...is this a hate crime?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/prof_busted_in_columbia_gal_punch_JmsXQ3NzaAt8uG6uUySGTN

Quote :

"A prominent Columbia architecture professor punched a female university employee in the face at a Harlem bar during a heated argument about race relations, cops said yesterday. Police busted Lionel McIntyre, 59, for assault yesterday after his bruised victim, Camille Davis, filed charges. McIntyre and Davis, who works as a production manager in the school's theater department, are both regulars at Toast, a popular university bar on Broadway and 125th Street, sources said. The professor, who is black, had been engaged in a fiery discussion about "white privilege" with Davis, who is white, and another male regular, who is also white, Friday night at 10:30 when fists started flying, patrons said. McIntyre, who is known as "Mac" at the bar, shoved Davis, and when the other patron and a bar employee tried to break it up, the prof slugged Davis in the face, witnesses said. "The punch was so loud, the kitchen workers in the back heard it over all the noise," bar back Richie Velez, 28, told The Post. "I was on my way over when he punched Camille and she fell on top of me." The other patron involved in the dispute said McIntyre then took a swing at him after he yelled, "You don't hit a woman!""

Should this be prosecuted as a hate crime? The motivation was obviously race based, and this fine distinguished beaten down by the white man professor slugs a white woman over it.

11/11/2009 1:47:32 PM

Don't you have anything better to do? ...

11/11/2009 1:55:40 PM

Depends. Did he hit her b/c she was white or did he hit her b/c they were arguing?

11/11/2009 1:56:43 PM

Does look like it'd be borderline. It depends on witness accounts, was the punch thrown because of something in particular that was said, or was it more along the lines of "I hate you cuz you're white".

Intent is hard to determine, but if it was a heated discussion in a crowded bar someone will probably be able to tell.

11/11/2009 1:57:48 PM

Quote :

"Should this be prosecuted as a hate crime?"

Probably

11/11/2009 1:59:37 PM

Is it going to be national news every time a black professor loses his composure?

On the one hand, he clearly didn't choose some arbitrary white person to unload on. He punched a woman he was having a discussion with and with whom he had previous interactions. That doesn't seem like a hate crime

On the other hand, if it were a white man punching a black woman over a discussion about black people and welfare, I wonder if most people would view it the same way.

Hate crimes are stupid.

11/11/2009 2:07:06 PM

hate crimes are only stupid when they're tacked on to situations like this. there is a place for hate crimes. burning down black churches is a hate crime and should be punished worse than arson. it was done to basically intimidate blacks. same goes for other basically terrorist acts that are intended to incite fear in a specific community. but one person punching another person who they were arguing with? that just seems petty.

11/11/2009 2:12:51 PM

It's not a hate crime because the professor didn't say "I'm going to hit this person because they're white!"

The argument was about race, and the two people involved were from a different race, but the professor didn't make the decision to assault the victim because of their race.

had the professor simply gone up and slugged the woman and said "fuckin cracka" then yes.. that would have been a hate crime.

[Edited on November 11, 2009 at 2:17 PM. Reason : ]

11/11/2009 2:16:01 PM

The penalty for a black man touching a white woman is already life in prison. I don't see any need for additional prosecution.

11/11/2009 2:25:33 PM

Drunken altercations following an argument are not hate crimes.

11/11/2009 2:26:26 PM

^^^^So why call it "hate crime" instead of "terrorism"?

[Edited on November 11, 2009 at 2:27 PM. Reason : More ^]

11/11/2009 2:27:42 PM

obviously I don't know what was said, but you have to wonder if he would have slugged the woman if she was black, and not white.

If not, then I feel like maybe you could make a case that it was a hate crime?

11/11/2009 2:28:17 PM

^^does it really make a difference? i called it both.

11/11/2009 2:31:45 PM

If they're the same thing, why call it a hate crime at all?

11/11/2009 2:33:43 PM

because they're not the same thing under the law.

[Edited on November 11, 2009 at 2:34 PM. Reason : and they have different connotations.]

11/11/2009 2:34:42 PM

Quote :

"Hate crimes are stupid."

11/11/2009 2:38:33 PM

Well you just stated that church burning is a hate crime because it falls under "basically terrorist acts that are intended to incite fear". You implied that this assault is not a hate crime because it's not a terrorist act.

11/11/2009 2:42:57 PM

what kind of dude punches a female?

11/11/2009 2:47:20 PM

^^no i was saying that hate crimes have a place, but not here. and i gave examples of hate crimes that also are basically terrorist acts. one can commit a hate crime without committing a terrorist act (at least under our laws). threatening people, vandalism, etc if done to intimidate a group of people can be considered a hate crime. i don't think that those crimes would be deemed terrorism under the law even though people are being terrorized for belonging to a specific group. also terrorism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with belonging to a specific group. they are different terms for a reason.

11/11/2009 2:51:22 PM

Why is labeling a crime terrorism okay, but labelling something a hate-crime wrong?

Terrorism is just murder (or whatever the charge may be) right?

