Amazing speech on Mississippi's history of racial violence

[Underseer]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch...-breathtaking-speech-to-three-white-murderers

Inevitable disclaimer -- my sincerest apologies to any conservatives and libertarians (who are completely different... honest!) who feel that the victims in these crimes were given "special privileges" and that the 3 white convicts are being "persecuted" by the "PC Police."

For the rest of you, it's an amazing speech and well worth reading.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

In Without Sanctuary, historian Leon Litwack writes that between 1882 and 1968 an estimated 4,742 blacks met their deaths at the hands of lynch mobs. The impact this campaign of terror had on black families is impossible to explain so many years later. That number contrasts with the 1,401 prisoners who have been executed legally in the United States since 1976. In modern terms, that number represents more than those killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom and more than twice the number of American casualties in Operation Enduring Freedom — the Afghanistan conflict. Turning to home, this number also represents 1,700 more than who were killed on Sept. 11. Those who died at the hands of mobs, Litwack notes, some were the victims of "legal" lynchings — having been accused of a crime, subjected to a "speedy" trial and even speedier execution. Some were victims of private white violence and some were merely the victims of "nigger hunts" — murdered by a variety of means in isolated rural sections and dumped into rivers and creeks. "Back in those days," according to black Mississippians describing the violence of the 1930s, "to kill a Negro wasn't nothing. It was like killing a chicken or killing a snake. The whites would say, 'niggers jest supposed to die, ain't no damn good anyway — so jest go an' kill 'em.' ... They had to have a license to kill anything but a nigger. We was always in season." Said one white Mississippian, "A white man ain't a-going to be able to live in this country if we let niggers start getting biggity." And, even when lynchings had decreased in and around Oxford, one white resident told a visitor of the reaffirming quality of lynchings: "It's about time to have another [one]," he explained, "[w]hen the niggers get so that they are afraid of being lynched, it is time to put the fear in them."

The past lives with us, breathes with us, laughs, cries and screams with us. The only thing it doesn't do is die with us. It continues on long after we are gone and must be dealt with by succeeding generations. You can't run from it, but you can stand up to it. You can't kill it and you ignore it at your peril. But you can face it and you can wrestle with it and then you can let go the fear of it, and though scarred, your wounds do close and victory is won.

 

[ronburgundy]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch...-breathtaking-speech-to-three-white-murderers

Inevitable disclaimer -- my sincerest apologies to any conservatives and libertarians (who are completely different... honest!) who feel that the victims in these crimes were given "special privileges" and that the 3 white convicts are being "persecuted" by the "PC Police."

For the rest of you, it's an amazing speech and well worth reading.

It is a fantastic speech and should be aired tomorrow in public schools in Mississippi instead of the Pledge. The racial component of the crimes supports premeditation and intent to cause serious harm.
However, you sullied the speech by using it to wrongly imply that anyone who questions the sensibility of "hate crime" laws, must disagree with the speech or with the level of punishment these perps got for their premeditated acts of violence.

So, I ask you if the same acts and premeditation were shown toward killing "homeless men" without reference to race would you argue for the sentences to be any less? Does the racial component justify harsher punishment or merely serve to demonstrate premeditation and intent to harm which is what warrant the harshest punishment? I'd see no reason not to support the same punishments they got had they never said or implied racial motives.

At minimum, "hate crime" is a misnomer because such laws are not about hate, but about the source of hate. One guy shooting his wife and/or her lover might be about hate as much as any murder can be. Yet, it doesn't qualify as a "hate crime". What such laws are really about is making some hate-fueled acts worse than other hate-fueled acts, in particular when the hate for the victim is not about anything particular to them but rather is a generalized hated for a historically mistreated group.

From the standpoint of the victim, it makes no difference that he is dead because he was black, homeless, both, or just because the perps though him ugly, or even just because he was a somewhat random easy target and the perps were just out to kill an easy target.

What such laws inherently convey is that society feels that if you assault or murder a person without person-specific motives, it is less serious if you pick your victim at random or based upon characteristics X, Y, or Z, than than to pick your victim based upon characteristics A, B, or C.

