New And Improved Defense For Racism - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-02-2006, 04:00 PM   #46
War Child
 
Devlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 922
Local Time: 09:29 PM
Personally, I think the whole hate crime thng is a giant piece of idiocy foisted off on us just to shut people up.
getting the stuffing whaled out of me because I am black is no different than the white kid down the street who gets the stuffing whaled out of him becaus he is white. Or the black kids who used to beat the stuffing out of me, a black kid, because I was smarter than they were, or because I happened to be very passive and quiet, and pretty much a loner. There shouldn't be a special set of 'crimes' set aside based on race or sexual orientation - because there are a million reasons people act violently towards each other, and all of them are equally wrong, as far as I am concerned.
__________________

__________________
Devlin is offline  
Old 06-03-2006, 08:22 AM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


To the specific issue of this thread, should race change the potential punishment Mr. Minucci may receive if convicted of his crime?
After reading the most recent discussions on this thread, I would have to say that, no race should not change the potential punishment of Mr. Minucci. I would also agree that hate crime laws while well-intentioned aren't really helpful. I would say that his use of the "N" word SHOULD be taken into account because I think it seriously damages his claims of "self-defense." Racial hatred could--and should--definitely be used to establish degree of intent. When three guys hop out of a car, using the "N" word and demanding to know what you're doing in their neighborhood, there's not much self-defense going on there.

As to the original topic of this thread, whether the "N"word is now socially acceptable as a friendly greeting among streetwise youth of any race (Minucci's argument), no it is not.

I think Minucci shows a lot of arrogance and cynicism to put forward an argument like that.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-03-2006, 08:33 AM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
what is Saipan like? what brought you there?
I should start an "ask the Saipan person thread." Saipan is a tropical island located about a three hour flight south of Japan, and a four hour flight north of Australia. What makes Saipan unique among most Pacific Islands is that it is very ethnically diverse. There are two main indigenous groups, the Chamorro people and the Carolinians. But they are outnumbered by the many other ethnic groups on Saipan including Filipinos, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Thai, Bangladeshis, Palauans and other Pacific Islanders, and of course U.S. mainlanders. Saipan is part of the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI) which is a territory of the United States. Thus everyone born here is a U.S. citizen and all of the indigenous people are American citizens. Mixed-race marriages are not only common here, they are almost the norm. My wife and I do not stand out at all, and it's very nice.

As to what brought me here, I'm a Christian missionary.
I teach history, English and drama to grades 5-9 at a mission school affiliated with my church. During college, I took a year out of school to spend teaching on a more remote island in thePacific and I got the bug for the island life (and the mission work) so when my wife and I heard about an opportunity here in Saipan, we were interested.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-03-2006, 09:05 AM   #49
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




okay -- so you agree it's a poor comparison?

i'm also not sure that we're talking about the elevation of minorities as a motiation for hate crimes legislation, though i think that's a reasonable reading of what the effect of the legislation would be in the mind of a member of the majority. basically, many arguments i hear against hate crimes legislation, both here and in the real world, can pretty much be boiled down to the sneaking suspicion that society (due to PC-ness, or whatever) views it as worse to assault a black person than a white person and the difference in punishment is tantamount to saying that black people (to use one example) are more "worthy" or "sympathetic" than white people, or "elevated" as you put it.

i can understand this viewpoint, but i think it misses a few crucial factors when it comes to understanding what a hate crime actually is and is not. it is not meant to redress past wrongs, it is not meant to elevate the status of a minority, it is meant to identify and then punish transgressions on the basic foundation of any free society -- that when a person is beaten because he is black (or whatever) then not only was a crime committed against that particular person but a message of intolerance has sent to all members of said group. hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities causing a rupture in social order and reduced sense of individual safety on the status of an immutable characteristic.

how much i buy this ... i'm not sure. i think it's a reasonable argument, but i'm not wholly convinced, and i don't think it has anything to do with the "elevation" of any sort of minority, it's concern with the functioning of a free society at large.

i will say, as a proponant of affirmative-action, that drawing lines between the two is akin to the proverbial apples to oranges.
Concern with the functioning of a free society at large should not require the inherently divisive hate-crime, having all citizens equal under the law both as those being judged and those wronged is a much wiser principle. The sentencing of a crime may be based on intent, I don't have a problem with taking motive into consideration in sentencing, I do however have a very big problem where you have identical degrees of harm with identical degrees of malice for which one is ranked much worse because the agressor called the victim a fag or a chink. Make no mistake about it the cases that are highlighted as hate crimes are cruel and vile events, there is the obvious high profile murder of Matthew Shepard, that has been used as an example of a hate crime - and it seems to be a crime motivated by unadulterated hatred and malice of gays - they were able to deal with the murderers without specific hate-crime laws and the punishments were dealt are as harsh as you can go short of the death penalty (which was deliberate by the parents).

I would furthur venture that one individual attacking another individual on the basis of race is not a direct attack against the whole group, the agressor may loath the group of people concerned but the quantifiable harm has not been inflicted upon the group (they are not all sporting trauma from it). I do not think that creating a feeling of insecurity and fear can be easily qualified in cases such as this one, or proven in court, it seems like a very intangiable aspect in comparison with the very definable and punishable parts of the crime.

