http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25334030

Quote :

"RALEIGH, N.C. -- State lawmakers are considering legislation that would make it illegal to hang a noose or burn a cross while trying to intimidate someone. Discuss This Story The bill's sponsor, Sen. Doug Berger, said recent high-profile reports of such displays both in and outside North Carolina convinced him to introduce the legislation. The bill would make the display of a noose or burning cross a low-grade felony punishable by up to around two years in prison. But the display must be designed to intimidate someone who is of another race, color, creed, nationality or country of origin. Berger said the bill contains the specific criteria to avoid infringing on an individual's First Amendment rights. It's already a misdemeanor to engage in ethnic intimidation in North Carolina."

Tactless and racist, yes. But felony!?!?! C-mon guys.

6/23/2008 3:07:07 PM

I hope and pray this law passes.

























And is swiftly struck down as a blatant violation of the first amendment. There are already laws in place to protect someone from having any of this done on their own property, there don't need to be additional laws.

6/23/2008 3:08:37 PM

Why don't they just make all racially motivated intimidation a felony?

That's broad enough language that you could prosecute the real dickheads that do stuff with nooses, and the dickheads who get involved in any sort of hatecrime, and so on.

Hell, just improve the language of existing hate crime laws. They obviously want to throw more people in prison for racist acts of expression that could be interpreted as intimidating, so why not just make the existing laws more broad.

Sometimes I wonder if we need to have a public referendum that puts a stop to all new laws for a certain amount of time. Just so they can't make bullshit like this up that wastes people's time.

[Edited on June 23, 2008 at 3:10 PM. Reason : ]

6/23/2008 3:09:51 PM

If

Quote :

"It's already a misdemeanor to engage in ethnic intimidation in North Carolina"

why not make that a felony instead of making stupid laws focusing on shit that's been in the media but actually doesn't matter?

6/23/2008 3:10:35 PM

What about cases where blacks hang the noose or burn the cross anonymously in an act of victimization?

It happens more than you might think.

6/23/2008 3:12:14 PM

Self-hate is not a crime, it's emo.

6/23/2008 3:12:46 PM

LOL

Not self-hate. Feigning racial victimization by anonymously staging a "hate-crime" such as a noose hung at their place of work.

It's also a popular tactic employed by gay-rights activists.


[Edited on June 23, 2008 at 3:24 PM. Reason : 2]

6/23/2008 3:22:32 PM

Quote :

"That's broad enough language that you could prosecute the real dickheads that do stuff with nooses, and the dickheads who get involved in any sort of hatecrime, and so on."

Why should motivation for a crime be a factor in the crime itself.

Why is a white man killing a black man because he hates black people any worse than a white man killing another white man because he's a sociopath, or a black man killing a Hispanic man because of gang violence? Are any of these men less dead because of the motivation of their killers?

6/23/2008 3:25:20 PM

because it is an aggravating circumstance.

btw, all those things you mentioned are aggravating circumstances.

[Edited on June 23, 2008 at 3:28 PM. Reason : .]

6/23/2008 3:28:19 PM

what about the teepee noose bandit OMG.

6/23/2008 4:24:10 PM

WHEN NOOSES ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE NOOSES!!!!!1

6/23/2008 4:43:47 PM

OMG BUSH'S PATRIOT ACT IS TAKING MORE OF OUR FREEDOMS

6/23/2008 5:15:34 PM

I can think of two defensible reasons to attach harsher sentences to hate crimes.

1) Killing a black man simply because he is black is not just an assault on that person, but truly an assault on the race he belongs to. The costs of a typical murder are still there (that man's lost life, the grief and suffering of his family), but there are additional costs that are not present in murders of passion. It affects the entire black community by creating anxiety that they too may be attacked. I a similar argument could be made for giving longer sentences to cop killers (it's not just an assault against a person, it's an assault on the rule of law and our society as a whole).

2) Maybe crimes against minorities are less likely to result in convictions due to prejudices in the judicial system (racist cops, jurors, etc). So you would have to raise the level of punishment to obtain a similar level of deterrence as crimes against non-minorities. This is probably the weaker argument.