Is it outrageous and/or racist to wonder whether such a basis for law and punishment is a sound idea?

The soundest argument I can think of for such laws is the idea that hatred based upon A, B, C is much more widespread and likely to motive crimes against persons than hatred based upon X, Y, or Z or completely random acts of violence largely limited to psychopaths. Thus, specifying these motives as allowing extra harsh punishment is a pragmatic way to reduce the most common kinds of non-person specific violence.

It isn't a bad argument, but it needs to be made very clear and explicit that this is the justification and not "hate" itself which is no greater than other murders, and explicitly reject the implied notion that hate fueled violence is more or less morally serious depending upon whether the characteristic of the victim that you hate is a political issue.

 

[laughing dog]

So, I ask you if the same acts and premeditation were shown toward killing "homeless men" without reference to race would you argue for the sentences to be any less? Does the racial component justify harsher punishment or merely serve to demonstrate premeditation and intent to harm which is what warrant the harshest punishment? I'd see no reason not to support the same punishments they got had they never said or implied racial motives.

That reflects on you, not the argument. The fact is these criminals acted out of anger and hate. It was a motivating factor. Without the hate, there would have been no crime.

 

[ronburgundy]

So, I ask you if the same acts and premeditation were shown toward killing "homeless men" without reference to race would you argue for the sentences to be any less? Does the racial component justify harsher punishment or merely serve to demonstrate premeditation and intent to harm which is what warrant the harshest punishment? I'd see no reason not to support the same punishments they got had they never said or implied racial motives.

That reflects on you, not the argument. The fact is these criminals acted out of anger and hate. It was a motivating factor. Without the hate, there would have been no crime.

I explained all this in my prior post, but here it is in slightly different form.
All of these same things apply equally to every to nearly every instance of intentional violence not motivated by some pragmatic goal like money.
If I hate you personally for reasons particular to you and I kill you, then I acted out of hate, it was a motivating factor, and there would have been no crime without it.
Hate crimes as written and as enforced have nothing to do with whether or not their was hate motivating the crime. They are not applied to countless cases where hate was a clear motivating factor. Such laws are about singling out certain types of hate against only some categories, namely
"race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender". Most hate-fueled violence has nothing to do with these traits. Rather the hate is tied to some other feature of the person whether a highly personal quality or just a general feature that isn't part of political discourse.

In addition, why is hate motivated crime something worthy of more punishment than greed, other pragmatic goals, or even just taking pleasure in random acts of violence?

 

[arkirk]

That reflects on you, not the argument. The fact is these criminals acted out of anger and hate. It was a motivating factor. Without the hate, there would have been no crime.

I explained all this in my prior post, but here it is in slightly different form.
All of these same things apply equally to every to nearly every instance of intentional violence not motivated by some pragmatic goal like money.
If I hate you personally for reasons particular to you and I kill you, then I acted out of hate, it was a motivating factor, and there would have been no crime without it.
Hate crimes as written and as enforced have nothing to do with whether or not their was hate motivating the crime. They are not applied to countless cases where hate was a clear motivating factor. Such laws are about singling out certain types of hate against only some categories, namely
"race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender". Most hate-fueled violence has nothing to do with these traits. Rather the hate is tied to some other feature of the person whether a highly personal quality or just a general feature that isn't part of political discourse.

In addition, why is hate motivated crime something worthy of more punishment than greed, other pragmatic goals, or even just taking pleasure in random acts of violence?

Acting "with malice aforethought"..about as straightforward as it gets....now that is first degree murder regardless of any other factor. Hate is that malice. The judges spent a large part of his speech trying to excuse himself for taking action he did...but he was in Mississippi. He talked about how many people regarded the defendants as "good boys." and other kindly terms. I think the crime of murder is the crime of murder. If murder is what the law prohibits, then the judge was just saying we practice that law here. The judge seems like a decent fellow.

