Ambrya wrote:
So, unless it can be proven that these attacks were racially motivated and that the attackers aren't just as likely to have done this crime to a couple of any other race, then it doesn't qualify as a hate crime.
Well, yeah. That's why it's such a "sticky wicket" as you put it. I agree with you completely that the designation of "hate crime" is pretty questionable. I think the problem Varus was *trying* to get across (in his usual, um... manner) is that had this been a black couple suffering the exact same fate it's very likely that it would have been labeled a hate crime and there'd be tons of different activist groups up in arms about it.
The problem in my mind that that "hate crime" in practice usually means "a crime commited against a protected group by a non-protected group", often completely regardless of the actual specifics of the crime in question. Only the group the victim and suspect are in matters. Witness the whole Duke Lacross fiasco for just one semi-recent example. There are many many others.
Our reaction to a crime as a society should be based on the heinousness of the crime itself, not the colors of the skin of those involved. Unfortunately, it most often seems to be the other way around. Is this the fault of the media? Jackson and others like him? Space aliens? That's a whole subject by itself...
Edited, May 22nd 2007 6:36pm by gbaji
