Question about 'hate crimes'.......?

Question

Why is it considered a 'hate crime' when a white commits a crime against a black or a Hispanic person but it's not considered a 'hate crime' when a Black or Hispanic person commits a crime against a white person? I thought we were all supposed to be equal?

And why is it considered a 'hate crime' when a heterosexual person commits a crime against a homosexual person but it's not considered a 'hate crime' when a homosexual person commits a crime against a heterosexual person?

THE SECOND PART OF MY QUESTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 'RACE' ONLY SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

Answer 1

Part of the reason, I believe, is that white people are not cry-babies and don't feel the need to have the government protect them from verbal abuse. However, I think it's time all American Citizens point out every bit of hate spewed out by Blacks and Hispanics and between Heterosexuals and Homosexuals. At least, if we get the words out in the open, maybe we'll get back to doing the things that are truly important and we will get back to freedom of speech for everyone.

I don't think anyone should apologize for saying what they believe and it is that person's right. When illegal immigrants are punished for their crimes, then maybe citizens will be more thoughtful in their speech and more feeling in their response to immigrants. Right now, the illegal immigrants are breeding hatred and the government is fueling it by failing to keep our borders secure and by failing to punish illegal immigrants for their crimes as well as those who hire, harbor and help them.

Answer 2

Technically those are all hate crimes. But depending on where you live and who is in charge, they will get more or less prosecution. There are still alot of people of all races and orientations who believe that only whites are a majority, that only whites can be racist, that most whites are racist, and that any white who discusses race etc is a racist. The same goes for other hate crimes. In reality, demographics are changing, and depending on where you live, whites are often the minority. Some of us have seen and experienced hate towards whites but never seen it the other way around. Same with straight and gay. Maybe others had different experinces or ignore things that don't fit what they were taught, but at this point it seems like sheer stubborness to me. Some are more than stubborn. Some are down right racist against straight whites and don't care who knows it.

Answer 3

Love to hug learn to spell before you are critical of what anyone else is.

Simple a Hispanic or Black can be accused of a hate crime and they have been but simply a crime must have the element of that person being selected and sought because of a racial bigotry against said race for it to be a hate crime.
ie the Klan lynching someone because they are black or catholic or jew is a hate crime. A person of color getting in fight with a white person is not a hate crime if they didn't do it because the person is white.

Answer 4

To answer your question, there are hate crimes committed by blacks or Hispanics against whites. A crime is not a hate crime simply because it's perpetrated against a person of another race, color, creed or sexual orientation. To be considered a hate crime, the crime must be an already recognized crime and be motivated by hate or bias, in which the victim was chosen because of the victim's real or perceived race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability or gender.

There have been cases where a member of a "minority" group has been charged with committing a hate crime against the "majority". Just one example: http://news.bostonherald.com/national/northeast/view.bg?articleid=189978

Answer 5

It's quite obvious there are definately race crimes committed on whites but they are ignored. Atleast everywhere I've ever lived and I have yet to see any minority ever be charged with it. Even here it can be mexican against black and it is definatly racial....they won't get charged either.

We did have a group of black kids jump a white kid and beat him severely. They even admitted they jumped him because he's white....people asked why aren't they being charged.....the answer they had in the paper was they use "race crime" in order to up the severity....there's was already at a level where adding "race crime" wouldn't have affected the outcome. I'm not a lawyer.....but it sounded like double speak to me. Unless of course they are suggesting to really do a number on someone coz your gonna pay for the crime as if you did do a number on them.

There may still be a majority of whites here but all the other minorities are quickly adding up to where we certainly don't overwhelm like it used to be. I'm hard pressed to beleive whites are a majority where I live. I see more hispanic, korean and middle-easterners than anything. It will be interesting to see what the next census shows. Last time I felt like a majority was when I was in Nebraska.

Answer 6

In order to be prosecuted as a hate crime it must be shown that the crime was committed or that victim was selected because of a serious prejudice. Simply the race, religion or orientation of a victim in relation to a perpetrator does not constitute a hate crime.

Answer 7

A 'hate crime' is an extra value it fairly is utilized to circumstances the place the reason replaced into hatred in the direction of a team that the sufferer replaced into aside of. the ingredient in the back of that is to justify a harder sentence, as those human beings are statistically plenty extra probable to re-offend while they are released. If somebody burned your place down on account which you're black, they are much less probable to in basic terms end there than in the event that they simply burned down Bob's abode down the line because of the fact they disliked him. That being mentioned, I agree that "hate crimes" are transforming into quite overused as a value while there is no data that the crime replaced into dedicated out of hate. a solid occasion of this replaced into the Rutger's bullying case that replaced into interior the information those days. on an identical time as what the sufferer's roommate did replaced into ill and incorrect, there replaced into no clean data that it replaced into achieved because of the fact he particularly hated gay human beings, yet he replaced into nevertheless convicted on the dislike crime value.

Answer 8

It should be. A couple of white girls were attacked by a teen aged group of blacks in Long Beach a little back, and they were saying how they 'hated whites'. One of the big issues the papers covered was whether they would be tried for and convicted of 'hate crimes'. (They beat the girls with a skateboard amongst other things.) Most of those tried were being tried as juveniles but one of the guys was 18. He pleaded not to be convicted of a 'hate crime' because how would that look on his record?

As I recall they got probation and community service.

On the other hand, there have been a lot of attacks on blacks by Latino gangs in the Harbor Gateway in Los Angeles, and those ARE being tried as hate crimes. Mind you, those were murders.

Answer 9

First off let me say that the entire concept of a "hate crime" is a farce and is quite frankly unconstitutional. After all it negates the concept of equal treatment under the law,why you commit a crime is irrelevant,only the crime itself is important. That said you are right,if we must have these atrocious laws they should be applied evenly and they are not. Last year I believe it was a group of black youths attacked a group of white girls in Long Beach,Ca,they beat them brutally accompanied by a string of "racial slurs" and then ran off. Several were arrested and when the concept of charging them with a hate crime came up you would have thought the DA had suggested lynching them from the reaction he got. I put racial slurs in quotes by the way because no insult has ever gotten under my skin,so I never understood the concept of racial slurs,I cannot imagine my self esteem being so low that a word can have such serious impact.

AD

Answer 10

All of the acts you describe can be considered and prosecuted as hate crimes.

It all boils down to whether the victim was selected purely because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, eye color or other bigoted basis.

Statistically, more minorities (of all kinds) are victims of hate crimes since there are fewer of them, and people who hate feel more justified to pick on them, I guess. I really can't explain prejudice, sorry.

But to answer your main point, ANYONE who has been a victim of a hate crime, often evidenced by accompanying hate speech, can pursue this presecution. Just don't confuse this with random crime, where the victim is not selected by one of these bigotry factors.

EDIT - regarding the "constitutionality" question - hate speech is NOT covered by the Constitution since its only intent is to harm others. It is not part of "free speech."
The other example commonly given is if a person were to inappropriately yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. This speech is not covered as well, as its intent is solely to harm others.