When all is said and done, I think #1 is a pretty compelling reason to factor racist motives into the sentencing of criminals. Though I would want it seen applied to all racially motivated assaults, including those against whites. And as far as I know, that's pretty much how it works now. But, I'm not a lawyer.

6/23/2008 5:28:12 PM

^^ the fact that your schtick has zero to do with the topic, makes it lose any bit of humor it might have had.

but thanks for playing.

6/23/2008 7:12:24 PM

^^^I think they already took your freedom, big guy. No need to worry about it taking "more."

I think that any law that makes something like that illegal is ridiculous. JCASH said it, it's a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. It's a knee-jerk response to something the public has largely moved on over, and is no different than making the use of racial epithets a hate crime. Is it ridiculous and offensive that people do these kinds of things to upset their neighbors? Yes, and in the context of an actual crime being committed (i.e. the racial intimidation and assaults the original incident had attached to it), the argument of aggravating circumstances makes sense. The original problem of the incident, the discrimination against students based on race, hasn't been resolved, and this doesn't resolve it. It just makes us (whitey) feel like we're doing something about it.

[Edited on June 23, 2008 at 7:15 PM. Reason : arrows]

6/23/2008 7:15:01 PM

^^^ Maybe if you just killed convicted murderers the next day then the deterrence would actually exist, instead of waiting 30 years and billions of dollars later. naah, that's crazy talk.

Look, it's a crime to murder someone. Why you murdered them shouldn't matter. It's a crime to try to intimidate someone by means of violence or threats of violence. Why you do so also shouldn't matter. In the end, all that happens is a racist application of the law, where whites who are racist are punished more severely than blacks who are racist.

6/23/2008 8:48:32 PM

law doesnt effect me

6/23/2008 8:50:16 PM

^^The notion of deterrence is flawed, as in it doesn't work. If you are going to kill someone, who aren't thinking about the consequences. The only thing the law can do is make murder illegal and provide punishment. It can do no more.

6/23/2008 8:51:43 PM

you are fucking right there is no deterrence if you kill the asshole 30 YEARS LATER. Kill his ass the next day. Then it will be a deterrence. It's awesome, though, to completely remove the deterrent effect of the death penalty and then claim it should be abolished because it doesn't serve as a deterrent. Pure. Fucking. Brilliance.

And, even better, if the law can't provide a deterrent to these assholes, anyway, then let's kill them and rid ourselves of them forever. A dead murderer will harm no more people.

[Edited on June 23, 2008 at 8:54 PM. Reason : ]

6/23/2008 8:53:02 PM

There is absolutely no evidence that deterrence even exists. Even in countries with summary execution, it does not prevent the crime from initially happening.

6/23/2008 8:54:19 PM

you are correct. But it sure as hell prevents it from being committed again by the asshole who did it.

6/23/2008 8:57:42 PM

there were some protestors at the prison today...my boss was like "they do they whenever someone is executed"


i was like well i'll be damned

6/23/2008 9:00:03 PM

aaron,

Not all hate crimes warrant the death penalty (and some states don't even offer the option). And jail time itself is a good deterant.

Why shouldn't motive matter in prosecuting and punishing crimes? It already does! It's part of the differnce between say first degree murder and man slaughter.

[Edited on June 23, 2008 at 9:02 PM. Reason : ``]

6/23/2008 9:01:44 PM

Quote :

"1) Killing a black man simply because he is black is not just an assault on that person, but truly an assault on the race he belongs to. The costs of a typical murder are still there (that man's lost life, the grief and suffering of his family), but there are additional costs that are not present in murders of passion. It affects the entire black community by creating anxiety that they too may be attacked. I a similar argument could be made for giving longer sentences to cop killers (it's not just an assault against a person, it's an assault on the rule of law and our society as a whole)."

That is actually the first logical defense of hate crime legislation I've ever heard. I'll have to think on that. Thanks.

6/23/2008 9:07:22 PM

why should it matter? Is it a crime or is it not a crime? That I deprived someone of his rights is the problem. That I'm a racist asshole is independent of the fact that I deprived someone of his rights. It's really that simple. And, according to smackr, even jail-time can't serve as a deterrent. Thus, we should abolish jails, right?