 

[ronburgundy]

I explained all this in my prior post, but here it is in slightly different form.
All of these same things apply equally to every to nearly every instance of intentional violence not motivated by some pragmatic goal like money.
If I hate you personally for reasons particular to you and I kill you, then I acted out of hate, it was a motivating factor, and there would have been no crime without it.
Hate crimes as written and as enforced have nothing to do with whether or not their was hate motivating the crime. They are not applied to countless cases where hate was a clear motivating factor. Such laws are about singling out certain types of hate against only some categories, namely
"race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender". Most hate-fueled violence has nothing to do with these traits. Rather the hate is tied to some other feature of the person whether a highly personal quality or just a general feature that isn't part of political discourse.

In addition, why is hate motivated crime something worthy of more punishment than greed, other pragmatic goals, or even just taking pleasure in random acts of violence?

Acting "with malice aforethought"..about as straightforward as it gets....now that is first degree murder regardless of any other factor. Hate is that malice.

Its clear because it has nothing to do with hate crime laws. For one, malice is not hate but rather an intention to do evil or wrong, regardless of one's motive for doing it. Hate is neither neccessary nor sufficient for an act be one of pre-meditated intent to do evil. Hate crimes are separate charged added on top of normal charges like murder and assault, used to added years onto prison sentences beyond what 1st degree murder itself, no matter how much malice aforethought, would bring.
I agree that murder is already pretty clear and that hate toward a person for their race can be one reason why a person had malice aforethought. But that just makes the demonstrated racial hate a form of evidence for the crime of 1st degree murder and not an additional crime unto itself. That is my whole point.

The guys were charged with a "hate crime" above and beyond standard murder charges, and Underseer's OP tried to paint anyone who generally questions "hate crime" laws as unnecessary as being against this Judge and these sentences.
I agree with sentences, but think they should have been the same even if the man was killed "merely" for being homeless rather than black and homeless.

The judges spent a large part of his speech trying to excuse himself for taking action he did...but he was in Mississippi. He talked about how many people regarded the defendants as "good boys." and other kindly terms. I think the crime of murder is the crime of murder. If murder is what the law prohibits, then the judge was just saying we practice that law here. The judge seems like a decent fellow.

My comments are not about the Judge, but about laws that make "hate crime" a distinct crime above and beyond first degree murder, or manslaughter, etc., and which Underseer's strawman implication that anyone who opposes separate laws for "hate crimes" opposes justice for a black man who was murdered for being black.

 

[Axulus]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch...-breathtaking-speech-to-three-white-murderers

Inevitable disclaimer -- my sincerest apologies to any conservatives and libertarians (who are completely different... honest!) who feel that the victims in these crimes were given "special privileges" and that the 3 white convicts are being "persecuted" by the "PC Police."

For the rest of you, it's an amazing speech and well worth reading.

It is a fantastic speech and should be aired tomorrow in public schools in Mississippi instead of the Pledge. The racial component of the crimes supports premeditation and intent to cause serious harm.
However, you sullied the speech by using it to wrongly imply that anyone who questions the sensibility of "hate crime" laws, must disagree with the speech or with the level of punishment these perps got for their premeditated acts of violence.

So, I ask you if the same acts and premeditation were shown toward killing "homeless men" without reference to race would you argue for the sentences to be any less? Does the racial component justify harsher punishment or merely serve to demonstrate premeditation and intent to harm which is what warrant the harshest punishment? I'd see no reason not to support the same punishments they got had they never said or implied racial motives.

At minimum, "hate crime" is a misnomer because such laws are not about hate, but about the source of hate. One guy shooting his wife and/or her lover might be about hate as much as any murder can be. Yet, it doesn't qualify as a "hate crime". What such laws are really about is making some hate-fueled acts worse than other hate-fueled acts, in particular when the hate for the victim is not about anything particular to them but rather is a generalized hated for a historically mistreated group.

From the standpoint of the victim, it makes no difference that he is dead because he was black, homeless, both, or just because the perps though him ugly, or even just because he was a somewhat random easy target and the perps were just out to kill an easy target.

What such laws inherently convey is that society feels that if you assault or murder a person without person-specific motives, it is less serious if you pick your victim at random or based upon characteristics X, Y, or Z, than than to pick your victim based upon characteristics A, B, or C.

Is it outrageous and/or racist to wonder whether such a basis for law and punishment is a sound idea?

