Posted on 06/27/2007 6:05:31 AM PDT by rhema
The fallacy of hate crime laws — the prosecution of which requires a degree of mind-reading not yet available to most Earthlings — has been cast into stark relief the past few weeks following an interracial rape-murder that has bestirred white supremacists and led to death threats against an African-American columnist.
The spark that caused the firestorm was the brutal rape-murder of a young white couple, Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, who were carjacked last January in Knoxville, Tenn. Five blacks — four men and a woman — have been charged in connection with the slayings.
Because the story didn't receive national media attention, some commentators and others have asserted that the media do not treat racial crimes equally. They point out that when a black stripper charged three white members of the Duke University lacrosse team with rape, the national media grabbed the story by the ankle and wouldn't let go. Not so Knoxville.
The perception of media bias is understandable — and a credible case can be made that the media rushed to condemn the Duke athletes because it fit a recognizable racial narrative, especially in the South. But while race was clearly a factor in stimulating media interest, other factors absent from the Knoxville case — privilege, town and gown conflicts, politics, underage drinking and the name Duke — also added to the broader "story'' appeal.
Nevertheless, the media's largely unskeptical embrace of the charges in the absence of due process, coincident with the horrible events in Knoxville, have stoked passions among some whites who contend that black-on-white crime is underreported.
Adding to the current heat is the decision that the Knoxville blacks won't be charged for hate crimes. Officials say that because the accused have had white friends, they weren't driven by racial hatred.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
The Duke and Knoxville cases cast serious doubts on that premise. It is human nature to resent groups and individuals deemed more special than others.
Signaling through laws (or media treatment) that one group's suffering is more grievous than another's — or that one person's murder is worse than another's — is also likely to fragment communities, as well as to engender the very animosities such laws are meant to deter.
I always thought that “hate crimes” laws were a second bite at the apple, a way around the double-indemnity clause of the US Constitution.
They are normally used when a previous jury didn’t convict, or didn’t convict on a serious charge. Even if the hate crimes charges aren’t successful, they surely will bankrupt the defendant with legal fees.
Black on white crime is underreported. Facts just are what they are...
It would be a crime to speak badly against a Christian. Hurting a gun owner would be a more important crime than hurting a member of Greenpeace. A crime against a gay person would not be as important as a crime against a heterosexual.
I wish liberals could see themselves through our eyes...
hate crime laws clearly state that some are more equal than others - they operate upon the premise that a crime against one group carries more of a negative impact upon society, (meriting a greater punishment) than another.
this confers a de facto protected species status upon some groups, whils consigning others to second class status - crimes agains the non-protected groups are more acceptable.
it’s using racism to combat racism.
It looks like this law has risen up to bite the true hate mongers in the butt.
They “have eyes but see not..”
If they could see themselves the way we see them, they would fall on their knees and beg forgiveness. They have become their own worst nightmare...
Hate crimes are BOGUS, IMO, all crimes should be prosecuted equal whether someone was shot for being named “raul” and having dark skin, or whether it was just over $50..
That would be the double jeopardy clause of the US Constitution.
That is generally not the case, because the "hate crime" is most frequently added to the underlying charge on the same indictment. So the defendant is charged at the same time with multiple crimes, which does not implicate the double jeopardy clause.
I'm not and advocate of "hate crime" laws because the principle of "equality under the law" should supersede all other considerations, especially political ones.
I'm not an advocate of "hate crime" laws because the principle of "equality under the law" should supersede all other considerations, especially political ones.
Well said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.