And, arguing for something because it already exists is pretty stupid. Why shouldn't we have made more laws that discriminated against black people in the 50s? They already existed, after all, right?

6/23/2008 9:08:05 PM

^^ that's the same defense people have always used, FYI.

[Edited on June 23, 2008 at 9:08 PM. Reason : ]

6/23/2008 9:08:32 PM

Maybe, but I've never actually heard it articulated, and I have asked a LOT of people.

Perhaps I just spent too much time around emotional morons *shrug*

6/23/2008 9:13:38 PM

don't be jealous moron. Not everyone can be as awesome as me.

6/23/2008 9:16:43 PM

and the defense is still quite stupid. Is it already a crime? Yes? Good, then we need only enforce our existing laws and the problem is solved.

6/23/2008 9:17:41 PM

i've got a serious question.

when is a displaying a Noose or a Burning Cross in the yard, ever a legitimate form of expression?

i mean, who here EVER needs a noose or a burning cross even on a one-off basis?

this has nothing to do with guns. guns have uses for hunting and self defense, and then theres the whole "militia" concept which still hasn't been definitively settled.

this isnt even related to other forms of expression, like flying the Confederate Flag .... It can be argued that the Stars and Bars is used as a hate symbol, but it also can be equally said to have a completely legitimate use as a symbol of heritage and history for many people with absolutely nothing to do (for them) with either hatred or racism.

But a Noose? a Burning Cross? what use have these EVER had except as a method of execution and/or a symbol of intimidation based on racial hatred?

what possible legitimate use could anyone EVER have for a noose or a burning cross in the yard?

I say: None. Nothing. There is absolutely no possible legitimate use for a noose or a burning cross in the yard, other than to execute someone and/or intimidate them based on the well-known historical associations with racial hatred

and I also say that anyone who tries to frame this "issue" as a "slippery slope" argument that the "gubmint gonna tuk ur guns" or some other constitutionally-protected freedom ...

... is either a liar or a retard.

6/23/2008 9:19:29 PM

^ all true, but the thing is that making it absolutely illegal is just wrong on principle.

There are situations where someone might misconstrue something as a noose, or someone might walk in on an inside joke and think something worse than reality, and people are going to get in trouble needlessly. Then we'll sit around posting on message boards about how absurd our legal system is.

If someone wants to hang a noose, the existing laws and social implications are enough. It's ridiculous for these lawmakers to sit around and come up with this dumb law so that 5 years from now they can say "hey look, we really do like colored, see this law we wrote?" but that has no practical implications and will not actually solve any problems.

6/23/2008 9:22:48 PM

who says speech has to be legitimate? Andres Serrano put a crucifix in a jar of urine and got NEA funding for his "art".

[Edited on June 23, 2008 at 9:23 PM. Reason : sp]

6/23/2008 9:23:09 PM

when government can say what forms of speech are "legitimate," then you have a tyrannical government.

6/23/2008 9:32:39 PM

^ why do you hate America?

Quote :

"Despite his caution, Lance Cpl. Robert Crutchfield, 21, was shot point-blank in the neck during a robbery at a bus stop. Feeding and breathing tubes kept him alive 4½ months, until he died of an infection on May 18. Two men have been charged in the attack, and Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason said Friday the case was under review to decide whether to seek the death penalty. "It is an awful story," said Alberta Holt, the young Marine's aunt and his legal guardian when he was a teenager determined to flee a troubled Cleveland school for safer surroundings in the suburbs. Crutchfield was attacked on January 5 while he and his girlfriend were waiting for a bus. He had heeded the warnings of commanders that a Marine on leave might be seen as a prime robbery target with a pocketful of money, so he only carried $8, his military ID card and a bank card. "They took it, turned his pockets inside out, took what he had and told him since he was a Marine and didn't have any money he didn't deserve to live. They put the gun to his neck and shot him," Holt told The Associated Press."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/01/marine.slaying.ap/index.html

If you assault someone because you're drunk and if you assault someone because they're a marine, you shouldn't be punished the same way. One was a random event, while the other was a product of your own seething hatred that you could possibly feed to others or could be fed from by others. The law has the ability to at least slow the train of hatred in the case of the hate crime, where in the "normal" crime, there's no ideological chain that could really effect it.

