namely, if someone killed a black man because he saw the person withdraw money from an ATM, then this burden fails. Any person not just black males could have been the target. However, a group of three men who beat a black man to death seemingly out of random shouting obscenities such as "fucking nigger! go back to nigger land!" (excuse me for the graphic language) then that would indicate that any black man could have been the victim, not just this particular one. Thus, the crime was committed not just on that one individual for reasons specific to that individual, but rather committed in whole against all members of that protected class as the victim was simply an arbitrary member of that class.
So, seriously, attempting to argue that all crimes are hate crimes can be disproved by patent logic. While situations in the real world typically do not lead themselves to as cut and dry situations as above, is a nature of reality from theory, not anything that could be used to attack the sound theory of hate crime legislation. --Puellanivis (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- There are in fact an infinite number of arguments against Hate Crimes, but pure patent nonsense is not worth the bits it requires to store it. This statement that "all crimes are hate crimes" is a similar statement to "the Medieval people thought that the world is flat." Both are entirely wrong, unjustified, unsound, invalid, etc. Such ideas should be given as a proper representation that the idea is not held among "learned" people, but rather is a weaselly defense against an unjustified (personal opinion) opposition to Hate Crimes. Namely, it's a cart before the horse. It starts with "Hate Crimes are bad" and then proceeds to contrive, alter, select, or otherwise provide support for that idea. At that point, such an idea is a worthwhile as the idea that "I am the Christian God reborn as a second Jesus." I can produce evidence to support that statement, but I've selectively chosen only what supports, and what does not support such an assertion, because inclusion of the opposing information would overwhelm the evidence that I am, and we'd know that it's wrong. Such a contrived idea can be true, however much more unlikely. This however, it patently invalid as any part of a logical argument, unless it ends with "the statement is false." --Puellanivis (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- You seem to be missing the whole point of that argument which is even a murder committed purely for money puts the criminal's personal financial gain ahead of the victim's life, which is therefore called "hateful" as it's so contemptuous for the value of the victim. It is the "coldness" of the calculated act that the argument refers to, not the thoughts of the criminal. Beyond that, it just becomes an argument over semantics. 75.16.136.29 (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] This just in...
Ok, so going off the edits that were reverted, showing that the world is flat, by say... observing it from space, and that a ship going out would come back as evidence of a flat earth. Seriously, those "supports" are patently contrary to fact. It's not POV, it's not editorializing, it's "these things violate actual physical reality", let me know when it's not OK to point out that things are contrary to fundamental reality, and can be torn down quickly by even first-grader logic. Yes, Wikipedia recommends following NPOV at all times, but it's also recommended in Wikipedia to point out beliefs that are just totally against reality. Seriously, "if all crimes are motivated by contempt for the victim"... seriously... SERIOUSLY think about this. That is saying that ALL crime is committed with a motive of hate. Which entirely ignores the two other fundamental motives for murder: money, and sex. Seriously, the argument made is an inductive argument who's premise is false. Sure it's always true, because it has invented a reality within which we are made to beg the question. All crimes in such a condition would be motivated by hate, because that was a necessary factor in the setup for the argument.
Wikipedia has no compelling force to represent opinions that are contrary to fact, without noting their impossibility. --Puellanivis (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Italian-Americans
You write: "In the United States, anti-Black bias was the most frequently reported hate crime motivation. (African-Americans constitute the second-largest minority group; Hispanics are the largest).[4] Of the nearly 8,000 hate crimes reported to the FBI in 1995, almost 3,000 of them were motivated by bias against African Americans.[5] Other frequently reported bias motivations were anti-white, anti-Jewish, anti-gay, and anti-Hispanic.[5]" You forgot something. Please, can you add "Italian-Americans"? During the 1800s and early 20th Century, Italian Americans, being seen as non-Anglo and non-white, were the second most likely ethnic group to be lynched (from: Mangione, Jerre. Five Centuries of the Italian-American Experience). The largest mass lynching in American history involved the lynching of eleven Italians in the city of New Orleans.(From: Moses, Norton H. Lynching and Vigilantism in the United States: An Annotated Bibliography) Thanks... --Jackblues 16:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
