By R.C.
Tue, Mar 8, 2022 9:32 a.m.
https://ktla.com/news/socal-men-who-attacked-turkish-restaurant-in-beverly-hills-get-federal-prison-sentences/
Isn't the term "hate crime" a tautology?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
"Given the motivations of Chalikyan and Stepanyan, they pleaded guilty to a charge of committing a hate crime, as well as a count of conspiracy, the DOJ said. Stepanyan was sentenced to five years in prison, while Chalikyan received a 15-month sentence."
GRA:Hate crime,shmate crime.What kind of attack isn't a "hate crime?"The term is redundant.
All shootings,stabbings and assaults are hate crimes,in one way or another.
--GRA
It is a tautology. It's in the same veign as when something is described as a "robbery gone wrong" when someone is injured or killed during the commission of it. Since when is any criminal act something going right?
>Isn't the term "hate crime" a tautology?
No, it's not.
A 'hate crime' is an enhancement based on motive (or perceived motive) to an underlying offense, i.e. where the underlying act is already a crime -- when there is no underlying offense, 'hate' is not a crime.
Generally, the protected victim classes against whom a hate crime enhancement is likely to be added are based on 'the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability' -- link.
However, as a practical matter, Whites are not seen as a protected victim class, and 'hate' against Whites is rarely prosecuted.
The motive for most crime is pecuniary.
Every white person should note this part of the federal 'hate crime' statute (see the link):
----------
(b)Certification Requirement.—
(1)In general.—No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or a designee, that—
...
(C)the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or
(D)a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.
----------
So (C) and (D) imply the DoJ can prosecute, or further prosecute someone already prosecuted or convicted at the state/local level, at its own discretion, if it's decided (based upon what criteria?), that such a prosecution serves the cause of 'eradicating bias-motivated violence', or is otherwise 'in the public interest'.
People ought to contemplate how something like this could be codified into the federal criminal statutes, and what its purpose ultimately is.
I've already stated my opinion of 'hate crime' laws: no self-respecting white person should support their existence and use.
Armenians in conflict with Turks. Age old hates with persons who engage in blood feud from the old country. Each kind should restrict itself to it's own kind. Mixing different groups of people in the same spot not a good idea.
According to Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), all laws which are impartial on their face, but which are applied in a discriminatory way, in order to discriminate against identifiable groups, are in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, and thus unconstitutional. Therefore, all “hate crime” and “civil rights” laws are also unconstitutional.
https://www.theconstitutionproject.com/portfolio/yick-wo-and-the-equal-protection-clause/
https://www.google.com/search?q=yick+wo+v+hopkins+%281886%29&ei=2GYpYoTYDIiJggf3qpf4Dw&ved=0ahUKEwiEpKLsw7r2AhWIhOAKHXfVBf8Q4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=yick+wo+v+hopkins+%281886%29&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBQgAEIAEMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgUIABCGAzoHCAAQRxCwAzoFCAAQogRKBAhBGABKBAhGGABQtQ9Y9idg6ipoAXABeACAAWOIAaoFkgEBOJgBAKABAcgBCMABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz
I'm aware of the (rather sequestered) controversy/discussion about 'hate crime' law and its application vis-a-vis the equal protection clause.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) was about a particular instance where a law was rather obviously applied unequally and unfairly.
Here you seem to be talking about a situation more akin to a class action -- or perhaps to use more modern parlance: 'disparate impact' -- 'hate crime' laws have a 'disparate impact' on Whites, and therefore violate the equal protection clause (?).
>but which are applied in a discriminatory way
First you would have to prove that 'hate crime' laws are 'applied in a discriminatory way', and I'm not sure how that would go.
I think it would probably (?) be easy to show that Whites are charged with 'hate crime' enhancements out of proportion to the share of (underlying) crime they commit, but I don't know the stats on that, nor do I know if that, barring any other particulars of individual cases examined, would be enough to establish the claim -- what if evidence of 'hate' was presented in more cases where Whites were the perpetrators, but in fewer cases of non-white perpetrators, for the simple reason they never seriously looked for evidence of 'hate' in cases with white victims? -- then you'd have to establish that as a systematic problem -- etc -- all of that seems like a tall order.
I'm not a fan of court decisions that rely on 'disparate impact' -- these are often fatuous in that they completely ignore the reality of human differences.
I oppose 'hate crime' laws for two reasons: 1) on principle, because I think one motive for a crime should not mean that crime is punished more severely than when the same crime is committed for a different reason; 2) they are, in practice, a tool for oppressing Whites, and I do not see that changing.
"Disparate impact" is irrelevant to this. That rhetorical scam wouldn't be invented for another 80 years.
You would merely need to cite in court the assertions by professors, whereby it is by definition "impossible" for blacks to be guilty of hate crimes against Whites.
>"Disparate impact" is irrelevant to this.
LOL -- actually, it fits your complaint about 'hate crime' enforcement pretty well: you claim application of 'hate crime' law is unfair to Whites, meaning, in today's parlance, said application has a 'disparate impact' on Whites.
>That rhetorical scam wouldn't be invented for another 80 years.
I have no idea what you're talking about here; but the sad thing is, I don't think you do either -- I made no connection between 'disparate impact' and anything other than the nature of your complaint about current 'hate crime' jurisprudence.
When I wrote
>Here you seem to be talking about a situation more akin to a class action
by 'here' I was obviously talking about the 'hate crime' discussion, and nothing else -- and as I said, it's an apt description of your complaint -- apt enough.
You would merely need to cite in court the assertions by professors, whereby it is by definition "impossible" for blacks to be guilty of hate crimes against Whites.
Yeah, sure: 'merely'.
I don't think dumb assertions by 'professors' would have much relevance when trying to establish in civil court, to a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard, that the actual application or enforcement of 'hate crime' law is unfair ('discriminatory') to Whites.
I mean WTF -- and you had the nerve to claim that I 'say a lot of stupid things'.
Post a Comment