The soundest argument I can think of for such laws is the idea that hatred based upon A, B, C is much more widespread and likely to motive crimes against persons than hatred based upon X, Y, or Z or completely random acts of violence largely limited to psychopaths. Thus, specifying these motives as allowing extra harsh punishment is a pragmatic way to reduce the most common kinds of non-person specific violence.

It isn't a bad argument, but it needs to be made very clear and explicit that this is the justification and not "hate" itself which is no greater than other murders, and explicitly reject the implied notion that hate fueled violence is more or less morally serious depending upon whether the characteristic of the victim that you hate is a political issue.

That's not the best argument. It's not the effect on the victim that matters - as you rightly point out, the victim is dead whether the crime was motivated by hate or something else. What matters is the effect the crime has on the targeted group - they now fear they are being systemically targeted and there is nothing that can be done about it. It's an act of terrorism.

 

[ronburgundy]

It is a fantastic speech and should be aired tomorrow in public schools in Mississippi instead of the Pledge. The racial component of the crimes supports premeditation and intent to cause serious harm.
However, you sullied the speech by using it to wrongly imply that anyone who questions the sensibility of "hate crime" laws, must disagree with the speech or with the level of punishment these perps got for their premeditated acts of violence.

So, I ask you if the same acts and premeditation were shown toward killing "homeless men" without reference to race would you argue for the sentences to be any less? Does the racial component justify harsher punishment or merely serve to demonstrate premeditation and intent to harm which is what warrant the harshest punishment? I'd see no reason not to support the same punishments they got had they never said or implied racial motives.

At minimum, "hate crime" is a misnomer because such laws are not about hate, but about the source of hate. One guy shooting his wife and/or her lover might be about hate as much as any murder can be. Yet, it doesn't qualify as a "hate crime". What such laws are really about is making some hate-fueled acts worse than other hate-fueled acts, in particular when the hate for the victim is not about anything particular to them but rather is a generalized hated for a historically mistreated group.

From the standpoint of the victim, it makes no difference that he is dead because he was black, homeless, both, or just because the perps though him ugly, or even just because he was a somewhat random easy target and the perps were just out to kill an easy target.

What such laws inherently convey is that society feels that if you assault or murder a person without person-specific motives, it is less serious if you pick your victim at random or based upon characteristics X, Y, or Z, than than to pick your victim based upon characteristics A, B, or C.

Is it outrageous and/or racist to wonder whether such a basis for law and punishment is a sound idea?

The soundest argument I can think of for such laws is the idea that hatred based upon A, B, C is much more widespread and likely to motive crimes against persons than hatred based upon X, Y, or Z or completely random acts of violence largely limited to psychopaths. Thus, specifying these motives as allowing extra harsh punishment is a pragmatic way to reduce the most common kinds of non-person specific violence.

It isn't a bad argument, but it needs to be made very clear and explicit that this is the justification and not "hate" itself which is no greater than other murders, and explicitly reject the implied notion that hate fueled violence is more or less morally serious depending upon whether the characteristic of the victim that you hate is a political issue.

That's not the best argument. It's not the effect on the victim that matters - as you rightly point out, the victim is dead whether the crime was motivated by hate or something else. What matters is the effect the crime has on the targeted group - they now fear they are being systemically targeted and there is nothing that can be done about it. It's an act of terrorism.

Your argument is essentially the same as what I called "the soundest argument I can think of". It isn't about punishment for the actual crime in question but about preventing crimes presumed to be more likely to be motivated by some types of hatred than others. Note that the laws that actually exists specify particular types of groups that qualify, which means all other types of groups do not. Everyone finds it terrifying to be potentially targeted for murder for any and all reasons. Yet, all reasons do not qualify and even all types of group hatred do not qualify, only those specified by law. Such selective application can only be justified on the grounds that one type of hatred is more widespread and thus crimes based on it more likely, thus the need for preventative extra measures required.

 

[Axulus]

That's not the best argument. It's not the effect on the victim that matters - as you rightly point out, the victim is dead whether the crime was motivated by hate or something else. What matters is the effect the crime has on the targeted group - they now fear they are being systemically targeted and there is nothing that can be done about it. It's an act of terrorism.