Hate crime legislation goes for intent, now other types of charge and punishment also take into account intent, manslaughter versus premeditated murder for instance. The intent that augments the charge in a hate crime is the motivation of hatred, be it race hate or as some have argued religious hate. Now taken alone racial hatred or hatred of specific religions is allowed; it is one aspect of having freedom of concience. In the United States it is even allowed for these hatreds to be published and expoused because of free speech (I am very enamoured of your constitution and its first amendment it offers guarantees of liberties that are simply trampled here in the name of harmony). The point I am getting to is that the hatred alone is not a punishable offence by itself, the infringement upon rights from an assault however is. You are effectively punishing people for their sentiments which however vile are not in themselves punishable, the beating of the victim is and can be procecuted.

There is no neccessity for these laws when the common law already covers the crimes. When somebody attacks another person because of who they are or what they believe is it right for them to be tried on the same basis? Should the neo-Nazi who beats up a Pakistani face a harsher set of charges than a West-Indian (as in the West Indies) who commits the same crime with just as much hatred for the victims ethnicity? Should you punish an animal rights protestor more harshly for vandalism because of the views that they hold? Where is the line drawn - can it ever work in reverse (the stupid case that I posted of the Aboriginal girl being charged for racial vilification, which is a hate crime without the crime, for calling an Anglo girl a white slut before lobbing a rock at the car)?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-15-2006, 01:56 PM   #50
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 04:29 PM
This is what happened with the case

By PAT MILTON, Associated Press Writer Sat Jun 10

A jury's decision to convict a white man of assault as a hate crime for pummeling a black man over the head with a baseball bat sends a clear message against bigotry, prosecutors said.

Nicholas Minucci, 20, was found guilty Friday of assaulting Glenn Moore last June in the predominantly white Queens neighborhood of Howard Beach — the site of another notorious attack that inflamed racial tensions 20 years ago.

The "verdict represents the outrage of the residents of this county over crimes motivated by bigotry and hatred," District Attorney Richard Brown said.

Minucci looked pale as the jury read its verdict after eight hours of deliberations over two days. He also was convicted of robbery as a hate crime for stealing Moore's sneakers and other items in the attack.

"He suffered because Howard Beach is synonymous with racism. That is not what happened here," defense attorney Albert Gaudelli said outside court.

Minucci faces up to 25 years in prison when he is sentenced in July. Being found guilty of a hate crime increases the minimum sentence he could face from five years to eight.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 06-15-2006, 02:22 PM   #51
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:29 PM
Too bad we didn't get the reasoning from the jury, just the spin from the DA.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-15-2006, 02:37 PM   #52
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Well I'll try to find some comments from the jury if they exist

The victim is also filing a civil suit

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ne...tory?track=rss

The victim in the 2005 Howard Beach bias attack didn't want to bring a lawsuit, but decided to do so after he took offense at the remarks of Maria Minucci, whose son Nicholas was convicted last week in the incident.

Glenn Moore, 23, who received serious injuries June 29, when he was beaten with an aluminum baseball bat by Nicholas Minucci, 20, said he had hoped that things would have calmed down after the verdict. Moore said he offered an "olive branch" by apologizing for the way events escalated and led to a trial.


But the olive branch was broken, Moore said, with some "racially hostile words" in a Daily News article on Sunday.

"I was offended by it. No apology, they didn't feel sorry for anything ... it just offended me," said Moore at a news conference Wednesday announcing his lawsuit. "I expected at least an apology."

In the Sunday article, Maria Minucci was quoted as criticizing the Queens prosecutor who handled the case, saying she took on the matter because her husband is black and her children were of mixed race.

"She's got her own agenda," said Maria Minucci about assistant district attorney Mariela Herring, according to the story. "She has issues with her own half-and-half children. That's her own business. She should get off people's backs."

The statement was criticized by a spokesman for Queens District Attorney Richard Brown as "reprehensible."

Nicholas Minucci's attorney, Albert Gaudelli, would not comment on Maria Minucci's remarks but said Moore would do better to bring his lawsuit in "small claims court."

"This lawsuit is not about money," said Moore, who added that he was continuing his education with the thought of becoming a police officer."



Nice comments there from his mother, perhaps the apple didn't fall far from the tree there
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 09:09 AM   #53
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 04:29 PM
By DEEPTI HAJELA, Associated Press WriterTue Jul 18

A 20-year-old white man convicted of beating a black man with a baseball bat was sentenced to 15 years behind bars, with the victim calling him a "wretched person."

"Only a wretched person could sink to such lows as using a bat to the side of someone's head," the victim, Glenn Moore, said in court before Monday's sentencing of Nicholas Minucci.

Minucci was sentenced to 10 years less than the maximum, by a judge who described him as "brutal and vindictive." He was convicted last month on a number of counts including assault as a hate crime for the attack in the Howard Beach section of Queens.

Minucci was accused of using what was referred to in court as the "n-word" during the assault. The defense argued that the epithet is so commonly used today among hip-hop fans of all races that it no longer has a predominantly racist connotation.

In his comments before sentencing, Minucci said he took responsibility for his actions and apologized to Moore's mother for any pain she had suffered, but he denied being a racist.

"Many black people think I'm a racist now because of the way the district attorney made me look," he said. "This had nothing to do with race."
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com