11/11/2009 3:06:45 PM

Yes, it is murder, or destruction of a building, or whatever the actual crime is. Terrorism is a way to describe the crime, but it isn't the crime. It's any crime committed for the purpose of scaring the larger population, in the same way that hate crimes might aim to scare a particular group.

In the case of terrorism, or hate crime, we shouldn't be giving people additional punishments for having an exceptionally bad justification. They didn't have a good reason, so it should be treated as a crime that was committed for no reason at all. Generally, with terrorism or hate crime, the crime that was actually committed (not the "social harm") is quite bad, and will be punished harshly.

So, I guess I should add to my original statement. Hate crime is stupid, yes. Hate crime legislation, though, which is something entirely different, is also stupid. The labeling of certain crimes as hate crimes (or terrorism), however, is not stupid. It's just a way of describing why people commit crimes.

[Edited on November 11, 2009 at 3:26 PM. Reason : ]

11/11/2009 3:24:07 PM

i disagree, i think that when the intention is intimidation or fear that should be prosecuted as a hate crime.

11/11/2009 3:29:18 PM

So the person that committed a crime randomly, for no reason at all, purely out of cold blood, should get punished less harshly than someone that committed a hate crime? Why? How do you justify that?

11/11/2009 3:33:09 PM

^ because they are damaging society less than the person committing a hate crime.

11/11/2009 3:36:56 PM

^^ There's a difference between "I'm punching this person because they made me mad" and "I'm punching this person because they're of a different race."

11/11/2009 3:41:19 PM

yes, i think someone who commits 2 crimes should face a greater punishment than a person who commits 1

11/11/2009 3:47:23 PM

^^^They're damaging society the same as someone committing a hate crime, which is not at all. Society is not a person. Society can't appear in court. You can't measure social harm. Indirectly intimidating the greater population is not something that should be punished with additional jailtime. Social harm is the same justification used for drug prohibition, and it's a bad argument in this situation too.

^^Yes, there is. It's not "because they made me mad," though. It's "I'm punching someone for no reason at all." That's the crime I'm equating hate crime to. I don't see why there should be any difference in terms of punishment. You either had a somewhat valid justification for your crime (I walked in on my wife cheating, and was so mad at that moment that I shot both her and the dude to death), which can then be considered a mitigating circumstance, or you did not have any valid justification whatsoever (I killed him because he was gay, or black, or had brown hair, or for no reason).

^Alright, so let's say a person beats someone for being gay. The first crime, obviously, is assault. Are you suggesting that the second crime should "intimidating society"? If that's the case, shouldn't every crime also carry a second punishment for "intimidating society"? If there's someone going around shooting random people, everyone in the effected area should be afraid. But, I guess you're suggesting it should only count if it intimidates a specific group. I don't see how intimidating a specific group is worse than intimidating the entire population.

Honestly, we've had this discussion time and time again. disco_stu made the point in another thread. Intent covers any possible motive they could have had; the motive doesn't matter. All that matters is that the person planned to commit a crime, and followed through.

[Edited on November 11, 2009 at 3:58 PM. Reason : ]

11/11/2009 3:57:23 PM

Quote :

"The argument was about race, and the two people involved were from a different race, but the professor didn't make the decision to assault the victim because of their race. "

Yes he did. He assaulted her because this white woman had the audacity to deny the white privilege that she benefits from. If a black woman had been arguing the same thing the guy would have just called her an idiot and left it at that, thus this crime is racially motivated and consequently a hate crime.

11/11/2009 3:58:41 PM

Quote :

"On the other hand, if it were a white man punching a black woman over a discussion about black people and welfare, I wonder if most people would view it the same way."

11/11/2009 4:00:51 PM

Quote :

"Intent covers any possible motive they could have had; the motive doesn't matter. All that matters is that the person planned to commit a crime, and followed through."

that's not true at all. we already have a schedule of charges for the same thing depending on motive and intent. killing someone can already result in multiple charges for that killing, how are hate crimes any different? mens rea is certainly part of the law, motive does matter.

[Edited on November 11, 2009 at 4:16 PM. Reason : .]

11/11/2009 4:02:54 PM

Quote :

"If there's someone going around shooting random people, everyone in the effected area should be afraid."

And this should also be punished more severely, provided that the person shooting random people is doing so to intimidate others.

11/11/2009 4:07:18 PM

Quote :

"that's not true at all. we already have a schedule of charges for the same thing depending on motive and intent. killing someone can already result in multiple charges for that killing, how are hate crimes any different?"

As far as I know, you get multiple charges for a killing if it's done in a especially heinous way, or the person was especially undeserving, meaning they provoked the crime in no way.

Quote :

"mens rea is certainly part of the law, intent does matter. "

I said intent matters. I said motive doesn't matter, at least for the purpose of determining a punishment. Do you understand the difference between there being intent, and the actual motive for committing a crime?

Basically, this is the point I'm making, and the point that I hope I can get people to agree on. Random crime is the worst kind of crime. There is never any excuse for killing a random person. Random killing, if intentional, should receive the maximum punishment allowable by law. I'm saying that hate crime is just as bad, and should be treated in the same way.

Quote :

"And this should also be punished more severely, provided that the person shooting random people is doing so to intimidate others."