[Edited on June 23, 2008 at 9:51 PM. Reason : ]

6/23/2008 9:40:32 PM

and? If you executed these assholes the next day, then justice has been served. Pretty simple.

6/23/2008 9:53:36 PM

^

What about a case like for matthew shepherd. If that were a simple assault, would the outcome have been the same?

6/23/2008 10:09:58 PM

this law is fucking stupid. If i want to hang a noose on a tree in my yard that should be my right. Unless i verbally threaten some black man saying i will use the "noose" or have a sign with racial remarks with the noose then i don't see a problem.

otherwise for all the gov't knows i am a boyscout practicing my knots or was playing hangman with my friends.

6/23/2008 10:11:31 PM

Plus, hatecrime laws started after the KKK burned a church for encourage negros to vote.

Do you think they should merely be prosecuted for arson? in the context of the 1960s, does the fact they're a bunch of racists not make their crime more severe than some deranged psycho that just burns a church down?

6/23/2008 10:16:27 PM

i think the killers of eve carson should be charged with a hate crime.

6/23/2008 10:18:11 PM

Quote :

"But a Noose? a Burning Cross? what use have these EVER had except as a method of execution and/or a symbol of intimidation based on racial hatred?"

I think a noose has obvious racial connotations.

But lynch fever had white victims too.

White folks got lynched in communities where there were no black people.

In other words, it was about race. But it was also just about hanging people.

JUSTICE YEE-HAW!

6/23/2008 10:20:50 PM

^^ if it can be shown they picked her because she was white or educated then yes. And also doubly for the injun guy they supposedly killed too.

6/23/2008 10:22:13 PM

nope. a crime is a crime is a crime. if you actually punish people, then that is enough.

6/23/2008 10:25:10 PM

^ that's like saying that 10 years in prison is the same as life in prison.

6/23/2008 10:31:53 PM

On my less thoughtful days, I'm likely to adopt burro's point of view.

But when you really consider our nation's history, the need for hate crime legislation is obvious.

It's just a little something extra written into our laws that says, "No, seriously, guys...we don't do that anymore. Seriously, it's 2008. No, SERIOUSLY!"

6/23/2008 10:54:06 PM

^ If you don't like it then GTFO

6/24/2008 2:41:39 AM

Just piping up long enough to toss around some statistics, then I'm back to lurking.
On the idea of deterrence, look up research on the Brutalization Effect. Almost every study done on capital punishment has shown that increasing the harshness of punishments leads to an increase in murder rates. This has been attributed to the media surrounding murder incidents, inconsistencies in punishments, or an identification with the criminal. It DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, I know, but the data shows that it happens. This kind of thing was identified all the way back in the 1700's by Beccaria's On Crime and Punishments, when the punishments were much swifter, more public, and crueler. Somehow, people are still identifying with the criminal, perhaps seeing they can get away with it, get a lawyer that will get them off, and so forth.
And, besides, there will always be a percentage of crimes and murders committed that can never be deterred, a.k.a. crimes of passion, or committed by insane people. Deterrence assumes you're thinking rationally when you decide to commit a crime, which doesn't always happen.
Carry on.

6/24/2008 6:19:01 AM

welp. prison isn't a deterrence either. let's abolish prisons, right?

^^^ and, why can't it be "no, it's a crime. dont do it. we mean it. seriously. don't do it!" why not?

6/24/2008 6:47:41 AM

Because painting a pot leaf in the middle of the road in front of your friend's house is a less serious crime than painting a swastika in the middle of the road in front of your black/jewish/homosexual neighbors' house.

And, given our history, our laws need to reflect that doubly.

6/24/2008 7:44:02 AM

^ Yes, but what if one were to find this militant image offensive?



And on and on.

6/24/2008 8:33:23 AM

No, since it was a direct response to oppression by a white majority.

6/24/2008 8:46:19 AM