Your argument is essentially the same as what I called "the soundest argument I can think of". It isn't about punishment for the actual crime in question but about preventing crimes presumed to be more likely to be motivated by some types of hatred than others. Note that the laws that actually exists specify particular types of groups that qualify, which means all other types of groups do not. Everyone finds it terrifying to be potentially targeted for murder for any and all reasons. Yet, all reasons do not qualify and even all types of group hatred do not qualify, only those specified by law. Such selective application can only be justified on the grounds that one type of hatred is more widespread and thus crimes based on it more likely, thus the need for preventative extra measures required.

It is those crimes based on tribalistic tenancies that are specifically targeted - not necessarily because they are more widespread, but because of the damaging effects such crimes have on social cohesion of the society in question and the amount of fear they spread among the targeted group.

Tribal identities include religion, race/ethnicity, nationality, and sexual orientation and hence crimes against such groups motivated by hate are those that are specifically targeted by hate crime laws.

 

[ronburgundy]

Your argument is essentially the same as what I called "the soundest argument I can think of". It isn't about punishment for the actual crime in question but about preventing crimes presumed to be more likely to be motivated by some types of hatred than others. Note that the laws that actually exists specify particular types of groups that qualify, which means all other types of groups do not. Everyone finds it terrifying to be potentially targeted for murder for any and all reasons. Yet, all reasons do not qualify and even all types of group hatred do not qualify, only those specified by law. Such selective application can only be justified on the grounds that one type of hatred is more widespread and thus crimes based on it more likely, thus the need for preventative extra measures required.

It is those crimes based on tribalistic tenancies that are specifically targeted - not necessarily because they are more widespread, but because of the damaging effects such crimes have on social cohesion of the society in question and the amount of fear they spread among the targeted group.

If elderly people were targeted for violence (and they sometimes are), would this not create high level of fear among the elderly? Given that there are many times more elderly than Jews in America, would this not have a much larger impact upon social cohesion and amount of fear than if Jews were targeted?

Actual impact on cohesion and amount of terror or number of people that would be terrified fall well short of enplaning which groups get additional protection and which do not. It is mostly about how widespread and common the targeting of that group is, has been in the past (which may or may not determine current level of impact on social cohesion and amount of fear). Majority groups on those same variables are just along for the ride because you can't say "minority groups are protected but the majority is not", even though widespread targeting of the minority groups is the sole reason that variable in included in the first place.

For example, if a cult (aka a religion) started advocating violence against redheads and this because widespread enough, then "hair color" would be added to the list, making killing someone for being blonde suddenly a worse crime even though no one actually cared about that and hair color was only included to protect red heads, because its all about frequency.

 

[laughing dog]

That reflects on you, not the argument. The fact is these criminals acted out of anger and hate. It was a motivating factor. Without the hate, there would have been no crime.

I explained all this in my prior post, but here it is in slightly different form....

The explanation is unconvincing.

In addition, why is hate motivated crime something worthy of more punishment than greed, other pragmatic goals, or even just taking pleasure in random acts of violence?

It sends a signals to the targeted group of hate and to the haters that such crimes will not be tolerated and given extra punishment.

 

[Underseer]

I explained all this in my prior post, but here it is in slightly different form....

The explanation is unconvincing.

In addition, why is hate motivated crime something worthy of more punishment than greed, other pragmatic goals, or even just taking pleasure in random acts of violence?

It sends a signals to the targeted group of hate and to the haters that such crimes will not be tolerated and given extra punishment.

Agreed.

What makes a hate crime different from an ordinary crime is that the target is not just the person who was directly harmed. The crime is intended to "send a message" to everyone in the target group. Since the number of people harmed by the crime is much larger, the punishment should be proportionally greater.

Racism isn't racism without a history of oppression behind it. Racism calls that history back to life and does additional damage to marginalized groups. Hate crimes are (as explained above) different. This is why hate crimes are hate crimes even if they target the privileged group, but the same isn't necessarily true of racism. Contrary to the claims of protofascists, minority criminals have been prosecuted for hate crimes against the privileged group, and that is exactly how it should work.