- Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:02 pm
#401973
I agree with Hustler on the hate crime thing. I spend so much time disagreeing with him that I felt obligated to post this.
Phaedrus wrote:Consider this SP. Do you think history has shown that minorities that have been attacked by whites have always received justice? Did Emmet Till receive justice? Does a black man receive the same justice from an all-white jury as would a white man?
Creating a category of hate crime allows the Federal government to intervene and seek justice when justice is denied - as happens too often still. It is not a special category, it is a rebalancing.
It also makes people think twice before acting on their hatred.
Stinky Pete wrote:I think by definition , discrinination involves a group. The owner of Chick Fil A isn't one. I don't think one can discriminate against an individual.
Ryan wrote:What? discrimination doesn't occur until it is directed toward an individual. And Mr. Cathy does belong to a group. It's that group that believes in the traditional definition of marriage.
Mondo Man wrote:Phaedrus wrote:Consider this SP. Do you think history has shown that minorities that have been attacked by whites have always received justice? Did Emmet Till receive justice? Does a black man receive the same justice from an all-white jury as would a white man?
Creating a category of hate crime allows the Federal government to intervene and seek justice when justice is denied - as happens too often still. It is not a special category, it is a rebalancing.
It also makes people think twice before acting on their hatred.
So is the US gov't playing prejudice games against caucasian people? Basically saying that they can not hold a fair trial? Here is a way to shoot holes in your theory. Eliminate all white juries. I wonder what % of juries end up being ALL WHITE in today's time anyway. Would you be ok to remove the "hate crime" charges if the jury pool is made up of a nice mixture of people? Wouldn't that solve this shadow of unfairness?