No, it shouldn't. If your reason for committing a crime is to intimidate others, that isn't worse than committing the crime for no reason. Refer to my previous comment. To clarify my position, I don't think "intimidating others" should be a crime unless you're directly causing them harm or threatening to harm them.

[Edited on November 11, 2009 at 4:19 PM. Reason : ]

11/11/2009 4:18:04 PM

Quote :

"If your reason for committing a crime is to intimidate others, that isn't worse than committing the crime for no reason."

And I think it is worse. So there you go.

11/11/2009 4:32:19 PM

Quote :

"Black professor pussy slugs white woman"

11/11/2009 4:38:03 PM

d357r0y3r sees no difference between accidentally killing someone when a gun goes off and premeditated murder. Because... both situations involve the person dying, right? They should be charged the same.

11/11/2009 4:50:11 PM

Swing and a miss. Better luck next time.

11/11/2009 4:58:17 PM

Quote :

"d357r0y3r sees no difference between accidentally killing someone when a gun goes off and premeditated murder. Because... both situations involve the person dying, right? They should be charged the same."

I'll gladly affirm they should be charged the same. They should have different labels (negligent homicide vs. homicide) to distinguish the exact nature of the crime, but the punishment should indeed be the same.

11/11/2009 5:06:38 PM

^ You can't be serious.

11/11/2009 5:16:12 PM

Oh, they should definitely be charged differently. That's the whole point of the "intent" thing.

11/11/2009 5:33:58 PM

hate crimes are terrorism that only effect a single minority group.

11/11/2009 5:48:23 PM

^ Which is somehow worse than terrorism which affects multiple groups? What if it affects multiple minorities? I mean, are we basically saying that:

white supremacist kills 3 black people in 3 months > Neo-Nazi kills 1 black man, 1 gay man and 1 jew > black guy snipes at random people from the trunk of a car

What about gang violence? That instills fear in minority groups. Are those hate crimes, or because they're committed by members of said minority group, is it less bad?

11/11/2009 6:30:07 PM

Quote :

"^^^They're damaging society the same as someone committing a hate crime, which is not at all. Society is not a person. Society can't appear in court. You can't measure social harm. Indirectly intimidating the greater population is not something that should be punished with additional jailtime. Social harm is the same justification used for drug prohibition, and it's a bad argument in this situation too."

I know several sociologists and criminologists who would beg to differ.

11/11/2009 11:15:41 PM

Quote :

"d357r0y3r sees no difference between accidentally killing someone when a gun goes off and premeditated murder. Because... both situations involve the person dying, right? They should be charged the same."

letters and numbers guy sees no difference between The President of the United States and a bum off the street. Do you really think he could make an intuitive differentiation anywhere else?

11/12/2009 4:00:21 AM

11/12/2009 8:45:08 AM

I would say they'll find some loophole to say that the fight was triggered from just a normal argument itself and not racially biased.

If this was a white man hitting a black woman, it would be tacked hate crime, the NAACP would be involved, all over the front page of the news, etc...

If minorities want racial equality, then they need to learn to accept the same punishments for the same crimes.

11/12/2009 8:47:59 AM

What I hate about this discussion is that it has become de facto that the punishment for a "hate crime" should be worse than the punishment for the same crime not motivated by hate. Even when no one can seem to agree on what constitutes a hate crime in the first place.

I have yet to hear a compelling argument on why we should punish hate crimes more harshly than the same crime not motivated by hate. Why do we punish criminals? In terms of this, why would you punish a hate criminal *more* harshly?

The only logical conclusion is that hate crimes punish hatred. You get an extra 10 years because you hate black people. The goal of hate crime law is to dissuade people from hating other people. Which is ridiculous.

11/12/2009 8:56:37 AM

Quote :

"I know several sociologists and criminologists who would beg to differ."

I'm sure they would. How exactly do you measure social harm? For you to measure it meaningful way, you'd actually have to determine that individuals, or groups of individuals, actually were harmed in some way. If they were, then the harm done can be dealt with by the legal system. I'm talking about the more nebulous form of social harm, though, that is generally invoked in discussions like this. The social harm where no party has actually been harmed. It's the same kind of social harm that people talk about drugs causing. "We can't allow people to use marijuana...then people would be more lazy, and their memories would be worse, production would fall. Think of the social harm!"

Society itself is not something that can be harmed, in other words. Only members of society can be harmed or put in harm's way.

[Edited on November 12, 2009 at 9:19 AM. Reason : ]

11/12/2009 9:18:10 AM

Not that I support hate crimes, but there are plenty of laws regarding public decency & peace. Hate crimes weren't the first crimes against society.

11/12/2009 9:20:35 AM

I'm suspicious of Professor McIntyre's grasp of white privilege, going around punching white women in the face.

He must have been really, really drunk to forget the rules of being black in America.

11/12/2009 2:36:31 PM

Quote :

"Should this be prosecuted as a hate crime? The motivation was obviously race based, and this fine distinguished beaten down by the white man professor slugs a white woman over it."

Of course not! He's black.

11/12/2009 2:44:59 PM